Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Mallon]

Are you saying God worked through knowable laws that offer no signs that God worked through them?

I'm saying that God works through knowable laws that offer no scientific signs that He works through them. Sure, the complexity of life and the beauty of the universe is apparent and suggestive to me that God is at work, but that hunch can't be verified scientifically because science cannot establish God's agency.

 

[sfs]

Survival of the less fit?

Yes, the less fit often survive. Less fit traits often survive when more fit traits don't. You'd know that if you were actually in a position to teach anyone about evolution.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, the less fit often survive. Less fit traits often survive when more fit traits don't. You'd know that if you were actually in a position to teach anyone about evolution.

If they survived then they were fit to survive.

If I can swin 100m and you 500m and a boat sinks 56m from shore and we both make it to shore then your idea is that you're 'more fit'. However in the circumstances, I was fit because I survived

It's all to do with the circumstances.

If the boat sinks 217m from shore and I don't make it and you do, then you were fit to survive, because you did.

In both circumstances that which survived survived. The second circumstance may never happen, in which case I am fit to survive

 

[Montalban]

I'm saying that God works through knowable laws that offer no scientific signs that He works through them. Sure, the complexity of life and the beauty of the universe is apparent and suggestive to me that God is at work, but that hunch can't be verified scientifically because science cannot establish God's agency.

I see this as meaning there's no place for God in evolution

 

[Mallon]

I see this as meaning there's no place for God in evolution

If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.

 

[Montalban]

If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.

I can agree with that.

 

[Papias]

Mallon wrote:

If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.

I HATE that atheistic chemistry, with it's "atomic theory", where we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for chemistry to work! And then there's astronomy! It's of the devil! And don't get me started on algebra, or physics, or geology, or ...........



Papias

 

[sfs]

If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.

It's also true of all engineering theories about how bridges work, and all plumbing theories about how pipes work, and all auto mechanics theories about how cars work, and all cooking theories about how cakes bake. It's amazing how many atheists there are out there.

 

[Mallon]

I know just what you're saying, guys.

 

[shernren]

I recall having a conversation on this some many years ago on another thread where evolutionists argued that ANY actions of people (including breeder's purposefully choosing) are 'natural' and therefore akin to 'natural' selection.

But what's amazing is how many people leapt in here in the first place to distance Darwin from this tautology - as if they're aware that it's embarrassing

The other night I told an astronomer that the phrase "The Sun is shining in the sky" was a tautology. He scoffed at me and said, "Look up at the sky now: the Sun is not there!"

But I looked at him bewildered. "Surely you see that large bright disc in the sky, same as I do!"

"But why, that's the Moon!"

"No, good astronomer, that's the Sun. Since by definition a Sun is anything that is shining in the sky, the idea that something which is shining in the sky is shining in the sky is a tautology. I'm afraid all your vaunted astronomical knowledge is good for nothing."

He muttered and went away calling me insane. I have no idea why.

=========

Montalban, by the scientists' own definitions of fitness, less fit traits can outcompete more fit traits.

Of course your own silly definition of fitness makes "survival of the fittest" a tautology, just as anyone with too much time and too little life can make "the Sun is shining in the sky", "all who call on Jesus will be saved", and "anyone who does not believe in evolution is ridiculous" tautological by a suitable redefinition. You have every right to speak Montalbanese; just don't expect your protestations to carry much weight with the people who are actually working hard to do real science.

=========

As for breeding and natural selection, here's a question for you.

You are a pineapple breeder who has discovered a novel gene with two alleles, dry and wet that controls the juiciness of pineapples. In a dry region such as Mexico, pineapple plants that are heterozygous (i.e. having one dry and one wet allele) produce moist, juicy fruit; but plants with two dry alleles produce shriveled and shrunken pineapples, while plants with two wet alleles produce pineapples that are so bloated that they cannot be transported without leaking juice all over the place.

Because pineapples are hard to pollinate manually, you can only control the breeding of pineapples by getting rid of undesirable plants after they have fruited.

What strategy would you use to breed these Mexican dry-wet pineapples, and what genotypic structure do you expect to see in the Mexican population over the long run?

At the same time, when you introduce this gene to pineapples grown in a moist region, such as Florida, you find that pineapples which are homozygous for the dry allele produce fruit which are just right. Heterozygous pineapples produce bloated fruit, and pineapples homozygous for wet simply explode when they are ripe!

What strategy would you use to breed these Florida dry-wet pineapples, and what genotypic structure do you expect to see in the Florida population over the long run?

For bonus points, figure out the natural-selection analogy to this example. Hint: it would be completely unethical to actually experiment on the distribution of these alleles in the relevant population.

 

[Montalban]

It's also true of all engineering theories about how bridges work, and all plumbing theories about how pipes work, and all auto mechanics theories about how cars work, and all cooking theories about how cakes bake. It's amazing how many atheists there are out there.

Whilst this may be amusing to some I think it misses the fundamental point about creation and evolution.

Creation doesn't have an 'alternative theory' for bridge engineering.

Evolution is a theory that excludes God from a process that God says he's involved in.

 

[Montalban]

<snip>
=========

Montalban, by the scientists' own definitions of fitness, less fit traits can outcompete more fit traits.

Of course your own silly definition of fitness makes "survival of the fittest" a tautology, just as anyone with too much time and too little life can make "the Sun is shining in the sky", "all who call on Jesus will be saved", and "anyone who does not believe in evolution is ridiculous" tautological by a suitable redefinition. You have every right to speak Montalbanese; just don't expect your protestations to carry much weight with the people who are actually working hard to do real science.

Thanks for the beautiful appeal to incredulity.

=========

As for breeding and natural selection, here's a question for you.

You are a pineapple breeder who has discovered a novel gene with two alleles, dry and wet that controls the juiciness of pineapples. In a dry region such as Mexico, pineapple plants that are heterozygous (i.e. having one dry and one wet allele) produce moist, juicy fruit; but plants with two dry alleles produce shriveled and shrunken pineapples, while plants with two wet alleles produce pineapples that are so bloated that they cannot be transported without leaking juice all over the place.

Because pineapples are hard to pollinate manually, you can only control the breeding of pineapples by getting rid of undesirable plants after they have fruited.

What strategy would you use to breed these Mexican dry-wet pineapples, and what genotypic structure do you expect to see in the Mexican population over the long run?

At the same time, when you introduce this gene to pineapples grown in a moist region, such as Florida, you find that pineapples which are homozygous for the dry allele produce fruit which are just right. Heterozygous pineapples produce bloated fruit, and pineapples homozygous for wet simply explode when they are ripe!

What strategy would you use to breed these Florida dry-wet pineapples, and what genotypic structure do you expect to see in the Florida population over the long run?

For bonus points, figure out the natural-selection analogy to this example. Hint: it would be completely unethical to actually experiment on the distribution of these alleles in the relevant population.

Are you saying nature has a strategy?

 

[sfs]

Creation doesn't have an 'alternative theory' for bridge engineering.

Creation also doesn't have an alternative theory for the history of life. (No, ignoring reality does not count as a theory.)

Evolution is a theory that excludes God from a process that God says he's involved in.

Only in the same sense that meteorology excludes God from a process that he says he's involved in, that astronomy excludes God from a process that he says he's he's involved in and that epidemiology excludes God from a process he says he's involved in.

 

[sfs]

Thanks for the beautiful appeal to incredulity.

Sorry, but "You are wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" is not an appeal to incredulity. In fact, there was nothing about incredulity at all in the post you're responding to. You're using a different definition of fitness than anyone in evolutionary biology uses; that's a fact, and pointing it out is not fallacious in the slightest.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution is a theory that excludes God from a process that God says he's involved in.

It's almost as though you completely ignored everything I just explained to you.

Evolution doesn't exclude God's action all; evolution has nothing to say about God's agency one way or another, and is like any other science in this respect.

Do you believe God continuously sustains the universe, Montalban? Or do you believe He only interjects Himself sporadically in order to keep things on track?

 

[Montalban]

Creation also doesn't have an alternative theory for the history of life. (No, ignoring reality does not count as a theory.)

Only in the same sense that meteorology excludes God from a process that he says he's involved in, that astronomy excludes God from a process that he says he's he's involved in and that epidemiology excludes God from a process he says he's involved in.

I accept that God says he put the stars in the sky. They actually address the point

I don't know what the arguments about plumbing address though



The examples before were missing the point.

 

[Montalban]

It's almost as though you completely ignored everything I just explained to you.

Evolution doesn't exclude God's action all; evolution has nothing to say about God's agency one way or another, and is like any other science in this respect.

Do you believe God continuously sustains the universe, Montalban? Or do you believe He only interjects Himself sporadically in order to keep things on track?

Evolution has no place for God. You might think "Evolution doesn't INCLUDE God"

I think it EXCLUDES God.

As to your questions about sustaining, I do not know. I have wondered about whether God still actively intervenes in the world.

 

[Mallon]

I think it EXCLUDES God.

On what basis? Do you think all natural process (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism, weather) exclude God?

As to your questions about sustaining, I do not know. I have wondered about whether God still actively intervenes in the world.

So you aren't certain that God upholds all things at all times (Heb 1:3)?

 

[Montalban]

On what basis? Do you think all scientifically-verified process (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism, weather) exclude God?

I don't know what God does in those others, whether he actively participates

I don't think Creationism is a theory that encompasses them

So you aren't certain that God upholds all things at all times (Heb 1:3)?

Apparently you're not aware of the term "I don't know"

 

[Mallon]

I don't know what God does in those others, whether he actively participates

I don't think Creationism is a theory that encompasses them

So why do you think evolution excludes God but aren't certain whether gravity, electromagnetism, or weather excludes Him?