The Probability of Evolution by Chance

[Lepanto]

(1) To have a meaningful design created by chance is small.

(2) To have a structure created by chance is even smaller.

(3) To have a structure that is durable created by chance is even much smaller.

(4) The world is full of destructive forces, e.g. gravity, wind, rain, germs, etc
which further diminishes the probability of (3).

The theory of evolution (macro), in the future, will be remembered not as a great theory, but as a great joke.

______________________________________________________________________________

Reality always obeys laws of probability (of course within the 95% confidence interval).
Moreover, results always match efforts and purpose. As they say "garbage in, garbage out".
Effortless and purposeless actions seldom achieve great things.

If the world is a product of chance (no purpose), then we won't find muuch complexity, beauty or intelligence in this world.
_________________________________________________________________________

“If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”

- Dr. Carl Werner

 

[Papias]

First of all, do you realize you are posting this in the creationist section, where discussion from both sides is not allowed? If you actually want to have a discussion, as opposed to just agreement from other creationists, you'll need to re-post this in the main Origins Theology section.


Secondly, I notice your icon indicates you are Catholic. Are you aware that Pope Benedict has stated that evolution, including common descent, is "virtually certain"?

To freely discuss either your main topic or the views of the Pope, you'll need to be willing to go to the main forum.

Thanks, and have a good day-

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not.

Imagine a mutation which results in white fur. A white-furred animal living in a European forest would not last long, as it would make him very obvious, even in the middle of the night. Both predators and prey would spot it from a mile away. It would probably die young - not passing on it's genes.

If on the other hand it lived in the Arctic, it's white fur would be beneficial. It would blend in to it's surroundings, making it difficult for predators and prey to see. It would probably survive longer than animals which didn't have white fur and pass on it's genes.

The same mutation under different circumstances may be damaging or favourable. Hence why we have polar bears in the Arctic circle and not in Europe.

 

[Lepanto]

Do you mean I am wrong ??
Maybe I am wrong ... in the small details.
But Creationism is not wrong.

_______
Lepanto

 

[Papias]

Lepanto wrote:

Do you mean I am wrong ??
Maybe I am wrong ...

I'm not sure who (NSP or I) you are responding to. However, I'm not allowed by the rules of this subforum you posted in to explain the details of why I think you are wrong. To discuss it, simply copy and past your post #1 as a new thread in the forum at this link:


Origins Theology - Christian Forums

NSP's post is important for your points 1, 2 and 3. For a more detailed view of the Pope's view of evolution, you can read a very detailed explaination by the committee he led by going to the link partway down on this page, here: Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth, A Catholic Perspective

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Biblewriter]

zero

 

[That Canadian Guy]

Macro scale evolutionary processes are a joke, a great joke indeed. Advocates of the theory, however, do not wish to admit this and will resort to using rhetoric and mass equivocation to try and pitch the discussion away from this truth, which is why I don't bother.

What we do need to understand, however, is that nothing "better" is available, and they have no choice but to run with it and fall back on it by default. Regardless, it doesn't make it any more true.

 

[Lepanto]

Papias, shut up, you who are easily intimidated by the name "Science" (and perhaps Television) and bow down to it consequently.

I believe you know nothing about
the conspiracy behind the evils of the world (evolution, communism, drugs, etc),
the history of evolutionay frauds,
the crisis in the world and the Christian Church and , most importantly,
the Fatima message of 1917.

 

[Papias]

Lepanto wrote:

Papias, shut up,

I'm sorry if I aggravated you by suggesting a thread or providing a reference from our Holy Father Pope Benedict. I try to go by what the scripture says in Colossians:

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
​

you who are easily intimidated by the name "Science" (and perhaps Television) and bow down to it consequently.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I rarely watch TV (I don't even have cable), and only bow down to God, who's representatives here on earth in our Holy Mother Church have shown that they support theistic evolution.

I believe you know nothing about
the conspiracy behind the evils of the world (evolution, communism, drugs, etc),

Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't. It seems off topic here. Maybe post a new thread on it. I think there is a "black helicoptors" forum somewhere?

the history of evolutionay frauds,

I'm aware of plenty of frauds that were made to support evolution and creationism. They have been handled very differently by their respective camps. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread to discuss them, in the main forum where both sides can be discussed?

the crisis in the world and the Christian Church and , most importantly,
the Fatima message of 1917.

I am familiar with both of these, and they do get my attention. They aren't origins theology, however - maybe start a thread on them in our Catholic forum?

I did notice, however, that your response had little to nothing to do with either your opening post nor with my observation that you are disagreeing with our Holy Father.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Lepanto]

Lepanto wrote:


I'm sorry if I aggravated you by suggesting a thread or providing a reference from our Holy Father Pope Benedict. I try to go by what the scripture says in Colossians:

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
​

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I rarely watch TV (I don't even have cable), and only bow down to God, who's representatives here on earth in our Holy Mother Church have shown that they support theistic evolution.




Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't. It seems off topic here. Maybe post a new thread on it. I think there is a "black helicoptors" forum somewhere?



I'm aware of plenty of frauds that were made to support evolution and creationism. They have been handled very differently by their respective camps. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread to discuss them, in the main forum where both sides can be discussed?




I am familiar with both of these, and they do get my attention. They aren't origins theology, however - maybe start a thread on them in our Catholic forum?

I did notice, however, that your response had little to nothing to do with either your opening post nor with my observation that you are disagreeing with our Holy Father.

In Christ-

Papias

Theistic evolution is more believable than atheistic evolution. But I still don't believe it.

I don't think the Pope would believe in it willingly. I believe the Pope was misled by his science advisors, whom I am suspicious of. I won't be surprised if I am told those advisors are dishonest and unsincere, when we think of the great crisis in the world and the Christian Church and also the conspiracy behind it.

 

[Papias]

Lepanto wrote:

Theistic evolution is more believable than atheistic evolution. But I still don't believe it.

Fair enough. You might be interested in simply asking why TE supporters believe it - either by looking at the link I provided for the Pope's commission statement, and/or by asking TE's here in the TE section. After all, I don't think it is a salvation issue, and whichever side you end up on, it will be better to be well informed of both sides.

I don't think the Pope would believe in it willingly. I believe the Pope was misled by his science advisors, whom I am suspicious of. I won't be surprised if I am told those advisors are dishonest and unsincere, when we think of the great crisis in the world and the Christian Church ....

Of course, I can't know if his advisors are dishonest. However, it sounds like you distrust our church, even at the highest levels, in which case I wonder why you stay in. The church is the bride of Christ, and so I expect Jesus will help keep her pure.

As for the Pope, remember that you are comparing your view with his. He has vast resources to investigate and test every detail, pay whole groups of staff to check facts, appoint commissions, and even meet in person with those on each side. He has been interested in origins since well before he became Pope (as Cardinal Ratzinger). He has spent untold hours over many decades on this question. I have to compare that with you. I am willing to bet that you don't have those kinds of resources, have not looked into it as deeply (he's even published a whole book on it). So in comparison, I'd have to guess that he is more likely to have a well tested view on this. From a resource standpoint, which would you think is more reliable: The Pope or some random person posting on the internet?

And that's not even to consider the fact that you and I see him as the mouthpiece of God. I think God would care at least a bit to help make sure his representitive on Earth is not spouting error, so I have to guess that God is also helping guide his view, don't you agree? I suspect that even if there were evil advisors, as you suppose (with nothing to back your view up other than the fact that you don't personally like his view), that God would still protect the Pope for the benefit of his bride the church and loyal Catholics like you and I.

For both these reasons, I am not about to disagree with the Pope. To each is own though. Like I said, I don't think it is a salvation issue - at most a venial sin.

and also the conspiracy behind it.

Again, you might want to post about that in the black helicopters forum. Or start a discussion about that in the Catholic forum.

There are still many scientists who oppose macro-evolution:

For the reasons why I (and practically all scientists, many of whom are Christian) don't find your pasted material to be relevant, simply start a thread on that topic in the main forum where this can be discussed, along with things like Project Steve, etc.

Thanks for the more cordial post.

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

 

[Lepanto]

Lepanto wrote:



Fair enough. You might be interested in simply asking why TE supporters believe it - either by looking at the link I provided for the Pope's commission statement, and/or by asking TE's here in the TE section. After all, I don't think it is a salvation issue, and whichever side you end up on, it will be better to be well informed of both sides.





Of course, I can't know if his advisors are dishonest. However, it sounds like you distrust our church, even at the highest levels, in which case I wonder why you stay in. The church is the bride of Christ, and so I expect Jesus will help keep her pure.

As for the Pope, remember that you are comparing your view with his. He has vast resources to investigate and test every detail, pay whole groups of staff to check facts, appoint commissions, and even meet in person with those on each side. He has been interested in origins since well before he became Pope (as Cardinal Ratzinger). He has spent untold hours over many decades on this question. I have to compare that with you. I am willing to bet that you don't have those kinds of resources, have not looked into it as deeply (he's even published a whole book on it). So in comparison, I'd have to guess that he is more likely to have a well tested view on this. From a resource standpoint, which would you think is more reliable: The Pope or some random person posting on the internet?

And that's not even to consider the fact that you and I see him as the mouthpiece of God. I think God would care at least a bit to help make sure his representitive on Earth is not spouting error, so I have to guess that God is also helping guide his view, don't you agree? I suspect that even if there were evil advisors, as you suppose (with nothing to back your view up other than the fact that you don't personally like his view), that God would still protect the Pope for the benefit of his bride the church and loyal Catholics like you and I.

For both these reasons, I am not about to disagree with the Pope. To each is own though. Like I said, I don't think it is a salvation issue - at most a venial sin.




Again, you might want to post about that in the black helicopters forum. Or start a discussion about that in the Catholic forum.




For the reasons why I (and practically all scientists, many of whom are Christian) don't find your pasted material to be relevant, simply start a thread on that topic in the main forum where this can be discussed, along with things like Project Steve, etc.

Thanks for the more cordial post.

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

Project Steve ? Oh, come on. Yes, there are more scientists who are pro-evolution than against it. But that's because that's due to a number of reasons. The most important one is the scientific circle especially biological science is not as open-minded as outsiders think it is. Generally its door is open only to those believe in evolution. It is almost a dictatorship, rather than a democracy.
Many scientists don't have a choice if they wanted to have a good career (compare with point 3 below).
That's human nature. The second reason is that theory of evolution has monopolized the school curriculum for more than 40 years. Students have no choice but to believe in theory of evolution IF they wanted to pursue a career in biology.

________________________________________________________________

The following 5 statements about evolution are real facts which even evolutionists cannot deny:

(1) There are 2 kinds of evolution: micro and macro. They are 2 different concepts. But evolutionists tried to make people believe one automatically implies the other.

(2) Less than 50% of people in USA believe in theory of evolution, despite the fact that it has monopolized the school curriculum for more than 40 years (based on data from Evolution: The Grand Experiment).

(3) More than 700 scientists have publicly expressed their doubts on theory of evolution, even though this means RISKING their scientific careers. The number 700 is very significant in this case.

(4) The history of theory of evolution is full of frauds, e.g. Piltdown man, Peking man, Nebraska Man, etc.

(5) Theory of evolution is always associated with totalitarian regimes, especially Nazi Germany and Communist China, etc.

 

[Freedom63]

(1) To have a meaningful design created by chance is small.

(2) To have a structure created by chance is even smaller.

(3) To have a structure that is durable created by chance is even much smaller.

(4) The world is full of destructive forces, e.g. gravity, wind, rain, germs, etc
which further diminishes the probability of (3).

I don't think the probability of (2) and (3) will change much with respect to the amount of time available.
The theory of evolution (macro), in the future, will be remembered not as a great theory, but as a great joke.

As a Theistic Evolutionist myself...I don't see how random chance is even part of the equation. The Theistic part of my belief very much declares that God created everything. I also happen to believe that He left overwhelming evidence behind that evolution is how He did it. Random chance may be a logical argument to use with an atheist...but among Christians it would seem to be totally irrelevant.

 

[Papias]

I see, for starters, that Lepanto has dropped the whole discussion about our Holy Father's support of evolution. I hope he is doing this to take the time to look into all the reasons why the Pope, who, to Lepanto and I (and other Catholics) is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, does so.

Project Steve ? Oh, come on. Yes, there are more scientists who are pro-evolution than against it.

I'll say. So do you agree that practically all scientists, including thosands of Christians, support evolution? We're talking millions in support here, you know.

But that's because that's due to a number of reasons.

Do tell......

The most important one is the scientific circle especially biological science is not as open-minded as outsiders think it is.

Are you a biologist, who knows what those circles are like, or are you one of those outsider who you are saying don't know what they are talking about?

Generally its door is open only to those believe in evolution. It is almost a dictatorship, rather than a democracy.

How would you know that? We've seen many times that science is the only institution where you are rewarded (hansomely!) for disproving the prevailing ideas. That's as far from a dictatorship as you can get. I hate to break it to you, but there is no supreme council of scientist who tell scientists what to believe - scientists go by the evidence.

Many scientists don't have a choice if they wanted to have a good career (compare with point 3 below).

Scientists have to go by the evidence. If a scientist makes claims that the evidence doesn't support, then of course they have problems, just like scientists who claim the moon is made of green cheese. I'm sorry, but please don't blame me for the evidence - the evidence is from God, not me.

That's human nature. The second reason is that theory of evolution has monopolized the school curriculum for more than 40 years.

Simply and demonstrably false. Our schools, in fact avoid teaching evolution due to the fear of upsetting creationists. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the data:

This intentional scientific ignorance puts our kids and America's future at risk in our increasing scientific and globally competitive world.

________________________________________________________________

The following 5 statements about evolution are real facts which even evolutionists cannot deny:
(1) There are 2 kinds of evolution: micro and macro. They are 2 different concepts. But evolutionists tried to make people believe one automatically implies the other.

Sorry, simply false. That's like saying that there are two kinds of rocks, micro rocks (pebbles) and macro rocks (boulders). Both are well supported by evidence, and both have been observed.

(2) Less than 50% of people in USA believe in theory of evolution, despite the fact that it has monopolized the school curriculum for more than 40 years (based on data from Evolution: The Grand Experiment).

You saw above that it certainly isn't "monopolizing the school curriculum", when it usually isn't even taught. The number is roughly correct - it varies around 50% depending on the phrasing of the question. It is at least as accurate to say that "Less than 50% of people in the USA believe in young earth creationism, even though creationists have largely prevented the teaching of evolution in elementary and high schools for over 100 years."

Here's actual Gallup data:

(3) More than 700 scientists have publicly expressed their doubts on theory of evolution, even though this means RISKING their scientific careers. The number 700 is very significant in this case.

Scientists are human beings. Human beings vary, and so of course you can find a few who'll believe everything. It's telling that the majority of those on you list aren't even biologists, and so have no reason to understand evolution anyway. Let's see... 700 out of 3 million =
less than 0.3%. So you are telling us that up to 99.7% of scientists support evolution, and that's one of your points?

(4) The history of theory of evolution is full of frauds, e.g. Piltdown man, Peking man, Nebraska Man, etc.

Yes, and science has built in mechanisms for detecting and correcting them, which is seen to work over and over. (note that only Piltdown man, in your list, is actually a hoax). "nebraska man" was debated at the time, and eventually determined to not be a human. Compare these rare and fixed hoaxes with the dozens of creationist hoaxes, many of which are still touted as real, such as wood from Noah's ark, the Paluxy footprints, the hammer in coal, the japanese sea monster, and so on.

(5) Theory of evolution is always associated with totalitarian regimes, especially Nazi Germany and Communist China, etc.

Oh yeah, like that evil theory of gravity? Pol Pot ascribed to the theory of Gravity, as did Stalin, as did Hitler, as did Mao, as did Gaddafi, and so on.....

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

(1) To have a meaningful design created by chance is small.

(2) To have a structure created by chance is even smaller.

(3) To have a structure that is durable created by chance is even much smaller.

(4) The world is full of destructive forces, e.g. gravity, wind, rain, germs, etc
which further diminishes the probability of (3).

I don't think the probability of (2) and (3) will change much with respect to the amount of time available.
The theory of evolution (macro), in the future, will be remembered not as a great theory, but as a great joke.

I have tried to work out some of the details of a probability argument but the fact is that evolutionists simply won't admit that the probability is astronomical. This holds true at ever major change in evolution as natural history.

This is the table based on 1.33% divergence:

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times and different ancestral population sizes

4.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.7 x 10^-8
4.5 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.6 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.5 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,0000 mutation rate is 1.5 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.3 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 1.4 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.1 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.3 x 10^-8

Table 4. Estimates of mutation rate for different sites and different classes of mutation

Transition at CpG mutation rate 1.6 x 10^-7
Transversion at CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transition at non-CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transversion at non-CpG mutation rate 5.5 x 10^-9
All nucleotide subs mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-8
Length mutations mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-9
All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8

Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates of molecular evolution given in Table 1.

Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%​

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans (Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella, Genetics, 297-304, September 2000)

When the actual divergence is found to be between 5% and 6% does the calculation of the mutation rate change?

What would have to happen is that the DNA would have to be altered on a macro scale, there is a good scientific reason for being skeptical of TOE with regards to human evolution:

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common.

MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease.​

The known effect of mutations on fitness is the single greatest fact of life and living systems opposed to TOE as natural history. Evolutionists know this and still insist that you must assume universal common ancestry or your being ignorant.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

If you want to actually discuss probabilities, instead of simply listening to an echo chamber, you may want to post the question in the main forum, where full discussion is allowed.


Papias

 

[Calminian]

If you want to actually discuss probabilities, instead of simply listening to an echo chamber, you may want to post the question in the main forum, where full discussion is allowed.


Papias

IOW, "i'm a spoiled brat, and no one is allowed to have a conversation without me!"

 

[mark kennedy]

If you want to actually discuss probabilities, instead of simply listening to an echo chamber, you may want to post the question in the main forum, where full discussion is allowed.

Papias

If you want to discuss what the Pope actually teaches then tell the whole truth regarding his explicit statements on the subject

What was outright condemned as heresy is the belief that Adam and Eve... (Pope Benedict XVI)​

Finish the statement Papias, what does the Pope condemn as outright heresy?

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

That sounds like Intelligent Design to me, no wait...that could be some kind of creationism. What do you think Papias, is the Pope a Creationist?

BTW, I have discussed the probability arguments in the public forum for years so don't start trying to moderate the thread, I will post where I please. However, if you have a genomic deleterious mutation rate when the divergence is 4% let's see it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Simply and demonstrably false. Our schools, in fact avoid teaching evolution due to the fear of upsetting creationists. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the data:

This intentional scientific ignorance puts our kids and America's future at risk in our increasing scientific and globally competitive world.

The only intentional scientific ignorance that puts our kids and country at risk is teaching them that 40% people are wrong for believing God created man when the evidence demonstrates nothing of the sort. That let's 16% of the population dictate what people believe and when it comes to origins there is no such thing as a definitive scientific argument one way or the other.

If you are concerned that kids are not learning the sciences perhaps you should learn something about genetics before you equivocate science with supposition. If we are going to teach science then we should teach that biology is about how living systems work, not naturalistic assumptions regarding natural history.

 

[Papias]

Again mark, I have to ask what part of "theistic" do you fail to understand? That's not 16% that support evolution, but 54%, when you correctly include the theistic evolution supporters - again showing that the majority of the support for evolution in the United States comes from Christians - A point that you denied earlier.

Of course, that fact that 54% support evolution is, by itself, not a reason for evolution to be the taught - that is determined by the scientific merits, which, as you know, are open for discussion if you'd like to post a thread in the open forum, as opposed to the echo-chamber.

Papias