What’s your problem?

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I fully understand the concepts being talked about; I just disagree, and with good reason.

And extreme examples seem to be the only case in which this theory is valid. With normal cases, it is just a random shot in the dark.

You are ignoring some of my posts entirely and a major part of others. If you agree that a blind eagle has less of a chance passing on it’s genes than an eagle with good eyesight then where does the logic driving that conclusion break down in the list I gave you?

Good eyesight vs. blind. (Natural selection works)
Good eyesight vs. almost blind?
Good eyesight vs. very poor eyesight?
Good eyesight vs. poor?
Good eyesight vs. mediocre?

Where does the logic that makes natural selection work in extreme cases break down?

 

[caravelair]

You had to make an extreme example in order to make that work.

i picked that example because it demonstrates the point in a simple way. all i was trying to show is that natural selection is not random, and i think my examples demonstrates that, don't you? or do you still think it's random which of the chicks will pass on their genes, the blind ones or the normal ones?

and it works with less extreme examples too, as we have directly observed many times in the lab and in the field. certain traits give individuals a greater chance of survival, and we observe the result: the allele for this trait gradually becomes more and more prevalent in the population until it takes over. how is that random?

you are thinking about this in terms of individual organisms, but you must remember that evolution deals with populations of organisms. lets say for the sake of argument that an eagle with good sight has a 3/4 chance of passing on its genes, and an eagle with poor sight has a 1/4 chance of surviving. if we have one of each, there's still a 1/16 chance that the poor sighted one will reproduce and the other will not, as you point out. but that's only looking at those 2 individuals. we're talking about an entire population here. the chances that the good sighted eagle reproduce and the poor sighted one does not is 9/16, so it is 9 times more likely to occur, and thus when we look at an entire population of individuals, you see the good sighted eagles reproducing more often, and thus their alleles become more common in each subsequent generation. do you understand this?

Under normal circumstances, things are just left to chance and luck.

That is what runs the theory of evolution.

no and no.

 

[Baggins]

Copy and paste specifically what you're talking about. I'm not an evolutionists.

I wont assume which points you're talking about.

Nope I'm not hear to spoonfeed you, I made it obvious where this information is too be found. You just need to scroll back a couple of pages and reread a few posts in answer to your misapprehensions.

This is another huge assumption; that animals that are born more fit produce children just as fit or better. Healthy animals can produce sick young, and vice-versa. This is another factor that makes evolution more improbable.

It is not an assumption it has been observed

And again you are thinking about the individual not the population.

Think about populations!

It is a very simple point, yet you still haven't grasped it

The belief that weaker animals die out enough times in order to result in a population becoming new types pf creatures is unfounded and hard to believe.

It seems perfectly logical to me, it is simple Darwinism, survival of the fittest. And as such it is well founded and has 150 years of scientific support behind it.

In a population those less fitted to the environment will produce fewer offspring than that part of the population that is better fitted. Over many generations the traits that make some parts of the population less fitted will be removed from the gene pool and the traits that make animals in the population better fitted to the environment will become fixed.

That is basic premendalian Darwinism.

 

[LittleNipper]

And I am telling you, as a Chrstian, that I disagree with your opinion.





This is not true. Evolution makes no comment about sin.

Evolution does teach that death and survival are the means to all of today's species. This you cannot deny. You are free to disagree with my consideration, but as a Chriatian, can you quote Chapter and verse in the Bible that proves evolution is right and that I'm in error? Is not that how JESUS witnessed to the religious leaders of HIS day? Tell me if I'm wrong.....

 

[SolitarySoul]

There are some creationists that have been participating in this C&E debate for some time now. These creationists have had every qualm about the Theory of Evolution refuted thoroughly at this point. Now it seems they like to hang around just to evangelize and generally disagree for no good reason.

The purpose of this thread is to ask these resident creationists exactly what problems with the Theory of Evolution they still feel have not been answered. Is there any real reason you still don’t accept the Theory of Evolution on its own merits or do you just disagree now on perceived theological grounds.

I have not been paying attention to the comments made much so I apologize if this is irrelevant, but you have to understand how a Christian views the world. Making our own observations and stating our conclusions as "fact" seems absurd to most Christians because in the Christian belief we are not in a place to be able to determine such a thing. We will never know everything about the universe, and since we did not create it, our "facts" and assumptions will never really be any better than assumed hypothesis or 'theories'. Sure we study evidence of things all the time and make predictions that in most cases turn out to be pretty good, but we will never know for certain, and our theories are really just good hypothesis that will never be completely correct (weather prediction is a good example of this).

Think about the movie the Matrix for example. That story believe it or not was actually written with the purpose of describing Christianity in a metaphorical way. (If you havn't seen it I recommend it, it's a great movie whether you want to look at it in a Christian way or not). Everyone stuck in the matrix thinking it is the real world, having all those rules and laws of gravity and physics and all those theories and everything based off of their own knowledge, all of that symbolizes the world we live in today. That is a reality, there can be many realities, but there can only be one truth. For example if someone is anorexic, they may think they are overweight, and that becomes their reality, but the truth is they are starving themselves. We may never know the one 'truth' because we did not create this universe, but Christians believe one thing and have very good reason to.

Going back to the symbolizm in the matrix, those who are "unplugged" and have their eyes opened to the real world are symbolizing people who have their "eyes opened to the truth" and become faithful to God. I'm not saying everyone who is not Christian is wrong, I am just talking about what the movie is symbolizing. For example, the police chasing Trinity in the beginning of the first movie ... when Trinity and Agent Smith jump from one building to another the police stop and say "thats impossible", because they are limiting their minds to the physical world they live in and believing only what they see and hear. I'm not saying that Christians can defy the laws of gravity lol (of course, I do not doubt that it would be possible with a purpose and enough faith), I'm just trying to make a point here, about how both groups here view the universe in different ways.

I study several subjects in science because I find it interesting as well, but mostly astronomy, not so much evolution. I have found personally that both science and religion do not have to contradict each other, it is just about the way someone sees it. For example ... the arguement about the creation of the universe. So many people take it so literally and think that if the world was not created in six 24 hour periods then they must be denying that God created the universe, but they are not thinking deep enough. First of all, God creating all the universe does not mean that He literally snapped a giant finger and poof there it was. I do believe in the big bang theory. I believe God created that enourmous ball of mass, and I believe God made that huge ball explode, creating time and existance, and is the driving force behind gravity and the formation of stars and planets as well as the expansion of the universe today (even astronomers say that there is an unknown energy, which they call "dark energy" that is causing the universe to expand in a way that we currently do not know how to explain). Just like a potter spinning his wheel of clay making a bowl, God shapes His universe. He is not a 3D being though. I am not denying that God could not have created the universe with the snap of a finger, because I believe God can do anything, but the Bible does not say that it happened just like that. The point the Bible is making is that God brought the universe into existance. Science and religion do not answer the same questions. I believe God created the universe and is still working in it and shaping it today, but I believe science is the study of how He works in the physical world. I do not believe we would have an organized universe of gravity and light and all these other forces, not to mention life, if there was no God. People say "but it is a perfectly natural thing, it'd exist whether there was a God or not", but they are not looking deep enough into what I am saying. Man did not create God, God was here long before man or anything else was. Assuming that there is a God, as I believe, we have absolutely no idea, and never will have an idea, what the universe would be like if there wasn't an omnipotent "being" working in it, or if there even would be a universe. The idea of a God says that He created all time and existance ... meaning that even before everything in existance, and even before time itself, there was God. Therefore human knowledge, or knowledge of anything under God for that matter, is completely obsurd when trying to compare to Him. Imagine something living in a 2D world. A living dot on a plane. No matter what is drawn on it's plane, it will always appear as dots and lines surrounding him on that exact plane. It is easy for us to comprehend a 3rd deminsion, but to that dot living in a 2D world, it would have never experienced such a thing, and therefore it's mind would have no way of comprehending the existance of a higher deminsion. Does that mean that it's laws of gravity and physics and all its other science in its 2D world can disprove the existance of something beyond him? Of course not. Could he even make "realistic" conclusions about his universe? What if his universe is a sheet of paper printed out of a printer. That seems perfectly acceptable to us, but to any non-believers of a higher existance in his 2D world, that would seem completely absurd, simply because their science can't explain it. (BTW, I know a sheet of paper has a 3rd deminsion , I'm just trying to make a point).

Going back to the 6 "days" of creation thing. I've been doing a lot of studying on this subject lately, and I've found that there are actually many hints throughout the Bible suggesting that these "days" are metaphorical. A "day" is not the same length on earth as it is in other places anyway. If someone takes a completely literal interpretation of the beginning of the Bible, then our definition of a "day" would be the sun rising and setting once. Yet, just go to the north pole or south pole and a "day" there according to this definition isn't 24 hours, but closer to half a year, since the tilt of the earth causes the sun to stay above the horizon all summer long. But without even taking that into account, just look at what the Bible says. At the end of each "day" of creation, it says "and the evening and the morning were the 'X' day". Yet, it does not say this for the 7th day when God rested. Why? Because we are still living in the 7th day, today. A "day" in this case, in my opinion, could very easily be even as much as several billion years. A "day" is simply a period of time between a beginning ("morning") and an end ("evening"). In the book of John the Jewish leaders are argueing with Jesus when he was healing on the sabboth day. Jesus replied saying that His father never stops working, so why should He? I think that what Jesus is saying here is that we are living in God's "7th day" today, His sabboth day, He is resting because He has finished His creations, yet He still works in the world. (Just think about ways you use the words "day" somtimes ... like "back in the day" ... such a generalized time. Also, the "end days" ... many people believe we have been in the "end days" for over 50 years now). You gatta look at how the early Jewish population interpted what was being said. This part of the Bible was written for them, in a way that they would understand. And of course we can't forget that Peter said, "A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day". We are living today in the 7th "day" still, in my opinion. We do not know how long it will last, and in the same way, we do not know how long the 6 "days" of creation lasted. Scientific theories could very well be our closest estimate. That is not in any way denying that God created it.

There's actually some verses in the Bible (I can't recall off the top of my head, I'll have to look it up) that suggest that the earth could be much older than man, and that it was made dark and void of life before our creation (cataclysmic event ending the dinasours maybe?).

I'm not trying to disprove anything here. I simply like to study both religion and science, and being religious, I believe that they can work hand in hand because God is not a deceiver, so one can't be wrong and the other right, it's all a matter of how you view it. So I study things to try to find ways that religion and science do not contradict one another, and I've found it "makes sense" in many ways. I am not in any way denying that the Bible could be 100% literal, because I believe anything is possible under God, but I also believe that people who argue about the little details like that are missing the point. The point being made in Genesis is that God created all existance and time, and that when man sinned we trapped our entire planet into an "illusional temporary world known as life", hence where the story The Matrix comes from.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents even though it may not be entirely on subject.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Anyway, I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents even though it may not be entirely on subject.

I won’t go into your post since it will only server to derail the discussion at hand but I am unable to ascertain your position from it. Do you have a problem with the TofE? If so, what specifically is the problem that makes you not accept the theory?

 

[gluadys]

There are some things wrong with this statement, and one is that you are making an assumption.

First, you have to consider that the eagle born with good eyesight can still die, while the one with poor eyesight lives, and passes on it's genes. In order for evolution to work, you must assume the inverse happens.

This may happen on a case by case basis. But will it be true statistically. Of 100 eagles with good eyesight and 100 eagles with poor eyesight, which group is more likely to have more children, and even more importantly, more grandchildren.

The probabilities of natural selection are statistical. There can always be individual cases that go against the statistical norm, but they don't generally impact the overall picture.

Second, who an organism chooses to mate with is completely random. Here's why:

1) If the eagle born with poor eyesight is a female, the male really won't care; males are generally not as selective in the animal kingdom as females. The male generally just chooses whichever female is willing to mate, which is random, depending on who becomes available.

In many cases the choice of mate is not random. Assortative selection of mates is one of the signs and one of the causes of speciation. Assortative selection of mates is often based on signals of fitness. One study showed that in frogs, the strength and lenght of its mating call was a proxy for fitness. Females preferentially chose males with the strongest and longest mating calls.

However, even if mate selection in eagles is random, natural selection will still move the population toward better eyesight because those with poorer eyesight will be statistically less likely to survive to or through their full reproductive years, and hence, statistically likely to have fewer offspring.

2) Other random factors include whether or not the organism choosing a mate is a catch itself. If an organism isn't very healty, it's choices are limited to another unhealthy organisms of the same species.​

And with a double dose of undesirable genes, the offspring of such matings are even less likely to find a mate and to produce viable offspring themselves.

3) Another random factor, is whether or not the top choices actually live. They have a higher likelyhood of surviving, but can just as easily die at the hands of a skilled predator. The odds may be higher that they live, but you're still betting on random odds.

How do you track a higher likelihood of surviving? Through the statisical documentation of who survives and who doesn't. May I recommend again Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch. This is exactly what Peter and Rosemary Grant have done over the last 25 years.

Yes, on a case-by-case basis, some accident can end the life of the most fit individual in the population befoer it has a chance to reproduce, but this does not affect the overall big picture, which is based on all cases, not this particular one.

4) Then you have to consider all the random ways a healthy creature can die: predation, being in the wrong place at the wrong time and catching a disease, a list of natural disasters such as floods, famine, a long list of harsh whether possibilities like hurricanes, snow, extreme heat or cold..............there are far to many random occurances to consider.

No, all that needs to be considered is whether the organisms with a particular trait have a greater likelihood of leaving descendants than those without that trait. Various natural disasters will affect both the fit and the less fit. The question is whether they affect them randomly or non-randomly. A hurricane may affect them randomly. Extreme cold may not. Some may have a greater capacity to tolerate cold than others. These will have a greater likelihood of surviving and transmitting their genes to the next generation.

Natural selection is a completely random process, of passing off randomly occuring genes.

How can natural selection be random when it is the preferential passing on of a certain gene or set of genes?

True. But this would be like trying to pic a pure red marble in a mixed bag of other marbles of different colors, patterns, and color combinations. Health on an organism can increase it's chances of having it's genes passed on; but that's like just adding more red marbles to the mixed bag---your chances of getting the red one increase, but it's still random chance to pick the red one.

I am not following your analogy. Who is picking? And why? You are admitting that the chance of getting a red one increases. Why does it increase? It is not just because there are more of them. It is because there are proportionately more of them.

If you begin with a bag of 100 marbles,99 mixed colour and 1 red, the proportion is 99:1

If the red marble reproduces a red marble and all the mixed colour marbles each produce a mixed colour marble, you now have a bag of 200 marbles, 198 mixed colour and 2 red. The proportion is still 99:1. Even though there has been a doubling in the number of red marbles there is no more probability of picking a red one than at the beginning.

But if the red marble reproduces a red marble, and only 90% of the 99 mixed colour marbles reproduce a mixed colour marble (i.e. 89 new mixed colour marbles) our total population is now 190 with 188 mixed colour marbles and 2 red marbles. The proportion is now 94:1, so there is a greater likelihood of picking one of the two red marbles.

Lets try a bag of 100 marbles in which 10 instead of only 1 is red. Let 90% of the red marbles reproduce so that after reproduction there is a total of 19 red marbles. Let 85% of the 90 mixed colour marbles reproduce so that after selection there are 90 + 76 = 166 mixed colour marbles. Now our proportion of mixed colour to red marbles is 166:19 or approximately 8.7:1

Now it may be that the one red marble that did not reproduce was the purest, reddest, most fit of all the red marbles. Its failure to reproduce did not stop the other 9 from reproducing.

There is no getting around the fact that evolution is a process that affects species not individuals. Therefore it must be understood statistically. It is not the particular effect of particular disasters on particular fit individuals that is relevant, but the question of whether survival correlates with fitness statistically.

Natural selection is completely random, and is another reason why evolution is hard to believe.

If there is a correlation between a characteristic and survival it is not random. If that characteristic becomes fixed in the species, it is not random.

 

[gluadys]

No. Evolution needs mutations to have happened in a certain way as to result in more evolved creatures. That's where wild assumptions come in.

Evolution does not need specific mutations to happen.

The history of evolution on this planet means that evolution took a certain direction and certain mutations happened.

But the history itself is not required by evolution. If one of the necessary mutations for this history had not happened or not been passed on, the only effect is that the history of evolution on this planet would have been different from what it was.

It would not mean that evolution did not happen, only that it took a different route through history.

It is the fact that we do have this history and not another that is the evidence that the necessary mutations did happen and were passed on.

This is an entirely separate question from whether evolution happens/did happen in the past.

 

[gluadys]

This is another huge assumption; that animals that are born more fit produce children just as fit or better. Healthy animals can produce sick young, and vice-versa. This is another factor that makes evolution more improbable.

On a case-by-case basis this happens. But when you document every case (or at least a large enough sample) it is easy to see that healthy animals tend to produce more healthy animals than sick animals, and sick animals are less likely to do so.

Your basic problem is that you refuse to examine evolution for what it is: a process that affects populations, not individuals.

There are always exceptions to the rule on a case-by-case basis. Of course a healthy animal can produce a sickly offspring. But is that the rule or the exception to the rule? Which is more likely?

Natural selection is about which is more likely.

 

[shinbits]

Good eyesight vs. blind. (Natural selection works)
Good eyesight vs. almost blind?
Good eyesight vs. very poor eyesight?
Good eyesight vs. poor?
Good eyesight vs. mediocre?

Where does the logic that makes natural selection work in extreme cases break down?

That's just it; in nature, it's not normally this extreme. If it was, I'd agree, but it's not. Most animals are born healthy.

In either case, the only traits being inherited are traits that the animal has always had.

Where this makes no sense is when we consider things like animals that evolve into birds, or animals said to be the first to walk on land; the belief that animals start to develop traits that it never had.

It is here that the biggest assumptions are made, and you are asked to just believe the assumptions to make evolution work.

This, is where that logic breaks down.

 

[gluadys]

You are free to disagree with my consideration, but as a Chriatian, can you quote Chapter and verse in the Bible that proves evolution is right and that I'm in error? Is not that how JESUS witnessed to the religious leaders of HIS day? Tell me if I'm wrong.....

The bible does not discuss evolution. Any reason why it should?

 

[SolitarySoul]

I won’t go into your post since it will only server to derail the discussion at hand but I am unable to ascertain your position from it. Do you have a problem with the TofE? If so, what specifically is the problem that makes you not accept the theory?

I believe in evolution to an extent. I believe that God changes us and develops the universe as time progresses, but I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys or anything like that. Again that is the whole point of my post above, I do not deny the evidence out there, I am not saying that they are making stuff up or saying that it is stupid without reason, you just have to take into account the way I vew the world, is my point.

 

[gluadys]

I have not been paying attention to the comments made much so I apologize if this is irrelevant, but you have to understand how a Christian views the world. Making our own observations and stating our conclusions as "fact" seems absurd to most Christians because in the Christian belief we are not in a place to be able to determine such a thing.

Please don't assume that most Christians find making observations and drawing conclusions as to fact from them is absurd. Most Christians consider this to be rational given the rationality of the God who created what we observe.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

That's just it; in nature, it's not normally this extreme. If it was, I'd agree, but it's not. Most animals are born healthy.

You’ve missed the point. The Point is that in an extreme case it is obvious because of the simple fact that it is extreme. The same exact principles that are obvious in the extreme example are still at work in the less extreme examples. I think you realize this and it is why you have avoided answering the question.

In either case, the only traits being inherited are traits that the animal has always had.

How can you say this after you have already shown a basic understanding of mutations? Why are you regressing now? You know fully well that mutations can change the traits passed on through reproduction. Is cognitive dissonance starting to play a role in this discussion?

Where this makes no sense is when we consider things like animals that evolve into birds, or animals said to be the first to walk on land; the belief that animals start to develop traits that it never had.

We are trying to be patient and take baby steps here shinbits. Once you have a solid basic understanding of the principles involved in the evolutionary process then we can buld upon them and eventually get to speciation and “macro”evolution. Just try and stick with the discussion at hand without regressing.

It is here that the biggest assumptions are made, and you are asked to just believe the assumptions to make evolution work.

This, is where that logic breaks down.

Once you understand the basic principles at work here we can then o onto the next step. Once you have an understanding of the entire process then you will see that there are no assumptions involved. The only reason you think they are assumptions at this point is because you are missing an understanding of the individual concepts that make evolution work. Let me try another analogy to help illustrate when I mean…

If you do not understand the basic principles of aerodynamics and lift then it would look like a lot of assumptions were made in describing how an airplane flies. It would be hard to explain to you how the irregular shape of the wing lifts the plane off the ground.

If you remain honest and continue to try and understand these basic principles involved in evolution you will eventually see that what you think are assumptions are actually rooted in empirical evidence.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I believe in evolution to an extent. I believe that God changes us and develops the universe as time progresses, but I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys or anything like that. Again that is the whole point of my post above, I do not deny the evidence out there, I am not saying that they are making stuff up or saying that it is stupid without reason, you just have to take into account the way I vew the world, is my point.

In most cases like yours I think that the individual hasn’t looked hard enough at the evidence at hand. I recommend you do some googling on ERVs and our broken vitamin c psudogene. I consider this line of evidence a smoking gun for our common ancestry with chimps.

 

[shinbits]

How can you say this after you have already shown a basic understanding of mutations? Why are you regressing now? You know fully well that mutations can change the traits passed on through reproduction.

I meant in the examples given, the only traits being passed were one's that already exist; meaning natural traits normally found in eagles. That's what I meant, and I meant that in reference to the examples given.

If you remain honest and continue to try and understand these basic principles involved in evolution you will eventually see that what you think are assumptions are actually rooted in empirical evidence.

okay.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I meant in the examples given, the only traits being passed were one's that already exist; meaning natural traits normally found in eagles. That's what I meant, and I meant that in reference to the examples given.

Okay, let’s try to stick to the example we’ve been running with then and tie it all together.

A pair of eagles has four offspring. One of the babies has a mutation that gives it poor eyesight. Initially this doesn’t matter since the mother eagle is bringing the babies food. Once the babies are old enough to leave the nest the one with the poor eyesight will have more trouble evading predators and hunting for food. This makes the one with the poor eyesight less likely to survive than the others, produce offspring, and be able to find enough food to feed the offspring so that they can survive. In this way, the detrimental mutation that gives the eagle poor eyesight never successfully propagates to each successive generation. Meanwhile, the eagles with good eyesight are more likely to be successful in evading predators, hunting for food, and providing for their offspring. Each generation of eagles that is born after these have a larger proportion of eagles with good eyesight than eagles with poor eyesight. Because the eagles with good eyesight have greater reproductive success then those genes eventually dominate the population of eagles as the generations pass by. Let me know if there is any part that you have a problem with.

 

[shinbits]

Let me know if there is any part that you have a problem with.

Only one thing, that's all.

If poor eyesight can come from a parent with good eyesight---such as the eagle in the example: then won't poor eyesight just show up again later in the lineage, even if only the birds with good eyesight reproduce?


This is my only question on that, and that's it.

 

[gluadys]

Only one thing, that's all.

If poor eyesight can come from a parent with good eyesight---such as the eagle in the example: then won't poor eyesight just show up again later in the lineage, even if only the birds with good eyesight reproduce?


This is my only question on that, and that's it.

Yes, it can. But the consequence will be the same. The eagle with poor eyesight will be less likely to pass on its genes to the next generation.

 

[shinbits]

I know I said I'd ask only one question, but there seems to be some natural follow-up questions.

Yes, it can. But the consequence will be the same. The eagle with poor eyesight will be less likely to pass on its genes to the next generation.

If poor eyesight can just happen again, what's the point of natural selection?