What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Christian belief is very well justified. And that nothing is random is a natural and necessary outcome of Christian faith. And even of natural theology (no special revelation needed, just reason).

Quantum mechanics is random to us, humans. Not to God. But quantum mechanics as such is quite a good proof that materialism and all its atheistic implications have been wrong from the beginning.

Baseless claims are not very convincing.

 

[pitabread]

... I was hoping you might engage in a little thought experiment.

I'm just not understanding the point of said thought experiment. :/

 

[Resha Caner]

Trying to follow along...it appears what you are getting at is that complex organisms can emerge through horizontal gene transfer in no particular order. I.e. dinosaurs before fish, and without genetic inheritance, but more or less spontaneously out of a sufficiently complex existing gene pool. My apologies if this misses the mark, I've only had time to skim the conversation.

Generally speaking, yes. However, your examples would be more radical than anything I've proposed. Starting at the extreme end of the spectrum is a sure way to be ridiculed and rejected. I always knew that if I hoped to publish, the new content would need to be modest. That's my experience and observation with a number of different fields, not just biology.

As such, I planned a series of papers that gradually progressed toward my idea. However, I expected if I were to post the claims of my first paper here, people would be even more confused than they are now. It was far more technical and far less Internet-trolling-flame worthy than the typical dross posted at CF. I've already been asked several times, "How is this an alternative to evolution?", and what I've been talking about here is far more extreme than anything I ever actually put in my paper.

But, while I offered to post a claim and tests here, I've decided it's best if I pull back. So, I'll just post a brief summary (ha!) of my first paper and leave it at that. As to how that might apply to the further extrapolations you mention above, I'll leave to the imagination.

As I've been indicating, one of my exercises was to create axioms for biology. The reason for doing so was to establish a mathematical basis for certain biological concepts. As I said, when I first did this, I was not able to find such a mathematical basis. Biology does use mathematical models, but they vary widely in terms of fidelity and scope, and are rarely rooted in axioms of the type envied in physics. So, the intent of my first paper was to establish a mathematical basis for a few of these axioms.

My first attempt was to establish a formulation for the probabilities of the self-assembly of a chain of entities (the entities could be any biological unit - nucleotides, codons, proteins, cells, etc.). I derived a formula for a Markov chain where, given a set of rules for combination, one could calculate the probability of chains forming from those rules. Taking the G,C,A,T of DNA as an example, one can then calculate the probability of different codons forming from them. While this doesn't demonstrate any optimal state for 4 nucleotides, it does show that if a 5th nucleotide were available for creating codons, the likelihood of producing unique codons that differ from just using 4 is exponentially small.

The journal I was working with told me this derivation was not novel enough to warrant publication. I then turned to larger biological units and showed that, while you never achieve a probability of zero, the likelihood of such systems self-organizing is ridiculously tiny. What I further showed is that this difficulty could be overcome with nested hierarchies. I mathematically formulated a system that had the capability to self-organize via nested hierarchies, and showed the probability of this occurring was much higher than without nested hierarchies. The journal said that was an interesting result that had some merit, but that's where the conversation turned toward testing in a lab - something I related earlier.

I wish everyone well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Generally speaking, yes. However, your examples would be more radical than anything I've proposed. Starting at the extreme end of the spectrum is a sure way to be ridiculed and rejected. I always knew that if I hoped to publish, the new content would need to be modest. That's my experience and observation with a number of different fields, not just biology.

As such, I planned a series of papers that gradually progressed toward my idea. However, I expected if I were to post the claims of my first paper here, people would be even more confused than they are now. It was far more technical and far less Internet-trolling-flame worthy than the typical dross posted at CF. I've already been asked several times, "How is this an alternative to evolution?", and what I've been talking about here is far more extreme than anything I ever actually put in my paper.

But, while I offered to post a claim and tests here, I've decided it's best if I pull back. So, I'll just post a brief summary (ha!) of my first paper and leave it at that. As to how that might apply to the further extrapolations you mention above, I'll leave to the imagination.

As I've been indicating, one of my exercises was to create axioms for biology. The reason for doing so was to establish a mathematical basis for certain biological concepts. As I said, when I first did this, I was not able to find such a mathematical basis. Biology does use mathematical models, but they vary widely in terms of fidelity and scope, and are rarely rooted in axioms of the type envied in physics. So, the intent of my first paper was to establish a mathematical basis for a few of these axioms.

My first attempt was to establish a formulation for the probabilities of the self-assembly of a chain of entities (the entities could be any biological unit - nucleotides, codons, proteins, cells, etc.). I derived a formula for a Markov chain where, given a set of rules for combination, one could calculate the probability of chains forming from those rules. Taking the G,C,A,T of DNA as an example, one can then calculate the probability of different codons forming from them. While this doesn't demonstrate any optimal state for 4 nucleotides, it does show that if a 5th nucleotide were available for creating codons, the likelihood of producing unique codons that differ from just using 4 is exponentially small.

The journal I was working with told me this derivation was not novel enough to warrant publication. I then turned to larger biological units and showed that, while you never achieve a probability of zero, the likelihood of such systems self-organizing is ridiculously tiny. What I further showed is that this difficulty could be overcome with nested hierarchies. I mathematically formulated a system that had the capability to self-organize via nested hierarchies, and showed the probability of this occurring was much higher than without nested hierarchies. The journal said that was an interesting result that had some merit, but that's where the conversation turned toward testing in a lab - something I related earlier.

I wish everyone well.

There have been some major problems with your biology that have been pointed out. Your computer program would not match reality. In other words you would have GIGO embedded in the code of the program itself.

 

[GodsGrace101]

First, I apologise for my earlier snarkiness, something you said rubbed me up the wrong way but you have acted in a polite manner throughout the thread and it should be reciprocated.

In answer to your question, I would direct you to the fossil record. It may not be complete, but it certainly offers an overall view of the timescale and chronological order of the diversity of life.

View attachment 274519

All is good. No problem.

I don't even know why I participate (at times) in these discussions. I find it all very fascinating...but most are very scientifically inclined and I'm not, so I can understand how it must be difficult to read what I say.

I understand about the fossil record....I just don't see one animal becoming a different animal.

Look at the first skeletal elements...550 million yrs ago.

Then all of a sudden you see something that looks like fish...500 million yrs ago.

So, where are the skeletal bones of something in between? It seems like the Cambrian explosian just happened.

Then it says "reptiles diversifed"....do YOU know for sure that some kind of links of something inbetween were found? IOW,,, I'd like to see that.

and look at when man shows up...at the very end.

To me man is a special creature....
I do believe a superior and spiritual being must have had to plan all this.

I watched a very interesting video on YouTube this morning. It was about the :

How could something like this have happened on its own? It looks like a motor that man makes on a larger scale.

I'm not here to argue....we can all believe what we wish to....I can't believe this all happened by chance.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Nope that's not how scientific theories work; and what does Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with any of this?

I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....
Concept?
The concept of evolution.

And then when it's REALLY proven.....
Just EVOLUTION.

(just a thought)

 

[pitabread]

I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....
Concept?
The concept of evolution.

And then when it's REALLY proven.....
Just EVOLUTION.

Science doesn't deal with absolute proof, though.

Furthermore, there is a distinction between the process of evolution as it occurs in nature and the scientific explanation for our understanding of that process (e.g. the theory of evolution). So we have to be doubly careful that we don't confuse a natural process with the scientific explanation of that process.

 

[GodsGrace101]

So we both accept that polar bears and grizzly bears while different are unique variations on what was originally one population.

The same evidence that demonstrates that can be applied to more and more divergent life forms.

Humans and apes are the easiest to demonstrate given how detailed the genetic studies have been and how many varieties of extinct "missing links" (to use an archaic term) we have found.

The pattern of genetic similarity and the pattern of found extinct species line up to demonstrate all live on Earth descending from the same population. "Proving" it if you will.

By the same population I think you mean the one celled organism in the soup primordial.

Can YOU explain the cambrian explostion? I've been asking for this...it seems like life just boomed all of a sudden.

Science was looking for an answer as to how life began and Darwin seemed to have given the answer.
But he answered why species are different not HOW life began....he gave his theory and science just latched onto it. Some scientists have left this theory since they think it is not provable (or whatever that is called).

The evidence indicated that we have billions of years of a relatively stable Earth, so plenty of time for evolution.

I wonder how old you are.
I remember back in the 60's when it became apparent that the universe had a beginning, some scientists were rather alarmed because they thought that there was all eternity for species to change into something different and then realized they were not granted so much time and wondered if a few billion years would be enough since there was no life at all for the first 2 or 3 billion years (or more).

We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning... exactly how the circumstances and material that made that possible came about is a mystery and may in fact be unknowable.

What if it's still unknowable hundreds of years from now? Will scientists still be unwilling to CONSIDER an intelligent designer?

It seems to me like this idea (theory?) will never be accepted by science and I think it should be.

You seemed certain a moment ago about the beginning... now you acknowledge that our research can't go beyond the expansion of the Big Bang?

I accept that we should look for everything and then accept the answer, but if you find feathers, webbed foot prints and hear quacking... it's reasonable to accept that it's a duck before the X-Ray comes back to prove it isn't a robot.

I'm a believer in God and I do believe He created everything, somehow or other. I think we can't get beyond the BB because there was NOTHING before that.

I do believe that TIME was created at the same time as the universe...so how does one go back BEFORE TIME?

It's all interesting.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Science doesn't deal with absolute proof, though.

Furthermore, there is a distinction between the process of evolution as it occurs in nature and the scientific explanation for our understanding of that process (e.g. the theory of evolution). So we have to be doubly careful that we don't confuse a natural process with the scientific explanation of that process.

Could you please explain this better?
I don't know what you mean...
Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't think so. In fact I challenge you to support that with a valid source. In other words, citation needed.

Come on SZ....
That's like asking me to prove water is wet.

BEFORE the 60's it was thought that the universe ALWAYS existed...

Then it was found that it began, due to the expanding universe.

I'm SURE you must know about this.

 

[GodsGrace101]

History is full of examples where the understanding of humanity was found to be faulty.

Humans tend to try to prove what they believe as truth. Few truly test what they believe for truth.
But it is easier for humans to alter the truth to conform to their current beliefs, then it is to alter their current understanding to conform to truth.

The people that believed the world was flat were not ignorant people, their stumbling block was a lack of accurate information. But until that information was available, and for some, even after the information was available, a four wheel drive truck and a log chain could not pull that false understanding based upon a lack of information out of them.

My zeal was based upon growing spiritually tired of speculation and assumptions and theories.

THEORIES are for those that do not have all the facts. The man/woman staring down a rifle barrel that pulled the trigger and watched USA President J.F.K.'s head explode like a watermelon had no need of theory.

I tired of milk, and desired meat. I had hoped to find a similar individual with a similar appetite, but guess I have found myself in the wrong classroom. My apologies.

You can't expect a scientist that states he is atheist to believe that God created everything.

Do you realize how silly the O.T. sounds to those that do not believe?

Science will never know how the universe began because everything in it is too complicated --- but they will keep looking and this is only right...that's what science is all about anyway.

So far Genesis 1:1 has been confirmed even though they don't believe so...what comes next will be interesting --- and maybe nothing will come next...

 

[Resha Caner]

There have been some major problems with your biology that have been pointed out. Your computer program would not match reality. In other words you would have GIGO embedded in the code of the program itself.

That's a curious interpretation of our conversation.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That's the ID movement's marketing at work. ID proponents have positioned themselves as by challenging the status quo, they are the open-minded ones fighting against the close-minded mainstream.

In reality, when you examine their individual works and in particular their responses to criticisms of their own ideas, they seem anything but open-minded.



You need to understand that the ID movement carries a lot of political baggage with it, primarily from historical creationist activities in the U.S.

For a long time, creationists have sought to usurp the teaching of evolution in science classrooms, either removing it from the classroom and/or teaching Biblical creationism in its place. In 1987, there was a landmark ruling by the U.S. supreme court that declared that creationism was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in public schools as per the U.S. Constitution (Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia).

When Intelligent Design came along, creationists started pushing for it an alternative to evolution in the classroom, while at the same time avoiding references to creationism. This in turn led to more contentious issues within both the ID movement (not all of whom are traditional creationists) and of course between science and ID.

One of the largest ID organizations, the Discovery Institute, was revealed to be pushing for things far beyond just ID as a science; they have been pushing for cultural change in favor of Christian theocracy. This came out in the Dover trial of 2005 and the infamous "wedge document". You can read it here: The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education

Just this line, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" suggests their motivation is about far more than mere science.

Insofar as ID just as a science, they haven't really done anything worthwhile. There have been a couple proposed methods for detecting design in biological organisms that have been received, examined and ultimately rejected because they don't pass scientific muster.

So it's not so much a case of scientists rejecting ID for ID's sake. ID has been rejected because there is no real science to support it. If ID proponents want to change that, the onus is on them to bring something real to the table.

Which again goes back to the original premise in this thread.

Interesting post.
This morning I watched a video on YouTube that I believe @MIDutch recommended (or was it you?).
I watched it and it was very interesting.

I knew the first part because I'm American and am aware of what was going on...but the second part with the science showed some things I had never seen before.

It's almost unreal.

but...after dinner....

 

[46AND2]

Come on SZ....
That's like asking me to prove water is wet.

BEFORE the 60's it was thought that the universe ALWAYS existed...

Then it was found that it began, due to the expanding universe.

I'm SURE you must know about this.

Regardless of how old the universe is, evolution has been limited to how old THE EARTH is. And we have known that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old since the '50s.

And Darwin thought the earth was about 300 million years old.

So any change in philosophy about the nature of the universe that you seem to think has occurred (but really hasn't) IS IRRELEVANT. We were always limited by the age of the earth, not the age of the universe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....
Concept?
The concept of evolution.

And then when it's REALLY proven.....
Just EVOLUTION.

(just a thought)

It seems the scientific sense of the word has been in use for about 400 years

theory | Origin and meaning of theory by Online Etymology Dictionary

though, it's not clear when the more colloquial, soft, and informal version came into common usage.

 

[solid_core]

Baseless claims are not very convincing.

Exactly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....
Concept?
The concept of evolution.

And then when it's REALLY proven.....
Just EVOLUTION.

(just a thought)

You complain about someone bringing up the word theory that they abused and then you abuse the word "proof". In an absolute sense proof only occur in mathematics. But if your standard is the more common legal sense of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution definitely meets that criteria. By the legal definition it is more than proven. It is a cold hard fact. As you admitted you are not very science minded and that is probably why you do not understand how evolution has been proven.

There is a very good reason that creationists always lose in court. You might want to think about it. Even when they get what should be their ideal judge they still lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly.

Then please don't make any such claims in the future. You may have convinced yourself, but that is about as far as it goes. Also it helps to understand the difference between knowledge and belief. If one cannot support one's claims one only has beliefs. If one can support them properly then that person can claim to "know".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a curious interpretation of our conversation.

But a correct one. If one's model is not based upon reality it is not of much use in the science that one is trying to apply it to. You tried to sound "sciency" in your approach to the problem but many of your basic assumptions for your model were incorrect. That is why you would have GIGO (actually there should be a better acronym in this case, the important part if the GO) into your model. No matter what data you put in a bad model will only tend to generate garbage.

You mentioned that you were told that this sort of work would be appropriate for an undergrad project? That was almost certainly a polite way to tell you that you were very wrong. It could be used as an exercise in programming a biological concept, but since it had some basic errors in it it would never make it through peer review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't expect a scientist that states he is atheist to believe that God created everything.

Do you realize how silly the O.T. sounds to those that do not believe?

Science will never know how the universe began because everything in it is too complicated --- but they will keep looking and this is only right...that's what science is all about anyway.

So far Genesis 1:1 has been confirmed even though they don't believe so...what comes next will be interesting --- and maybe nothing will come next...

No, you are only reinterpreting Genesis 1:1 in light of our current knowledge. That does not mean that particular verse has been confirmed.