Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Guy Threepwood]

aside from the fact that monkeys can use sign language and can make sentences, I don't think that this is even a fair analogy.

I mentioned evolutionary development before, but the probability of a human being losing their pinky toe is greater than the probability that they lose their middle toe. It isn't purely random, there's this particular pattern in how species evolve over millions of years, that reflects a pre existing "recipe" of a sort, of their particular DNA.

I mentioned frogs having five fingers and toes just like a person. Well we can look at another example of a horse and its evolution. We see certain digits becoming fused in a particular order over time to become the modern horse from something which historically had five fingers and toes.

It isn't completely random that the pinky toe of the horse fuse to the main foot prior than the middle toe. The functional change that occurred in this case, was more of a product of a larger pre-existing genetic blue print, of a sort.

I think that adds to the evidence for predetermination, designs which demonstrate a capacity for anticipation- as the foundation of a building. As opposed to an unplanned pattern- where 'nature' alone would be perfectly happy with a world dominate by bacteria, or nothing- yet it ended up with a means of contemplating it's own existence- The monkeys typing War and Peace is more impressive than 'all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy' over and over again for that reason.

 

[pitabread]

Does science support Christ’s resurrection?

Clearly not.

But if you're trying to argue that in the context of a literal 6 day creation, the only thing to fall back on is that the universe is inherently deceptive.

 

[Speedwell]

Does science support Christ’s resurrection?

No, and it doesn't deny it, either. There is no empirical evidence on which to do so.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I never really understood this argument. Creationists who make these probability arguments are saying that 'X happening via method Y is too improbable, therefore it must have happened via some other method'. So this objection really doesn't make sense.

If someone told a gambler in a casino who had won hundreds of times in a row that his results were too improbable and he must have been cheating, and then he said 'Actually, since it already happened, it had a 100% probability of happening', would that suddenly make it not suspicious?

I mean the probability arguments are wrong for other reasons, but not this one.

If I am not mistaken, the idea is like dealing a hand of cards. Any given arrangement of cards has a probability of 1/(8x10^67). Once you lay them out, you can say that the odds of it happening is 1/(8x10^67) but one cannot say that it could not happen. What are the probabilities that you have the arrangement you are looking at? 1/1.

The open question then is what dealt the arrangement we see of the universe? Did a god? A multiverse? But the deck is dealt.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My experience with such probabilities is that they don't actually taken into account a chemical/biochemical process. If we're dealing with a process occurring under specific conditions, such a assembly of amino acids or whatever may not be as much an improbability as an inevitability. Biochemistry itself is not strictly random.

As well, the probability space of viable outcomes isn't fully known. Using the deck of cards example, a royal flush isn't the only viable poker hand. There are numerous other viable poker hands that could result from a random draw. But unlike a deck of cards, we just don't know what that space fully looks like when it comes to viable organic molecules.

This is why probability calculations declaring the impossibility of natural formation of organic molecules aren't that useful.

(Not to mention the basic fact that post hoc probabilities are irrelevant to begin with. Once something has occurred, the probability of occurrence is 1.)

Right, once the guy plays 4 royal flushes, the probability that he did so is 1

The question remains unaltered, by chance or design?

we agree life happened!

But same response as before; if you propose that the typewriter was somehow constrained to type War and Peace, no matter what keys the monkeys hit, you are just shifting the explanation elsewhere.
The same argument is used to say that the laws of nature were constrained to produce a life sustaining universe- how? why?

The fact remains, there are an infinite number of universal constant values, sequences of playing cards, characters in a sentence or amino acids, DNA sequences that would specify nothing beyond a random sequence-

So where they do not, we need a better explanation

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that adds to the evidence of predetermination, designs which demonstrate a capacity for anticipation- as the foundation of a building. As opposed to an unplanned pattern- where 'nature' alone would be perfectly happy with a world dominate by bacteria, or nothing- yet it ended up with a means of contemplating it's own existence- The monkeys typing War and Peace is more impressive than 'all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy' over and over again for that reason.

I think that this is fine, but I wouldn't try taking stabs at biology to reach this conclusion. I think it's more reasonable to embrace patterns observed by natural means and to say, I think that this resembles an act of God.

Some Christians want to take stabs. They want to break science down with arguments relating to a lack of fossils or they want to come up with somewhat vague arguments about "information".

But I think that all of these stabs are a weakness. Because the moment anyone stabs at the fossil record, another fossil is found. The moment a stab is taken at EvoDevo, some other biological pattern and explanation is observed.

Rather than taking stabs at science, I think that as Christians we should embrace the science, while still suggesting the idea that God can use natural processes to do things.

Whether there is a fossil record or not is irrelevant to things. Because God can use natural mechanisms. And biologists these days recognize pattern producing mechanisms. And so, I don't think we need to take stabs at science to reach our position.

These are philosophical ideas more than scientific ones.

 

[Speedwell]

Right, once the guy plays 4 royal flushes, the probability that he did so is 1

The question remains unaltered, by chance or design?

we agree life happened!

But same response as before; if you propose that the typewriter was somehow constrained to type War and Peace, no matter what keys the monkeys hit, you are just shifting the explanation elsewhere.
The same argument is used to say that the laws of nature were constrained to produce a life sustaining universe- how? why?

We are actually trying to explain that to you; you seem impervious.

The fact remains, there are an infinite number of universal constant values, sequences of playing cards, characters in a sentence or amino acids, DNA sequences that would specify nothing beyond a random sequence-

So where they do not, we need a better explanation

If so, you don't have one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you believe in Christ’s resurrection?

No, not as a literal event. I think it's a metaphor reused from the myths and stories of earlier religious belief systems.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If I am not mistaken, the idea is like dealing a hand of cards. Any given arrangement of cards has a probability of 1/(8x10^67). Once you lay them out, you can say that the odds of it happening is 1/(8x10^67) but one cannot say that it could not happen. What are the probabilities that you have the arrangement you are looking at? 1/1.

The open question then is what dealt the arrangement we see of the universe? Did a god? A multiverse? But the deck is dealt.

agreed

several royal flushes suggest cheating, not because the result is any more improbable than any other, but because there is now a less improbable explanation than chance.

 

[Speedwell]

agreed

several royal flushes suggest cheating, not because the result is any more improbable than any other, but because there is now a less improbable explanation than chance.

What is it? I gather that you don't mean the theory of evolution, even though that is also a less improbable explanation than "chance."

 

[BNR32FAN]

Clearly not.

But if you're trying to argue that in the context of a literal 6 day creation, the only thing to fall back on is that the universe is inherently deceptive.

based on what we know at this moment

 

[BNR32FAN]

Clearly not.

But if you're trying to argue that in the context of a literal 6 day creation, the only thing to fall back on is that the universe is inherently deceptive.

Im just curious, were the laws of gravity inherently deceptive before people knew the earth was a sphere, or did people just have incomplete data to properly understand it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is it? I gather that you don't mean the theory of evolution, even though that is also a less improbable explanation than "chance."

There are many theories of evolution, the defining characteristic of Darwin's is chance

All others include natural selection also, natural selection is a given, it would act upon animals leaving the ark- it's a moot point.

The difference is in how novel design is introduced, Darwinism leaves this entirely to blind luck, no way around that

 

[Speedwell]

There are many theories of evolution, the defining characteristic of Darwin's is chance

All others include natural selection also, natural selection is a given, it would act upon animals leaving the ark- it's a moot point.

The only question is how novel design is introduced, Darwinism leaves this entirely to blind luck, no way around that

Define "novel design" and give an example.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Define "novel design" and give an example.

new information specifying new biological form, almost anything you see in the Cambrian explosion required input of new information to describe the new biological forms.

the origin of new information according to Darwinism is through random mutation. Everything else merely involves some form of selection process of this new information

 

[Speedwell]

new information specifying new biological form, almost anything you see in the Cambrian explosion required input of new information to describe the new biological forms.

That's not really very specific by way of an example. The only really 'new' characteristic of the Cambrian "explosion" was the development of body parts capable of fossilization.

the origin of new information according to Darwinism is through random mutation. Everything else merely involves some form of selection process of this new information

Mutation expressed as random variation. Looks like you've missed something.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not really very specific by way of an example. The only really 'new' characteristic of the Cambrian "explosion" was the development of body parts capable of fossilization.

oh nothing much then !

Mutation expressed as random variation. Looks like you've missed something.

sure if you want to put it that way.


So take 10000 monkeys and have them each hit 10000 random keys on their typewriter (to use the traditional analogy)

Now simply select the most witty, entertaining, moving story among them and apply more random changes to that until you have a best seller.

Why would this not work?

 

[Job 33:6]

new information specifying new biological form, almost anything you see in the Cambrian explosion required input of new information to describe the new biological forms.

the origin of new information according to Darwinism is through random mutation. Everything else merely involves some form of selection process of this new information

Did you know that the appearance of the majority of genus observed in earth today, actually either pre-date or post date (by over 100 million years) the Cambrian explosion, or have disputed pre-cambrian precursors? Let me see if I can find my excel spread.

 

[Speedwell]

oh nothing much then !

Nothing not built on what came before.

sure if you want to put it that way.

That's the way the theory of evolution puts it. Think about it; maybe the penny will drop.

So take 10000 monkeys and have them each hit 10000 random keys on their typewriter (to use the traditional analogy)

Now simply select the most witty, entertaining, moving story among them and apply more random changes to that until you have a best seller.

Why would this not work?

It's not a particularly apt analogy for evolution, but I gather it's been computer modeled.

 

[Shemjaza]

As I said, this was merely to point out that the pattern in the fossil record itself, is in no way specific to naturalistic v creative mechanisms. (no need to mention God here)

But 'What would God do?' is a very subjective question. Cleary 'imperfection' is an inherent and necessary part of being human.
As for nested hierarchies- this is inherent in self replication, many are looking at designing machines which can gather their own resources and replicate- in some cases as a way to 'colonize' the galaxy with scouts for inhabitable planets etc- these would also be constrained to nested hierarchies to a large degree.

Then you also have things like orphan genes/ independent development of features using the same DNA. which could be used to argue against nested hierarchies being an 'immutable' law'.

is it demanded by the evidence- or just by the theory?

Why is 'imperfection' an inherent and necessary part of being human?



I agree that nested hierarchies- this is inherent in self replication... unless there were creative mechanisms involved.

Even if the Intelligent Designer was constrained by common descent as yours appears to be, they aren't obliged to re-invent the wheel as they modify their life forms. They can introduce their new designs and techniques at later stages. Also they could clean up orphan genes and other remnants if they choose.