Enough Time for Evolution?

[Revoltingest]

At least they're honest that they want us to believe in a series of extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely coincidences. And they accuse religious people of having blind faith. I'd have better odds of going to Vegas and getting Royal Flushes on every hand.

Please show me your probability calculations behind this claim.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The funny thing about it is this to believe in evolution is to believe in coincidence. Right conditions. Right building blocks. Right stamina. Right duplication and on and on many times. Too many to count.
Now we see a similarity in the structure of two very different organisms. It cannot be a coincidence. Surely the only reason they share a similar trait is because they have the same beginning.

Except its not. Everything about evolution is a process. Is some luck involved? Yes. But its a process that works and has worked and is currently observed in action. It is not some random coincidence that everything happened. It is all the result of a process.

And you need to read up on evolution more. The claims you are making now are greatly misrepresenting evolution and it seems to be comming from a point of ignorance. Either ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Agnostic: You're looking for the thread about the concept of ID as a scientifically accepted theory among mainstream (generally Atheist) scientists, please keep your issues on topic and in direct reference to the actual points in the Review, thanks.

But whoever the speaker was in the video that you mentioned accepts common descent, not intelligent design. Over 99% of experts accept common descent, and reject intelligent design.

One study showed that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

How do you account for the fact that the majority of Christian biologists accept common descent?

Do you know what intelligent design is in the context of debates between experts? Consider the following:

The Flagellum Unspun

Of all these examples, the flagellum has been presented so often as a counter-example to evolution that it might well be considered the "poster child" of the modern anti-evolution movement. Variations of its image (Figure 1) now appear on web pages of anti-evolution groups like the Discovery Institute, and on the covers of "intelligent design" books such as William Dembski's No Free Lunch (Dembski 2002a). To anti-evolutionists, the high status of the flagellum reflects the supposed fact that it could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary pathway.

In any discussion of the question of "intelligent design," it is absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself. If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along with many scientists. As H. Allen Orr pointed out in a recent review:

"Plenty of scientists have, after all, been attracted to the notion that natural laws reflect (in some way that's necessarily poorly articulated) an intelligence or aesthetic sensibility. This is the religion of Einstein, who spoke of "the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence" and of the scientist's 'religious feeling [that] takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law.'" (Orr 2002).

This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.

Certainly, the issue of design and purpose in nature is a philosophical one that scientists can and should discuss with great vigor. However, the notion at the heart's of today intelligent design movement is that the direct intervention of an outside designer can be demonstrated by the very existence of complex biochemical systems. What even they acknowledge is that their entire scientific position rests upon a single assertion – that the living cell contains biochemical machines that are irreducibly complex. And the bacterial flagellum is the prime example of such a machine.

Such an assertion, as we have seen, can be put to the test in a very direct way. If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether. A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear.

As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen. The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.

When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak.

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

You asked people to critique your video, so I am asking you to critique Miller's entire article on the flagellum.

Why are you spending your time debating laymen when you could be debating experts at Physics Forums? Are you actually expecting to overturn the overwhelming evidence supports common descent? Are you prepared to submit a peer reviewed paper on common descent. Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Are you presuming to lecture Behe about common descent? Just like the speaker in the video that you mentioned, Behe accepts common descent, and only disagrees with Darwin about the mechanism that explain it.

The fact that laymen at this forum might not be able to adequately answer some of your questions means nothing since thousands of experts could ask you questions that you would not be able to adequately answer.

 

[savagewind]

Except its not. Everything about evolution is a process. Is some luck involved? Yes. But its a process that works and has worked and is currently observed in action. It is not some random coincidence that everything happened. It is all the result of a process.

And you need to read up on evolution more. The claims you are making now are greatly misrepresenting evolution and it seems to be comming from a point of ignorance. Either ignorance or dishonesty.

Seeing that we are not talking about the same thing but you believe you are, it is you who is being "dishonest". Isn't it?

 

[savagewind]

It is all the result of a process

The process requires the right conditions, the right building blocks, the right stamina and the right duplication. Too bad you do not like it because it is true. Nothing would have developed without the right conditions, building blocks, stamina and duplication.

 

[LuisDantas]

The funny thing about it is this to believe in evolution is to believe in coincidence. Right conditions. Right building blocks. Right stamina. Right duplication and on and on many times. Too many to count.
Now we see a similarity in the structure of two very different organisms. It cannot be a coincidence. Surely the only reason they share a similar trait is because they have the same beginning.

What you are proposing is the Anthropic Principle. There are quite a few threads about it around. Try this one, for instance.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/139358-anthropic-principle.html

I suppose it may look convincing to some people, but it sure doesn't to me. There is far too much evidence that the "right conditions" are just a trick of perception. To my eye at least, the universe / life / DNA / vertebrates / primates / the human beings are most definitely not intentionally designed; they are simply way too flawed for me to take such a statement seriously.

In any case, it is just a matter of aesthetics.

 

[Twilight Hue]

At least they're honest that they want us to believe in a series of extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely coincidences. And they accuse religious people of having blind faith. I'd have better odds of going to Vegas and getting Royal Flushes on every hand.

The probability schitck again.......

I cast unlikely odds each time I make rice!

 

[savagewind]

What you are proposing is the Anthropic Principle. There are quite a few threads about it around. Try this one, for instance.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/139358-anthropic-principle.html

I suppose it may look convincing to some people, but it sure doesn't to me. There is far too much evidence that the "right conditions" are just a trick of perception. To my eye at least, the universe / life / DNA / vertebrates / primates / the human beings are most definitely not intentionally designed; they are simply way too flawed for me to take such a statement seriously.

In any case, it is just a matter of aesthetics.

OK

 

[LuisDantas]

The process requires the right conditions, the right building blocks, the right stamina and the right duplication. Too bad you do not like it because it is true. Nothing would have developed without the right conditions, building blocks, stamina and duplication.

So what? It did not develop in a whole lot of the Universe where the conditions were not true, and it is not really all that perfect or stable here, either.

Nor is there any particular reason to believe or expect the way it happened here to be the only way that it could happen.

Everything, from the precarious ecological balance of living beings, to the predatory nature of most, to the natural occurrence of genetic anomalies and diseases such as anencephaly, indicates quite fiercely that life was not at all meant to be. It just happened.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK

What is surprising you?

 

[Revoltingest]

The probability schitck again.......
I cast unlikely odds each time I make rice!

Probability is a very useful tool.
I just never see it applied rigorously to abiogenesis.

 

[Shermana]

Please show me your probability calculations behind this claim.

First some from Creationists, and then from an anti-Creationist who still is religious.

A Look at Some Figures - Answers in Genesis

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-9-argument-probability-of-evolution

There are many variables involved in calculating such a number, such as with this Theistic-Evolutionist who is against Creationist arguments, who says that probability may not be such a problem:

http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

However, the following is correct that numerous mathematicians don't buy it as being anywhere close to realistically happening. And this would be an area where Biological speculation must meet Mathematical plausibility in order to be taken seriously, at least in my opinion.

[youtube]ai-DXFXZr8s[/youtube]
Statistical Probability of Evolution challenged - YouTube

 

[Revoltingest]

First a link from Creationists, and then from an anti-Creationist who still is religious.

A Look at Some Figures - Answers in Genesis

There are many variables involved in calculating such a number, such as with this Theistic-Evolutionist who is against Creationist arguments, who says that probability may not be such a problem:

http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

However, the following is correct that numerous mathematicians don't buy it as being anywhere close to realistically happening. And this would be an area where Biological speculation must meet Mathematical plausibility in order to be taken seriously, at least in my opinion.

[youtube]ai-DXFXZr8s[/youtube]
Statistical Probability of Evolution challenged - YouTube

He is correct that

Before I read these assignments, & since you were the one making the claim, I'd like to see your calculations.

 

[Shermana]

The probability schitck again.......

I cast unlikely odds each time I make rice!

I've had success at a 99/100 ratio with making rice, and the only failure is when I didn't add enough water or when I got too engrossed on the computer while it was boiling.

 

[outhouse]

First some from Creationists, and then from an anti-Creationist who still is religious.

The vid is horribly inaccurate, and has ZERO credibility.


Evolution is not up for debate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Seeing that we are not talking about the same thing but you believe you are, it is you who is being "dishonest". Isn't it?

Uh...no? Misrepresentation of evolution is a dishonest thing to do if you actually have knowledge of how it works. If you are ignorant of how it works then ti ceases to be dishonest and then just becomes ignorant.

 

[outhouse]

I've had success at a 99/100 ratio with making rice, and the only failure is when I didn't add enough water or when I got too engrossed on the computer while it was boiling.

Should you stick too cooking then?

Your failure to accept credible science is noted.

 

[savagewind]

What is surprising you?

I do not understand anything can happen under unfavorable conditions. If a chemical reaction needs heat, if it it cold it will not work. Building blocks must be near each other to unite. If they are away from each other they cannot combine. If the union is weak the bond will separate. If all the conditions are right even then the organism must duplicate which is no simple thing imo.

 

[Agnostic75]

At least they're honest that they want us to believe in a series of extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely coincidences. And they accuse religious people of having blind faith. I'd have better odds of going to Vegas and getting Royal Flushes on every hand.

"Unlikely coincidences"? What is unlikely about theistic evolution? If God chooses to take a long time to develop various species, that is his choice. If he chooses to kill humans and innocent animals with hurricanes, that is also his choice.

What is unlikely about the probability that intelligent design, and irreducible complexity cannot adequately explain the evolution of the flagellum, at least in the opinions of most experts?

Do you understand Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun.

At this time, with no preparation, would you be able to get an A, or a B, on a first year of college biology final exam? What is your academic background in biology?

What convinced the majority of Christian biologists that common descent is true?

The judge at the Dover trial is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president. He said that while creationism might be true, science cannot reasonably prove that, and that such being the case, intelligent design is creationism in disguise, and thus violates the separation of church and state. It has been proven beyond any doubt that some creationists change their wording of "creationism" to "intelligent design" in order to try to introduce creationism in disguise into public schools.

 

[savagewind]

Uh...no? Misrepresentation of evolution is a dishonest thing to do if you actually have knowledge of how it works. If you are ignorant of how it works then ti ceases to be dishonest and then just becomes ignorant.

I know people who can hear only what they want to hear. And it seems to me that you have that characteristic. I have said many times I understand natural selection. I believe variations are passed down to offspring. I am not an evolutionary scientists but you will be content only when I say OMG life doesn't need a creator/plan/design.