Enough Time for Evolution?

[savagewind]

The soup is interesting but it is only conjecture.
I have a white iron and a white mixer. They are about the same size. I picked the mixer up to place in the closet where I keep the iron and there the iron was. The mixer was not the iron but I thought it was. Thinking it was an iron did not make it an iron.

 

[savagewind]

Imagine if we treated computers he way some treat biological evolution.

"I do not understand how it works, so it does not exist"

I don't understand how it works so without my very smart husband I would not be here.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't understand how it words so without my very smart husband I would not be here.

And without some very smart biologists, we would have little understanding of biological evolution.

 

[savagewind]

And without some very smart biologists, we would have little understanding of biological evolution.

I have nothing at all against the study of biological evolution. I understand there are more instances of changes in the DNA than there are people who have ever lived. I just don't believe it is a good idea to write history if it is only conjecture.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have nothing at all against the study of biological evolution. I understand there are more instances of changes in the DNA than there are people who have ever lived. I just don't believe it is a good idea to write history if it is only conjecture.

Perhaps the biblical story of the Ten Plagues is conjecture.

Do you oppose common descent? Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry 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.

 

[Ouroboros]

Another point to these articles--unless someone else already brought this up--the research paper was making the claim that there were "plenty of time" while the critique is "no, there's not plenty of time." That doesn't mean there's not sufficient enough time.

Example.

Bob has dentist appointment at 10 AM. It takes him 20 minutes to get there.

Case A: It's 8 AM. There's plenty of time.

Case B: It's 9 AM. There's still plenty of time.

Case C: It's 9:30 AM. There's enough time, but cutting it short.

Case D: It's 9:40 AM. There's still enough time, but he better get into the car right now.

Case E: It's 9:50 AM. Sorry. Too late. Can't make the drive there in time.

The research paper makes the claim of case A or B. The critique says, "no, it's not case A or B."

Not surprisingly some people take this to mean that E is the only option left, but that's not true.

There's still enough time for evolution to happen, but if the critique is correct, it's just not plenty of time. Still there's sufficient time, like in case C and D.

Based on a response I got, I suspect some people misunderstood my post above.

In essence, what I'm saying is that the first report and the second critical report neither confirm or refute evolution. Report A says "There's plenty of time". Critique Report B says "No, there's not plenty of time." This means nothing since there was enough time for evolution to happen. We know it happened because of other evidence, not a "time calculation". Most likely there was more than enough, perhaps not plenty, but more than necessary for evolution to happen, because it did happen. And these two reports are just curious and interesting input on the sidelines.

 

[savagewind]

Perhaps the biblical story of the Ten Plagues is conjecture.

It absolutely is! It doesn't mean someone did not SEE those things happening in the spirit realm or for real. The Bible actually does claim many times it is about "incomplete information" . When many scientists teach do you ever hear them say "we don't know"? Or "this might be how it happened"? Or "If the circumstances were according to our (made up) model, these results are likely"? Or "Nobody knows for sure"? No, they talk like what they are saying is truth.

 

[Agnostic75]

It absolutely is! It doesn't mean someone did not SEE those things happening in the spirit realm or for real.

Nor does it mean that they did.

The Bible actually does claim many times it is about "incomplete information" . When many scientists teach do you ever hear them say "we don't know"? Or "this might be how it happened"? Or "If the circumstances were according to our (made up) model, these results are likely"? Or "Nobody knows for sure"? No, they talk like what they are saying is truth.

I am mainly interested in what you believe about evolution. Do you accept common descent?

 

[Alceste]

I have nothing at all against the study of biological evolution. I understand there are more instances of changes in the DNA than there are people who have ever lived. I just don't believe it is a good idea to write history if it is only conjecture.

God thing it's the most solidly evidenced theory in the history of science, then, and not "just conjecture".

 

[Alceste]

It absolutely is! It doesn't mean someone did not SEE those things happening in the spirit realm or for real. The Bible actually does claim many times it is about "incomplete information" . When many scientists teach do you ever hear them say "we don't know"? Or "this might be how it happened"? Or "If the circumstances were according to our (made up) model, these results are likely"? Or "Nobody knows for sure"? No, they talk like what they are saying is truth.

Wow - that is the complete opposite of true. Have a listen to an episode of quirks and quarks to get a sense of how scientists talk about their work. Their statements are absolutely riddled with those phrases.

 

[dust1n]

It absolutely is! It doesn't mean someone did not SEE those things happening in the spirit realm or for real. The Bible actually does claim many times it is about "incomplete information" . When many scientists teach do you ever hear them say "we don't know"? Or "this might be how it happened"? Or "If the circumstances were according to our (made up) model, these results are likely"? Or "Nobody knows for sure"? No, they talk like what they are saying is truth.

Things of this nature are stated multiple times by the professor in the Yale class I provided.

 

[Ouroboros]

When many scientists teach do you ever hear them say "we don't know"?

All the time. I even see that exact phrase here and there in scientific magazines.

Or "this might be how it happened"?

Quite a bit, actually. Scientists have to engage in guesses before they can establish a hypothesis. We even had a couple of classes in lab when this was the objective. Guess. Think of how it might have happened. Establish hypothesis. Create test cases for and against. Run tests. Improve hypothesis. And so on.

Or "If the circumstances were according to our (made up) model, these results are likely"? Or "Nobody knows for sure"?

Yes. That is said a lot.

No, they talk like what they are saying is truth.

Most of the time, yes, especially about the things we do know are true. When things are true we can talk about them as if they were true... just simply because they are. When they're not, an honest scientist would (or should) present it with qualifiers like "most likely", "probably", etc. (Which is part of the curriculum in Composition.)

Actually, the situation is reversed. Your post above is made to sound like you know the truth absolutely and undeniably. You just presented claims as ultimate truths about scientists in general and all-encompassing. You just did what you accused "them" of doing.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have nothing at all against the study of biological evolution. I understand there are more instances of changes in the DNA than there are people who have ever lived. I just don't believe it is a good idea to write history if it is only conjecture.

I agre. Which is why Biological Evolution and the Theory of Evolution rely on falsifiable and verifiable objective and empirical evidence rather than conjecture.

Conjecture would be to rely on unverifiable hearsay and literalistic interpretations of religious texts written by men who had no understanding of modern biology to form a basis for your scientific understandings.

 

[Ouroboros]

I just don't believe it is a good idea to write history if it is only conjecture.

The "conjecture" of biological evolution is established on very careful study of fossilized bones. You can tell a lot of things just from the skull. I spent two months learning how to read bones and skulls, and you can tell how we evolved from a creature that was nothing like our modern day human. Just a simple thing as the post-orbital constriction. Can you explain any "conjecture" from real artifacts showing the changes of it, changes that can be looked at and measured? What about the dental arcade and formula? Nasal passage? Changes to the ears? Zygomatic arch? Foramen magnum? Size and shape of skull? Changes to the skeletal structure? Muscle attachments? Brow bridges? Jaw lines? Brain size? Feet? Hands? And so on... Or... look at radiation of species? (Radiation as in distribution and expansion) And compare that to the movement of tectonic plates and how landmasses did connect in the past? Distribution of genetic traits through evolutionary change follows and compares to geology. How is that possible if it's not true? It's like God intentionally is trying to fool us and lie to us if he did this on purpose. God intentionally left millions of clues to evolution just to steer us of track and get us to believe against what the facts show us? Really? God is that mischievous and evil? I can't believe in a lying God. But I can believe in a God compatible with the evidence and reality.

 

[savagewind]

I watched the evolutionary biology lecture again. I was sure he said life evolved some years ago. What he actually said is "life originated about 3.6 to 3.9 billion years ago". You might say "see, he said about, so wind, you are wrong". He also said So-and-so published this biology tree "about" five years ago. Can "about" 3.6 to 3.9 billion years possibly mean anything else but so long ago "we don't know"? (35:39 stop). My point is after a certain age one cannot really for sure say anything about "when". But even though he is saying "about" his manner is saying it is true it is 3 to 4 billion years old. Since no one can really know that, then what you have is conjecture.

 

[Ouroboros]

I watched the evolutionary biology lecture again. I was sure he said life evolved some years ago. What he actually said is "life originated about 3.6 to 3.9 billion years ago". You might say "see, he said about, so wind, you are wrong". He also said So-and-so published this biology tree "about" five years ago. Can "about" 3.6 to 3.9 billion years possibly mean anything else but so long ago "we don't know"? (35:39 stop). My point is after a certain age one cannot really for sure say anything about "when". But even though he is saying "about" his manner is saying it is true it is 3 to 4 billion years old. Since no one can really know that, then what you have is conjecture.

No. Since they're making sure they include the whole range of error in measurement, it's not a conjecture.

It is between 3.6 to 3.9 billion years ago. It could be somewhat earlier than that too. It's an estimate. Like if someone asked you what time you left your house to go to the dentist. Was it 3:00 PM exactly? Or was it +/- 5 minutes? So between 2:55 and 3:05? Ah. It's a conjecture that you went to the dentist then!!! No. It's not. It's an estimate, not a conjecture.

I'm done now. Believe whatever you want, but I know for certainty that evolution happened. I'm more certain about it (based on the evidence I've seen and read) than I ever was about Jesus and Christianity. Even after spending 30 years trying to understand Christianity and only 4-5 years to understand evolution, evolution still wins hugely.

 

[savagewind]

No. Since they're making sure they include the whole range of error in measurement, it's not a conjecture.

It is between 3.6 to 3.9 billion years ago. It could be somewhat earlier than that too. It's an estimate. Like if someone asked you what time you left your house to go to the dentist. Was it 3:00 PM exactly? Or was it +/- 5 minutes? So between 2:55 and 3:05? Ah. It's a conjecture that you went to the dentist then!!! No. It's not. It's an estimate, not a conjecture.

Yes saying "about" is an estimate. Thank you. Is dah a swear? It is conjecture to know it is that old. The reason why is someone might have read the evidence wrong. It being so very very long ago, it is not possible to know how old. It would take about 125 years to count to four billion. Is that not so?

When I picked up the mixer I really thought it was an iron. I really did. I even brought it to the bedroom closet. My point? The evidence was in my hand yet I misread the facts. The fact is it was a mixer, not an iron.

OK Now we are talking about evidence that is far far removed from any living person, but you all trust you are reading the evidence perfectly all right.

 

[McBell]

But the problem is the argument in saying that it's "Not impossible" is presuming that it happened to get here without being Intelligently designed.

Actually, the problem is adding in the completely unnecessary assumption of "being intelligently designed".

What is your evidence of it having to be intelligently designed?

Wishful thinking that the burden of proof has been met, especially by a "Million fold". On the other hand, there have been many solid rebuttals to the "Science" involved, but it gets brushed off, handwaved, and misrepresented.

Really?
Many?
Solid?
Seems the wishful thinking is in your description of the rebuttals...

As the video above shows, many of the claims of Creationists regarding their skepticism ends up being quite founded, the issue is whether others will be willing to admit it. It's a matter of interpretation of this so-called evidence, and that's where the SH%# often begins to fly.

More wishful thinking.
And yet another popular dishonesty tactic by creationists.

Well if you want to take a crack at what it actually says instead of discussing general issues about the evolution debate, have at it. No need to be a biologist to take issue with something that's actually in the text. Just try to not misrepresent it. But if you don't feel qualified to discuss the Review, or the Paper it's critiquing, I can respect that if you want to just spectate.

 

[savagewind]

I personally do not believe enough time is allowed for all the coincidences necessary for life. I do not know how old life is. I cannot guess if it is 6000 years old like many people believe of a million or four billion. I think it is presumptuous of both sides to assume I should read the evidence the same way they do. Someone asked if I agree all life came from one common ancestor. No I do not agree or disagree because I do not know. Neither the bible or the physical evidence is convincing me to know how old. Since I cannot know, I cannot agree. Someone said jokingly that perhaps everything sprung up out of nothing some little time ago but that is a good point. I DON'T KNOW. Am I OK that I do not know? Yes, I am. Am I OK with one side saying 4 billion and one side saying 6000 years? I guess so.

 

[Alceste]

Yes saying "about" is an estimate. Thank you. Is dah a swear? It is conjecture to know it is that old. The reason why is someone might have read the evidence wrong. It being so very very long ago, it is not possible to know how old. It would take about 125 years to count to four billion. Is that not so?

When I picked up the mixer I really thought it was an iron. I really did. I even brought it to the bedroom closet. My point? The evidence was in my hand yet I misread the facts. The fact is it was a mixer, not an iron.

OK Now we are talking about evidence that is far far removed from any living person, but you all trust you are reading the evidence perfectly all right.

Except that it isn't conjecture. The evidence we currently have is not sufficient to narrow down any further, but it IS sufficient to say 3.6 - 3.9 billion years. That's why he puts it that way: scientists generally will not make claims that are not supported by evidence. If he had been more specific he would be making a claim that is not supported by evidence.

3.6-3.9 billion is not just his personal opinion. That's a science course at Yale, for heaven's sake. How on earth could he even get that job if he was just going to make stuff up on the spot?