Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Polymath257]

God is not indifferent. He cares. And promises in the Bible to change the present human condition to something very good and wonderful. He doesn't need to depend on evolution to do it. Or humans.

A fine story. Now, what evidence do you have for it being true?

 

[Polymath257]

But then aren't you saying what's good and bad for you? Isn't that a bit subjective? According to evolution, since brains are supposedly evolved, do you think the way people and birds, monkeys, crocodiles, sharks act be considered either good or bad? Who makes those determinations? You? Or the crocodiles? Maybe the crocodile likes human flesh, you think? So chomping off a leg or two is good, not bad, to the croc.

Morality is a social construct. In particular, it comes about for humans because we are an intelligent, social species.

No, sharks, crocodiles, monkeys, etc cannot be considered to be either good or bad in themselves. *WE* are the ones that determine whether something is good or bad *for us*. And you are right, eating humans is not bad for the croc. The croc knows nothing different. But *we* decide, for our own preservation, to deal with the croc so it doesn't eat us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well here is the thing, my claim is and has always been that I can show that design is better than your naturalistic explanation.

Given that you haven't provided such naturalistic explanation, you can't accuse me for not supporting my claim.

At most you can accuse me for not following your rules.

Not to mention that I did answer to pollymath because he did provided a specific naturalistic explanation. So why cant you?

Then you are claiming that your belief is a worse explanation.

 

[leroy]

Then you are claiming that your belief is a worse explanation.

No that is not what I am claiming

 

[leroy]

Yes, no example of irreducible compexity has stood up. The problem is that the steps in 1 may be beneficial, but not all directed to the end result. And, in fact, eyes have evolved multiple times through different pathways with stages actually known and with few adaptive mutations required at each stage.

So which of those 2 premises would you say wrong?

1 if a" step" requires multiple (say 3) independent random mutations in order for an organism to get a selective benefit, the this step will never occure

2 at least some steps in say the evolution of the eye require multiple independent mutations.... Therefore the eye could have not evolved by a process of random mutations and natural selection.

 

[leroy]

But this is *exactly* what the research into abiogenesis is all about! There *are* mechanisms for organization to appear. For example, lipids will spontaneously form into spherical structures. Amino acids will spontaneously be produce in many types of chemical environments. And nucleic acids will also. Furthermore, in the right environments, they will spontaneously polymerize (which is what forms information).

You are, in essence, begging the question when you say there is no known way for life to appear. From what we have found, there very well may be. We just have to investigate more.



Robots and life are significantly different in that life is based on the chemical reactivity of its components. And that reactivity *does* produce spontaneous organization in many situations.

Yes, yes, but the point is that aminoacids do not naturally join and form proteins (let alone self replicating proteins) in the same way copper and iron do not naturaly produce robots.

All naturalistic hypothesis have mayor and fundamental problems,........ honestly what does it take to convince you that abiogebesis can't happen naturally? To me it seems that we live in a world where abiogebesis is clearly and unambiguously impossible (according to natural laws)

Sure you can say that you are still working and searching for answers. But the same thing can be said by YEC...... "We don't know yet what mechanisms caused accelerated decay in radioactive elements" but we are still searching for answers, (this would explain why rocks seem to be billions of years old even if they are just 6, 000yo)

 

[Wandering Monk]

God is not indifferent. He cares.

One word disproves this entirely: Holocaust

 

[Skwim]

Proper understanding says bats are not birds. Bats are said to fly. And it is said that they have wings. So if 94% of the Bibles use bird or fowl, does that mean that they are correct? Because they're not.

And this is exactly my point. These Bibles are wrong!

One of the mistakes in the Bible I refer to in my OP, which you cite, was that "bats are birds." But obviously you take exception to this or you wouldn't have bothered to bring up birds

"According to one Bible dictionary, the Hebrew in the section at Leviticus 11:13-19 speaks of collective flying creatures, fowl, insects. Hebrew: opf. Not just birds." ​

and trying to exonerate the bible by saying the verse wasn't only talking about birds (fowl) but insects as well. Well, as I see it your 6% doesn't justify your contention.

You brought it up about the bat thing and I checked. And to say that bats are birds because that is what 94% of the Bibles (you say) use that word instead of flying creatures does not mean that those translations are correct.

Bingo! These... translations... are... not... correct. .. And just because three bibles use "creatures" instead of "birds" or "fowl" certainly doesn't mean they imply insects as well, not when the VAST majority of the bibles, 96%, spell out what kind of creatures the Hebrews were talking about.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well here is the thing, my claim is and has always been that I can show that design is better than your naturalistic explanation.

Given that you haven't provided such naturalistic explanation, you can't accuse me for not supporting my claim.

At most you can accuse me for not following your rules.

Not to mention that I did answer to pollymath because he did provided a specific naturalistic explanation. So why cant you?

Originally, you claimed it was the best explanation for fine tuning. No qualifications. These came later when you realized you could not demonstrate your claim and desperately needed to find a way out without admitting the truth. Go back and look.

If your claim is valid, it will prevail over any other explanation, whether someone holds it or not. You are once again relying on dishonesty, because you got caught saying something you know is not true and were called on it.

You did not refute what @Polymath257 presented.

The bottom line is that you made a claim you cannot support, but refuse to be honest and admit that. Instead, you double down and falsely blame others for your failure. Not a Christian value I am familiar with. That falls under false witness. Something that is prohibited and to be avoided. Funny. You ran right to it like the safety of a dear friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No that is not what I am claiming

Really? That is what it sounded like to me. No evidence, no abilities to make useful predictions. It sounds just like a failed ad hoc explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, yes, but the point is that aminoacids do not naturally join and form proteins (let alone self replicating proteins) in the same way copper and iron do not naturaly produce robots.

All naturalistic hypothesis have mayor and fundamental problems,........ honestly what does it take to convince you that abiogebesis can't happen naturally? To me it seems that we live in a world where abiogebesis is clearly and unambiguously impossible (according to natural laws)

Sure you can say that you are still working and searching for answers. But the same thing can be said by YEC...... "We don't know yet what mechanisms caused accelerated decay in radioactive elements" but we are still searching for answers, (this would explain why rocks seem to be billions of years old even if they are just 6, 000yo)

Of course if you use a strawman it cannot happen naturally. You got your order wrong. Here is a hint, it is not the proteins that would have been the first self replicating molecules. In fact proteins still do not technically self reproduce. That tells us that you do not even understand current life.

 

[Polymath257]

So which of those 2 premises would you say wrong?

1 if a" step" requires multiple (say 3) independent random mutations in order for an organism to get a selective benefit, the this step will never occure

2 at least some steps in say the evolution of the eye require multiple independent mutations.... Therefore the eye could have not evolved by a process of random mutations and natural selection.

Both. First, you have to be *very* clear what you mean by the term 'independent'. Being independent in the sense of probability is going to be very rare. So, for example, if three mutations are required and need to be fixed in the population, the probability of a second mutation to be fixed may well be significantly increased when the first has already been fixed.

And second, I disagree that the mutations required for the development of eyes are independently *fixed* in the sense of probability So, for example, having an indentation in a photoreceptive area will make it far more likely to produce further indentation. Having photoreceptive cells will make it far more likely that those cells will connect to nearby neurons to send information.

The upshot is that independence in the sense of probability is going to be unlikely in any relevant evolutionary scenario.

Also, and this is often neglected in independence claims, having natural selection significantly changes the likelihood of having more than three beneficial mutations fix in a population.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, yes, but the point is that aminoacids do not naturally join and form proteins (let alone self replicating proteins) in the same way copper and iron do not naturaly produce robots.

Which is why it is significant that RNA does spontaneously form self-reproducing molecules. Again, the current best model says that amino acids and proteins were not initially dominant in the way they are today, which much catalysis based on RNA.

All naturalistic hypothesis have mayor and fundamental problems,........ honestly what does it take to convince you that abiogebesis can't happen naturally? To me it seems that we live in a world where abiogebesis is clearly and unambiguously impossible (according to natural laws)

Interesting. The research that has happened over the last 70 years or so has uniformly been seen that obstacles people thought were insurmountable are overcome spontaneously.

Sure you can say that you are still working and searching for answers. But the same thing can be said by YEC...... "We don't know yet what mechanisms caused accelerated decay in radioactive elements" but we are still searching for answers, (this would explain why rocks seem to be billions of years old even if they are just 6, 000yo)

Except that the YECs *don't* do any research and haven't made any progress in this regard. This is quite in opposition to what has happened in abiogenesis research.

 

[leroy]

Which is why it is significant that RNA does spontaneously form self-reproducing molecules. Again, the current best model says that amino acids and proteins were not initially dominant in the way they are today, which much catalysis based on RNA.



Interesting. The research that has happened over the last 70 years or so has uniformly been seen that obstacles people thought were insurmountable are overcome spontaneously.



Except that the YECs *don't* do any research and haven't made any progress in this regard. This is quite in opposition to what has happened in abiogenesis research.

I would say that the opposite is true, in the last 70 years or so, scientists have discovered that the problems and the obstacles are harder to solve and more abundant than previously thought.

 

[leroy]

Both. First, you have to be *very* clear what you mean by the term 'independent'. Being independent in the sense of probability is going to be very rare. So, for example, if three mutations are required and need to be fixed in the population, the probability of a second mutation to be fixed may well be significantly increased when the first has already been fixed.

And second, I disagree that the mutations required for the development of eyes are independently *fixed* in the sense of probability So, for example, having an indentation in a photoreceptive area will make it far more likely to produce further indentation. Having photoreceptive cells will make it far more likely that those cells will connect to nearby neurons to send information.

The upshot is that independence in the sense of probability is going to be unlikely in any relevant evolutionary scenario.

Also, and this is often neglected in independence claims, having natural selection significantly changes the likelihood of having more than three beneficial mutations fix in a population.

Ok since you disagree with both of the premises let's start with the first

The premise states that if an organism requires multiple independent mutations (say 3 mutations) in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection, then such step would not ocurre (atleast not by a process of random mutations)

So for example if an organism requires 3 mutations in order to become immune to an antibiotic then this organism will not become inmune to the antibiotic. (in this example having 1 or 2 mutations would be completely useless) you need all 3 mutations to gain a benefit.

Behe justify his claim as follows, his point is that 2 mutations are within a limit, (very improbable but possible) but 3 mutations would become impossible. So why is Behe wrong?

Recall that the odds against getting two necessary, independent mutations are the multiplied odds for getting each mutation individually. What if a problem arose that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complicated as a CCC? (Let’s call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 10^20 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 10^40 cells. Workers at the University of Georgia have estimated that about a billion billion trillion (10^30) bacterial cells are formed on the earth each and every year. … If that number has been the same over the entire several-billion-year history of the world, then throughout the course of history there would have been slightly fewer than 1040 cells, a bit less than we’d expect to need to get a double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the entire course of life on earth.

(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

 

[Polymath257]

Ok since you disagree with both of the premises let's start with the first

The premise states that if an organism requires multiple independent mutations (say 3 mutations) in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection, then such step would not ocurre (atleast not by a process of random mutations)

So for example if an organism requires 3 mutations in order to become immune to an antibiotic then this organism will not become inmune to the antibiotic. (in this example having 1 or 2 mutations would be completely useless) you need all 3 mutations to gain a benefit.

Behe justify his claim as follows, his point is that 2 mutations are within a limit, (very improbable but possible) but 3 mutations would become impossible. So why is Behe wrong?

(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

He is wrong in several different ways. First, the idea that the probabilities multiply is the *definition* of being independent in the sense of probability. But at no point does he demonstrate that the required mutations are independent in this sense.

Second, he gives a very distorted initial probability of a mutation (1 part in 10^20) which, I would assume uses an assumption of probabilistic independence to arrive at also.

In general, the probability of two events is the product of the two probabilities only when the presence of one has *in no way* an effect of whether the other happens. In particular, when changes happen in series, rather that simultaneously, the product of probabilities is very seldom the correct calculation to make (the actual calculation is much harder and requires the evaluation of the conditional probabilities).

This is precisely where many calculations attempting to discredit evolution fail.

As an example that I did for myself quite some time ago. Suppose that we have a target string of, say, 50 symbols, each of which can be one of 90 possibilities. The 'raw' probability of getting the correct string is then 90^50, which is about 5*10^97. So, the probability of a one-shot string to be correct is one part in 5*10^97, an incredibly small probability. If one attempt was made 1000 times a second, the time it would take to get a 'hit' would be much, much longer than the age of the universe.

But, suppose instead that we try to get the first symbol and once it is correct, we then try to get the second. And once those are correct, we try to get the third. In this case, the average number of attempts to get a 'hit' would be only 90*50=4500, which would give the result in 4.5 seconds.

A more refined model would be to have a population at each stage where mutations happen randomly in children and the 'best' children are selected to be the parents in the next generation. This tends to give numbers higher than the last model, but still well within the range of possibilities. For example, with 50 individuals in each generation, I was able to get a 'hit' within 200 generations, which is about 10000 individuals.

In the case of evolution, it is the calculation for probabilities is closer to the second and third method than the first. First, one mutation is found that is beneficial. That mutation stays around (is fixed) and the second mutation arises probabilistically. Once that is done, the third is the target (bad wording, but it shows what is needed for the probabilities).

Behe is using the incorrect calculation for the probabilities if he is attempting to model evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you are claiming that your belief is a worse explanation.

The 1969 Dodge Charger R/T is the best American car ever produced. Rather than support this in a reasonably expected way, I need you to make a claim about the best car ever produced in America. You can't say you don't know. I am looking for a way to argue without supporting my assertion. 'I don't know' would not give me the ways out I need to perpetuate this without a real defense of my position.

 

[ecco]

You couldn't understand why God would "allow and ... support awful actions". Because of your indoctrination, you couldn't even consider the possibility that there was no God and $hit Just Happens.

Instead, you go ask a bunch of people and finally, someone says something you can live with... "faith is a gift of the spirit". Wow.

Aren't you actually speaking of evolution,

What part of my comment are you referring to?

which apparently you don't like the outcome of.

Apparently? Based on what? That I realize that nature is not perfectly set up to accommodate my wishes and desires? How ridiculous.

*** Mod Edit ***

 

[ecco]

So why do you think horrible things happen? Evolution?

See above post #2538

 

[ecco]

A stranger in the shopping center parking lot was getting in her car today and said to me that the world was in a real mess. So do I have that correct about your statement, that the world being in the mess from evolution is fun?

If you thought I said, "the world being in the mess from evolution is fun", you have is a problem in reading comprehension.