Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Autodidact]

Perfectly clear. But can you just explain in a bit more detail what you mean by the sentence Evolution is not the theory that there is no God. Just before I go on...

Yes, and this is an important point. Science is nuetral regarding the question of God, because science is not about God; it's about the natural world. The theory that there is no God is called Atheism. It is not a scientific, but a philosophical theory. It may (or may not) use scientific findings or anything else it finds relevant, but it is not itself a scientific theory. Germ theory is not the theory that rather than disease being caused by God or demons, it is caused by germs. Germ theory is a theory about germs and disease. If you believe that God created the world, then you believe He created germs and a world with germs in it. Your theology may (or may not) take this into account. But Germ theory, tectonic theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory are not theories about God or not God.

So the response, "God did it," is never a response to whether ToE is correct or not.

For that reason, we can proceed on the mutual assumption, for the purpose of this thread, that God created all things. If you believe that God created all things, then science studies how He did so, not whether.

Or, to put this all more simply, it's not about who, it's about how.

I would appreciate it if I did not have to repeat this. My experience with creationists is that they are almost impervious to learning, and I find myself repeating the same simple concepts over and over, which is tedious. If you have more questions about this, please ask them now so we can move on.

btw, this is the sort of elementary knowledge about science one needs to have an intelligent discussion about it. The fact that creationists don't know this kindergarten stuff is why some of us find it frustrating to talk to them. You find yourself trying to fight against ignorance as an affirmative argument. I hope you agree that ignorance is not an effective argument.

 

[Autodidact]

It seems to me that the goal posts keep getting moved when it comes to the definition of evolution. It seems very flexible to fit whatever you need it to.

Also, "The theory is correct whether or not God created the earth, so we can proceed on the working assumption that God created all things." This is Deism, which is the belief that there is a God who made the world but does not influence human lives. And the ToE isn't. It does not allow for this possiblilty.

Before you get to the philosophical implications of the fact that ToE is correct, you first need to understand it. ToE is not a theory about God at all, Deist, Christian or other. It's a theory about the natural world.

What science does is to apply a method and follow it where it leads, without preconceptions about the philosophical implications. It sounds like you're afraid to do that, because it may lead to a change in your theology. That's your prerogative, but think about the implications.

First, you're retreating from scientific knowledge into ignorance, giving up the hope of further scientific progress, or at least, of participating in it. One result of that is that science will only be done by non-Christians.

Another is that it reveals your own lack of faith. If you really knew that God created all things, you would be willing to study His works, strong in the faith such study would lead you back to God. If you're afraid to study God's works, it sounds to me like you're not so sure about your God.

I can recommend a couple of strong Christian pro-science guys that will help you. One is Dr. Kenneth Miller, an eminent Biologist and devout Christian. Another is Dr. Francis Collins,director of the human genome project, who believes that DNA provides evidence for God. Finally, every YEC, needs to read Glenn Morton. He's a geologist, but if you read nothing else on this subject, read this.

This is a quote from a book called '99% Ape - How Evolution adds up" Page 20: "The reason why natural selection was such a revolutionary idea was because it explained how living beings that contain complicated structures, which look as though they must be designed by an intelligent and skilled designer, can in fact arise without any supernatural intervention. This new concept turned on its head the argument that Darwin had read and accepted as a student. Now, the many wonderful biological mechanisms that Reverend William Paley described in Natural Theology were no longer evidence of the divine, supernatural design, but of an entirely natural process operating without any guidance from above."
Also on page 194: "...special creation cannot be accepted as an alternative sceintific theory on an equal footing to modern evolutionary theory, and so it has no legitimate place in any science classroom."
All this from a theory which says nothing about God? :sarcastic

Yes. Special creation is an hypothesis about the natural world, and it is incorrect. And yes, it is true that ToE also works without God. It works either way. That's because it's science. Science always works either way. btw, you might want to actually read that book, I think you would find it helpful and informative.

In addition, if the ToE has nothing to say about a creator God, why do so many of its text books have paragraphs or chapters dedicated to disproving the existance of God? That goes for the book I took those quotes from too.:sarcastic

Read it again; it does no such thing. I challenge you to find a single Biology textbook that denies the existence of God. There isn't one. You're wrong. You don't even know what science is; how can you expect to discuss it intelligently?

 

[Autodidact]

That's rubbish. Have another read.

No, you're spouting rubbish. Maybe before we get to the Theory of Evolution, we need to talk more about science, what it is and what it isn't.

btw, are you in favor of science or opposed to it?

 

[Autodidact]

Whatever dude.:thud:

Displaying the typical creationist cavalier disregard for the truth. I think it's time to change your username, Atruthseeker. Maybe something like Prefersacomfortablelie.

 

[Jose Fly]

Atruthseeker,

Do you think chemistry = "there is no god"? What about plate tectonics? What about erosion?

All of those things explain how certain things come to be, yet none of them make any mention--one way or the other--of any gods.

 

[fantome profane]

Whatever dude.

Truly pathetic.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Atruthseeker]

Truly pathetic.

Ain't nothing like not winning an argument!:run:

 

[McBell]

Ain't nothing like not winning an argument!:run:

I agree.
Now if only you would actually present one....

 

[Atruthseeker]

I agree.
Now if only you would actually present one....

Uh...ok...Goddidit and there is proof everywhere in nature!

Actually an mate of mine said this: I have to admit that a person can win the lottery even though the odds are approximately 1 in 14 million against him doing so.
Even if he wins the jackpot - he has the same odds, 1 in 14 million, of winning it again next week. It is very very unlikely - but it is not, technically speaking, impossible.

Actually though - the odds are worse than I said. If I throw a dice - the odds of me getting a six are 5 to 1 against. The odds next time of throwing a six are also 5 to 1. But actually the odds against me getting the two sixes I need are much greater. There are six possible outcomes with a dice throw. For every extra dice thrown the number of outcomes is multiplied by another six. So, with two dice, the number of outcomes is 36, and with three dice you multiply by another six to get 216 outcomes.

So to win the lottery on week one the odds are 14Million to 1 against. But if they sell 14 million tickets - it's likely someone will win. But for the same person to win the jackpot twice in a row the odds are 196,000,000,000,000. (14M x 14M) Three weeks in a row, 2,744,000,000,000,000,000,000. After 13 weeks the odds are 793,714,773,254,144,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 with 91 zeros after it) - which is around the same number as the estimated atoms in the observable universe. 52 weeks and the number is 1 with 300 zeros after it.

It's an illustration - but I'm not exagerratin the odds - The JW's creation book says: "Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros! “An outrageously small probability,” astronomer Fred Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

So let's say you hear about a man who has £500 Million pounds. You know nothing about him. One day someone tries to tell you he didn't work for his money - instead he won the lottery jackpot every week for a year. He says it is statisically exceptionally unlikely - but not impossible - strictly speaking.

Would you conclude that the story was true? Would you believe the man?

Neither would I. But that is what we are asked to believe - "it only looks designed - but really it's all fluke".

 

[McBell]

Uh...ok...Goddidit and there is proof everywhere in nature!

Actually, I have to admit that a person can win the lottery even though the odds are approximately 1 in 14 million against him doing so.
Even if he wins the jackpot - he has the same odds, 1 in 14 million, of winning it again next week. It is very very unlikely - but it is not, technically speaking, impossible.

Actually though - the odds are worse than I said. If I throw a dice - the odds of me getting a six are 5 to 1 against. The odds next time of throwing a six are also 5 to 1. But actually the odds against me getting the two sixes I need are much greater. There are six possible outcomes with a dice throw. For every extra dice thrown the number of outcomes is multiplied by another six. So, with two dice, the number of outcomes is 36, and with three dice you multiply by another six to get 216 outcomes.

So to win the lottery on week one the odds are 14Million to 1 against. But if they sell 14 million tickets - it's likely someone will win. But for the same person to win the jackpot twice in a row the odds are 196,000,000,000,000. (14M x 14M) Three weeks in a row, 2,744,000,000,000,000,000,000. After 13 weeks the odds are 793,714,773,254,144,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 with 91 zeros after it) - which is around the same number as the estimated atoms in the observable universe. 52 weeks and the number is 1 with 300 zeros after it.

It's an illustration - but I'm not exagerratin the odds - The JW's creation book says: "Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros! “An outrageously small probability,” astronomer Fred Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

So let's say you hear about a man who has £500 Million pounds. You know nothing about him. One day someone tries to tell you he didn't work for his money - instead he won the lottery jackpot every week for a year. He says it is statisically exceptionally unlikely - but not impossible - strictly speaking.

Would you conclude that the story was true? Would you believe the man?

Neither would I. But that is what we are asked to believe - "it only looks designed - but really it's all fluke".

The two main problems here...
One, your argument can be used to show that your chosen God could not have made the universe.
two, calculating the odds AFTER the fact is always one to one. regardless of which route you prefer.

So the whole thing boils down to your "odds are to great to have happened" argument is nothing more than a double standard.

Nice Job!

 

[Atruthseeker]

The two main problems here...
One, your argument can be used to show that your chosen God could not have made the universe.

How can it?

 

[McBell]

How can it?

The odds are just to great.

 

[Kerr]

Uh...ok...Goddidit and there is proof everywhere in nature!

Actually an mate of mine said this: I have to admit that a person can win the lottery even though the odds are approximately 1 in 14 million against him doing so.
Even if he wins the jackpot - he has the same odds, 1 in 14 million, of winning it again next week. It is very very unlikely - but it is not, technically speaking, impossible.

Actually though - the odds are worse than I said. If I throw a dice - the odds of me getting a six are 5 to 1 against. The odds next time of throwing a six are also 5 to 1. But actually the odds against me getting the two sixes I need are much greater. There are six possible outcomes with a dice throw. For every extra dice thrown the number of outcomes is multiplied by another six. So, with two dice, the number of outcomes is 36, and with three dice you multiply by another six to get 216 outcomes.

So to win the lottery on week one the odds are 14Million to 1 against. But if they sell 14 million tickets - it's likely someone will win. But for the same person to win the jackpot twice in a row the odds are 196,000,000,000,000. (14M x 14M) Three weeks in a row, 2,744,000,000,000,000,000,000. After 13 weeks the odds are 793,714,773,254,144,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 with 91 zeros after it) - which is around the same number as the estimated atoms in the observable universe. 52 weeks and the number is 1 with 300 zeros after it.

It's an illustration - but I'm not exagerratin the odds - The JW's creation book says: "Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros! “An outrageously small probability,” astronomer Fred Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

So let's say you hear about a man who has £500 Million pounds. You know nothing about him. One day someone tries to tell you he didn't work for his money - instead he won the lottery jackpot every week for a year. He says it is statisically exceptionally unlikely - but not impossible - strictly speaking.

Would you conclude that the story was true? Would you believe the man?

Neither would I. But that is what we are asked to believe - "it only looks designed - but really it's all fluke".

That we are not deigned does not mean it all just happened because the odds just happened to be right. The world has a deterministic nature (not saying it is completely deterministic, for example quantom physics speak of chance and I do believe in free will, but it has many characteristics that are deterministic). Throw a rock, it will be drawn to the ground. Not a design, just the natural result of all the factors affecting the rock. To put it in a poor manner.

 

[Gunfingers]

It's an illustration - but I'm not exagerratin the odds - The JW's creation book says: "Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros! “An outrageously small probability,” astronomer Fred Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

The mistake you're making is assuming that cells formed exactly as they exist today from nothing. They did not. Early cells were much simpler, and lacked many of the complex properties modern cells have. What came before falls outside the purview of evolutionary theory, as it predates genetics.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the evolution of cells, and it covers many of the hypotheses on how it happened. But, and i cannot emphasize this enough, these are just hypotheses.

 

[Autodidact]

Uh...ok...Goddidit and there is proof everywhere in nature!

Please don't try my patience by positing God as an alternative to Evolution. He isn't.

So the response, "God did it," is never a response to whether ToE is correct or not.

We're not going to make much progress if we have to go over the same simple points again and again, are we? I know it's hard for creationists, but please do try to take some of this in.

EVOLUTION IS NOT THE THEORY THAT GOD DID NOT CREATE THE UNIVERSE. That idea is not science, it's philosophy, and it's called Atheism. It is something different completely. Evolution works fine with the idea that God created the universe. Science does not study that question; it only asks, if God created the universe (or if He didn't) then HOW did He do so? NOT WHO, HOW. HOW. HOW. For that reason, we can all assume, for the purpose of this thread, that God did it. No problem there. For that reason, the argument "God did it" is not. NOT. NOT. a response to ToE. Yes, we know God did it. Now let's use science to figure out how.

Do you agree that science is a good way to learn about the natural world and how it works?

I would appreciate it greatly if I did not have to repeat this simple concept to you.

It appears that either you're working hard on not understanding this, or you're extremely stupid, or you're simply not being honest, or you're really, really rude. Otherwise I cannot understand why I'm having to repeat this kindergarten level explanation so soon.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually an mate of mine said this: I have to admit that a person can win the lottery even though the odds are approximately 1 in 14 million against him doing so.
Even if he wins the jackpot - he has the same odds, 1 in 14 million, of winning it again next week. It is very very unlikely - but it is not, technically speaking, impossible.

Actually though - the odds are worse than I said. If I throw a dice - the odds of me getting a six are 5 to 1 against. The odds next time of throwing a six are also 5 to 1. But actually the odds against me getting the two sixes I need are much greater. There are six possible outcomes with a dice throw. For every extra dice thrown the number of outcomes is multiplied by another six. So, with two dice, the number of outcomes is 36, and with three dice you multiply by another six to get 216 outcomes.

So to win the lottery on week one the odds are 14Million to 1 against. But if they sell 14 million tickets - it's likely someone will win. But for the same person to win the jackpot twice in a row the odds are 196,000,000,000,000. (14M x 14M) Three weeks in a row, 2,744,000,000,000,000,000,000. After 13 weeks the odds are 793,714,773,254,144,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 with 91 zeros after it) - which is around the same number as the estimated atoms in the observable universe. 52 weeks and the number is 1 with 300 zeros after it.

It's an illustration - but I'm not exagerratin the odds - The JW's creation book says: "Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros! “An outrageously small probability,” astronomer Fred Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

So let's say you hear about a man who has £500 Million pounds. You know nothing about him. One day someone tries to tell you he didn't work for his money - instead he won the lottery jackpot every week for a year. He says it is statisically exceptionally unlikely - but not impossible - strictly speaking.

Would you conclude that the story was true? Would you believe the man?

Neither would I. But that is what we are asked to believe - "it only looks designed - but really it's all fluke".

Since you know virtually nothing about ToE, how on earth to you expect to calculate the statistics involved? There is an entire discipline of Biology that does nothing but use mathematical models to calculate rates of evolutionary change and so forth. These people have studied Biology and statistics for years to do these calculations. Do you think they're all stupid or dishonest?

Let's agree on this: you won't try to calculate statistics about ToE until you have a rudimentary understanding of what it is.

Speaking of that, since you're having a very hard time grasping some basic scientific concepts, such as methodological naturalism and evidence, I'm not optimistic about your ability to grasp ToE.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, due to how the thread is going so far I have little help that Atruthavoider will grasp these ideas, but hope springs eternal. Just a little more basic background about science before we delve into ToE.

Science, as I have said, is about evidence, not proof. Some particulars about scientific evidence:

-One of the most valuable kinds of evidence is confirmed predictions. You take your hypothesis and use it to generate some predictions. If the predictions turn out right, it's very strong evidence that your hypothesis was correct. If you can't generate any predictions, you probably don't have a scientific hypothesis. The predictions don't have to be of lab tests, they can be of things we will find in future, though they may be about or derived from things that actually happened in the past. If your prediction does not come true, your hypothesis is incorrect, and needs to be discarded or adjusted.

-this relates to the important concept of falsifiability. To be scientific, a hypothesis has to be able to generate a statement of the form: If X happens, the hypothesis is incorrect. It's a hypothetical kind of falsification only. This is fundamental to science.

-A theory has to be consistent with all the data. Every single iota. If a single piece of data blows up the theory, it has to be adjusted to properly accommodate that data. It may even need to be discarded. ToE meets this criteria.

-The holy grail of scientific evidence is consilience. This is related to the above point. When all the evidence, from all the researchers, in a variety of fields, working independently, is consistent and points to and support the theory, we know we've got the highest level of scientific certainty. ToE meets this test.

-There is no such thing as absolute scientific certainty or finality. The best we can get is like 99.99% (or something) certain. All scientific discoveries are open to continued future improvement and adjustment. Occasionally, even a foundational theory can be superceded, e.g. Einstein vs. Newton. Newton wasn't wrong, just, we later realized, extremely incomplete or limited.

Again, although my hopes are rapidly fading, it would be very helpful if you would try to bear these concepts in mind in our discussion.

 

[Autodidact]

Atruthavoider: Please indicate that you grasp and accept this material before we move on to talk about what ToE actually says. Thank you.

 

[johnhanks]

The JW's creation book says: "Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros!

If proteins and cells really were assembled at random, this would be the killer blow Atruthseeker seems to think it is. Since no-one seriously pictures a whole cell with its required proteins spontaneously coming into existence, it is just another straw man.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, the whole statistics argument is ridiculous and not worth discussing, but in addition to all its other problems:

1. The chances of me winning the lottery may be a million to one. The chances that someone will win are closer to 100%. The latter is a better metaphor for what we are talking about.
2. ToE is not about chance. There is a random component, and also a selective component. That's why you can't do statistics on it until you understand it.
3. The chances of anything happening which has already happened are exactly 100%.