Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[David M]

(Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

So something that is 19 years old, you do realise that science advances with new discoveries?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, the observation does not remain. That observation was true (but still what you want it to mean) only for a short while and resulted from no one looking at the older rocks in much detail, since then there has been a lot of research done on cambrian and pre-cambrain rocks and the "sudden planting" is now no such thing, it is once again an evolution from simple organisms to more complex organisms.

Every time this subject comes up I mention the Canadian Shield which is about an hour's drive from my house (and extends across most of the country) that contains all kinds of pre-Cambrian fossils that anybody can see. This usually always goes ignored until a few weeks later when the Dawkins quote mine is used again as though this discussion hasn't already taken place with the very same people and the very same quote, countless times before.

 

[outhouse]

the very same people and the very same quote, countless times before.

Ah desperation at its finest

 

[Ouroboros]

That's because 1,750,000,000 tickets are bought.

That's why many generations produce many different mutations can result in many different amazing results.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Since the odds can actually be calculated for card games, I'm guessing that cheating is more likely than chance.

I have stated that yes it is more than likely not chance in the poker game becuase we can manipulate it.

Good God =/= Slaughtering Innocents.

so even granted a random generator capable of producing the result, and even in a situation that goes out of it's way to prohibit cheating.. we agree ID still has a superior power of explanation over chance.

Because the odds are so low, that even the slightest possibility of cheating easily becomes the more probable explanation right?


So too with the universe, except that we know of no such random dealer and no such security system that seeks to prevent universes being designed.
What do you think the odds are, of a randomly composed set of mathematical algorithms - accidentally developing it's own consciousness to contemplate itself with?
impossible to calculate, but clearly infinitesimally low, practically infinitely low- according to Hawking- hence the number of hypothetical multiverses required to fluke this one into existence.


The 'good God' is a debate for another thread maybe, there are lots on that theme- short answer here though :free will, evil is our doing, not God's

 

[Revoltingest]

so even granted a random generator capable of producing the result, and even in a situation that goes out of it's way to prohibit cheating.. we agree ID still has a superior power of explanation over chance.

We see that the TOE makes predictions, which have been verified.
What explanatory power does ID have, ie, testable predictions?

Because the odds are so low, that even the slightest possibility of cheating easily becomes the more probable explanation right?

What are the odds?
How did you calculate them?

So too with the universe, except that we know of no such random dealer and no such security system that seeks to prevent universes being designed.
What do you think the odds are, of a randomly composed set of mathematical algorithms - accidentally developing it's own consciousness to contemplate itself with?
impossible to calculate, but clearly infinitesimally low, practically infinitely low- according to Hawking- hence the number of hypothetical multiverses required to fluke this one into existence.

This is another case where we should examine the premises & the calculation of the probability.
Without this, the claims aren't even wrong.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We see that the TOE makes predictions, which have been verified.

Like smooth incremental changes v sudden appearances?

What explanatory power does ID have, ie, testable predictions?

ID predicted sudden appearances v incremental changes

ID predicted the universe was created in a specific creation event v static/eternal/ steady state.

ID predicted that classical physics was not a complete and hence God refuting explanation for all physical reality

ID (from the standpoint of the most common understanding of God) predicted that we are the primary beneficiaries of creation, alone, the universe is not teaming with ETs

to name a few..

What are the odds?
How did you calculate them?

This is another case where we should examine the premises & the calculation of the probability.
Without this, the claims aren't even wrong.

Again you could ask Hawking, most multiverse proponents posit a practically infinite number of universes -rolls of the dice- explicitly to be able to account for the staggering improbability of this one.

The odds of the royal flushes is low because of the number of other possible outcomes yes?
It's impossible to calculate the odds of the waves washing up the word 'HELP' on rocks on a deserted island beach, but similarly we know they are small enough to have a far better explanation-
If you fly over as a coastguard- you use this lack of knowledge of probabilities to assume chance and fly on?

Similarly with the universe, we are already aware of a long list of specific parameters, that would result in an infinite variety of clod dark lifeless blobs if tweaked infinitesimally.

i.e. there are a practically infinite number of combinations that don't even create space time, far less sentient beings to inhabit it

3 royal flushes would selling the universe very short don't you think?

 

[Revoltingest]

Like smooth incremental changes v sudden appearances?

You may pick any calculation you want to make.
If you're claiming the probability for something occurring is low, there must be some basis for the claim.
Without stating this basis, there's no meat there. It's a Cheetos (empty & unsatisfying) claim.

ID predicted sudden appearances v incremental changes

This is tricky.....there are sudden (in geological time) appearances in the fossil record, but there are also incremental changes.
Does the latter disprove relying upon the former to justify ID?
Does ID even allow for the existence of geological time frames, ie, hundreds of millions of years?

ID predicted the universe was created in a specific creation event v static/eternal/ steady state.

How is this prediction verified?
Even scientists cannot say that the Big Bang was a singular event.
It seems that most speculate it was not.
Nonetheless, there's no evidence that it is or isn't.
But ID is based upon the Bible, which also makes other, loopier claims.....does their falsification apply to ID?

ID predicted that classical physics was not a complete and hence God refuting explanation for all physical reality

Actually, science doesn't address gods, so this was more a reading of what science is, rather than a prediction.
It is as useful as my predicting that Xians believe in God.

ID (from the standpoint of the most common understanding of God) predicted that we are the primary beneficiaries of creation, alone, the universe is not teaming with ETs
to name a few..

How do you know this?
If ET's were found, would this falsify ID?

Again you could ask Hawking, most multiverse proponents posit a practically infinite number of universes -rolls of the dice- explicitly to be able to account for the staggering improbability of this one.

I can ask him, but he doesn't return my calls.

The odds of the royal flushes is low because of the number of other possible outcomes yes?
It's impossible to calculate the odds of the waves washing up the word 'HELP' on rocks on a deserted island beach, but similarly we know they are small enough to have a far better explanation-
If you fly over as a coastguard- you use this lack of knowledge of probabilities to assume chance and fly on?
Similarly with the universe, we are already aware of a long list of specific parameters, that would result in an infinite variety of clod dark lifeless blobs if tweaked infinitesimally.
i.e. there are a practically infinite number of combinations that don't even create space time, far less sentient beings to inhabit it
3 royal flushes would selling the universe very short don't you think?

These analogies don't apply to evolution, which is fundamentally different from card games & messages on beaches, which aren't stochastic processes.
But if you find this approach to be cromulent, then God is disproven by the same method.
Observe.....
What are the odds that there is one God instead of 2 or 3 or 4 or more?
What are the odds that this God is eternal as claimed? We see that everything has a beginning, therefore God must, therefore he isn't eternal.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You may pick any calculation you want to make.
If you're claiming the probability for something occurring is low, there must be some basis for the claim.
Without stating this basis, there's no meat there. It's a Cheetos (empty & unsatisfying) claim.

Thanks for the detailed response!

Yes, I gave you the basis, the same basis as the royal flush and "HELP" on the beach

The vast number of other possibilities, the vast number of other values that do not achieve the winning result.

This is tricky.....there are sudden (in geological time) appearances in the fossil record, but there are also incremental changes.
Does the latter disprove relying upon the former to justify ID?
Does ID even allow for the existence of geological time frames, ie, hundreds of millions of years?

Well I agree, incremental v sudden are subjective terms. But fair to say I think, that observation v original prediction has slid ever more towards the sudden-
hence 'punctuated equilibrium' and other new theories that begin to accept the fossil record at face value- gaps included

How is this prediction verified?
Even scientists cannot say that the Big Bang was a singular event.
It seems that most speculate it was not.
Nonetheless, there's no evidence that it is or isn't.
But ID is based upon the Bible, which also makes other, loopier claims.....does their falsification apply to ID?

It was atheists who drew this line in the sand- mocked the primeval atom as 'Big Bang' for what THEY complained of as the overt religious implications of a specific creation event- 'religious psuedoscience'

They overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal for the opposite implication "No creation = no creator" and still do today.

But the Big Bang was the absolute creation of all time, space, matter, energy as far as we can possibly know it, tell or probably ever investigate it- how much more creationy can you get?

Speculating anything beyond to STILL refute creation, is atheism of the gaps in the extreme isn't it?

Actually, science doesn't address gods, so this was more a reading of what science is, rather than a prediction.
It is as useful as my predicting that Xians believe in God.

God wasn't the prediction, just the implication

Classical physics being final 'immutable' was absolutely a prediction, explicitly favored by many to squeeze God out of physical reality

ID predicted, deeper, mysterious, inherently unpredictable forces were necessary to make everything tick, no coincidence Planck, Like Lemaitre, was a skeptic of atheism

How do you know this?
If ET's were found, would this falsify ID?

Obviously not in all it's forms, but it would raise questions about humanity's significance in the design yes? I'd be willing to accept the implications of us being merely one in a vast number of sentient beings
I'm also willing to accept the opposite implication- of observed reality also

I can ask him, but he doesn't return my calls.

These analogies don't apply to evolution, which is fundamentally different from card games & messages on beaches, which aren't stochastic processes.

The cards are dealt randomly, the waves wash up rocks in random patterns
and evolution relies on significant design improvements occurring through random mutation right?

IN all three cases I think there are better explanations for significant and improbable outcomes

But if you find this approach to be cromulent, then God is disproven by the same method.
Observe.....
What are the odds that there is one God instead of 2 or 3 or 4 or more?
What are the odds that this God is eternal as claimed? We see that everything has a beginning, therefore God must, therefore he isn't eternal.

I find it cromulent to embiggen my understanding where I can!

We know that time itself, as we know it, was part of creation, and that delivers another validated prediction of an eternal God- That he necessarily transcends time, is eternal from our perspective.

After that - several Gods? not impossible I suppose, I'd certainly give that greater odds than fluke- but we know there was a single creation- the singularity. So I think a single mind, purpose is not an unreasonable way to think of God.

 

[metis]

ID does not make sense in regards to "sudden appearances" in that creation stopped at the end of the 6th day/era (yom).

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for the detailed response!
Yes, I gave you the basis, the same basis as the royal flush and "HELP" on the beach
The vast number of other possibilities, the vast number of other values that do not achieve the winning result.

This is only an analogy.
A real basis would include such things as....
- The time frame, which could be 6000 years for a YEC or 2 billion for a geologist/biologist.
- A description of the process, eg, evolution is a stochastic process with a large population of lives, mutation, a fitness function (selection), & much time.

Well I agree, incremental v sudden are subjective terms. But fair to say I think, that observation v original prediction has slid ever more towards the sudden-
hence 'punctuated equilibrium' and other new theories that begin to accept the fossil record at face value- gaps included

That phenomenon occurs in the fossil record, but there is nonetheless a vast incremental record too.
The latter isn't predicted by ID, is it?
The former is no problem for the TOE because the rate of change is variable, & global catastrophes occur now & then,

It was atheists who drew this line in the sand- mocked the primeval atom as 'Big Bang' for what THEY complained of as the overt religious implications of a specific creation event- 'religious psuedoscience'

No doubt some atheists mocked it.....although I don't know of any.
I'll wager your left pinky that many believers did too.
This doesn't really speak to the TOE or ID.

They overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal for the opposite implication "No creation = no creator" and still do today.

I don't see how a Big Bang or lack thereof speaks to the existence or non-existence of gods.
Also not addressed is the number of gods.
I wonder why so many fixate on the precise number of "one"?

But the Big Bang was the absolute creation of all time, space, matter, energy as far as we can possibly know it, tell or probably ever investigate it- how much more creationy can you get?

We don't know if it happened before, or elsewhere or simultaneously.
Speculations in physics are getting more extensive & bizarre, so it's unwise to cherry
pick a portion, claim it's factual, & treat this as verification of a prediction.

Speculating anything beyond to STILL refute creation, is atheism of the gaps in the extreme isn't it?

Atheism speaks to not knowing.
But not knowing doesn't lead to creationism.

Classical physics being final 'immutable' was absolutely a prediction, explicitly favored by many to squeeze God out of physical reality

Were that true, you wouldn't find believers in physics, but there are.

ID predicted, deeper, mysterious, inherently unpredictable forces were necessary to make everything tick, no coincidence Planck, Like Lemaitre, was a skeptic of atheism

How did ID predict that?
Who did?
When?
Need some real history here.

Must run.
The below will wait for later edits.....

Obviously not in all it's forms, but it would raise questions about humanity's significance in the design yes? I'd be willing to accept the implications of us being merely one in a vast number of sentient beings
I'm also willing to accept the opposite implication- of observed reality also

If it negates the prediction, then it falsifies ID.

The cards are dealt randomly, the waves wash up rocks in random patterns
and evolution relies on significant design improvements occurring through random mutation right?

The analogy doesn't apply because the TOE is not random.
It has a random input (mutation), but the fitness function (selection) creates emergent properties.

We know that time itself, as we know it, was part of creation, and that delivers another validated prediction of an eternal God- That he necessarily transcends time, is eternal from our perspective.

God is validated?
What is the test for it?

After that - several Gods? not impossible I suppose, I'd certainly give that greater odds than fluke- but we know there was a single creation- the singularity. So I think a single mind, purpose is not an unreasonable way to think of God.

It's certainly not even wrong.

 

[viole]

Yes things happen with odds against them, I would bet everything that nobody ever played 10 royal flushes in a row by chance

If you are talking about biological evolution, then all you need is ONE royal flush if the progeny inherits the capability of making royal flushes at will. Actually, you do not need to start with a royal flush. You can start with something much smaller that allows you to stay on the table longer, and generate kids able to do the same (at will) until the others, unable to do the same, are wiped out. And so on.

I really wonder why this simple principle (inheritance of successive small lucky strikes until they become common place) is so difficult to comprehend.

are you talking about multiverses or M theory?

I grant multiple universes have no evidence. Like your designer. Actually, we have evidence of at least one universe and no evidence of any supreme designer.

So, my question is: why should the designer have the upper hand, considering that it is conceptually easier to go from one to many than from zero to one?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

the overt religious implications of a specific creation event- 'religious psuedoscience'

Psuedoscience is what happens when people try and shove mythology into reality.

It is a bad conclusion.

As to where science explains thing it can without bias.

 

[Aset's Flames]

so even granted a random generator capable of producing the result, and even in a situation that goes out of it's way to prohibit cheating.. we agree ID still has a superior power of explanation over chance.

Because the odds are so low, that even the slightest possibility of cheating easily becomes the more probable explanation right?


So too with the universe, except that we know of no such random dealer and no such security system that seeks to prevent universes being designed.
What do you think the odds are, of a randomly composed set of mathematical algorithms - accidentally developing it's own consciousness to contemplate itself with?
impossible to calculate, but clearly infinitesimally low, practically infinitely low- according to Hawking- hence the number of hypothetical multiverses required to fluke this one into existence.


The 'good God' is a debate for another thread maybe, there are lots on that theme- short answer here though :free will, evil is our doing, not God's

Wrong, if Yahweh can see the future (as shown in scripture) and is perfectly intelligent than he can makes things to make any possible result, and he still chooses to put people in situations where they do bad things.

Also, Yahweh deities the punishment, if he decided to torture people than that is his fault and his alone.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wrong, if Yahweh can see the future (as shown in scripture) and is perfectly intelligent than he can makes things to make any possible result, and he still chooses to put people in situations where they do bad things.

Also, Yahweh deities the punishment, if he decided to torture people than that is his fault and his alone.

He chooses to give people the free will to bad things, without which 'good' would have no meaning would it?

 

[Aset's Flames]

He chooses to give people the free will to bad things, without which 'good' would have no meaning would it?

He doesn't care if you do bad things or not, he only cares if you worship him to give him self validation.

If you do not worship him it is either oblivion or eternal tortutre,

Seems extremely evil to me.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is only an analogy.
A real basis would include such things as....
- The time frame, which could be 6000 years for a YEC or 2 billion for a geologist/biologist.
- A description of the process, eg, evolution is a stochastic process with a large population of lives, mutation, a fitness function (selection), & much time.

well quite, evolution, puts all the millions of significant design improvements down to chance- chance mutation.

Like the 3 royal flushes, it's not technically impossible to be luck, but the infinitesimally low odds are a very low bar to jump over for better explanations

That phenomenon occurs in the fossil record, but there is nonetheless a vast incremental record too.

what vast incremental record is this?

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt

No doubt some atheists mocked it.....although I don't know of any.
I'll wager your left pinky that many believers did too.
This doesn't really speak to the TOE or ID.

The label itself 'Big Bang' was a pejorative coined by Hoyle, this gets off the evolution topic directly maybe, but it's all connected in the end

I don't see how a Big Bang or lack thereof speaks to the existence or non-existence of gods.

Again you could have argued that with Hoyle and most atheists at the time THEY were the ones complaining of the obvious implications of a specific creation event.
The same rationale was explicitly cited by Hawking for his Big Crunch 'making God redundant' by providing a work around for what we observe in reality- a specific creation event

We don't know if it happened before, or elsewhere or simultaneously.
Speculations in physics are getting more extensive & bizarre, so it's unwise to cherry
pick a portion, claim it's factual, & treat this as verification of a prediction.

Exactly! That's why I am leaving the bizarre philosophical speculations of M theory, Multiverses etc aside, and looking at what we can actually determine- one single unique extremely specific creation event
creating the heavens- time and space as we know it. This gets back to the OP, evolution, like M Theory and other atheist speculation- doesn't deal in the directly observable.

How did ID predict that?
Who did?
When?
Need some real history here.

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, FRS[2] (/plɑːŋk/;[3] German: [plaŋk]; April 23, 1858 – October 4, 1947) was a German theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory



Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."[28]

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He doesn't care if you do bad things or not, he only cares if you worship him to give him self validation.

If you do not worship him it is either oblivion or eternal tortutre,

Seems extremely evil to me.

As parents we provide for our children everything they need, but we do not solve every problem for them, we understand the greater gift of learning, appreciation, self determination, as better for us and them

Ultimately we want them to be grateful, to share mutual love, but this cannot be forced, love cannot be mandated or it does not exist. right? So they must be free to choose otherwise and reject that love, forever even.

Does this make parents extremely evil?

Again though- I'm sure there's another thread we can take this up on!

 

[Revoltingest]

well quite, evolution, puts all the millions of significant design improvements down to chance- chance mutation.

Like the 3 royal flushes, it's not technically impossible to be luck, but the infinitesimally low odds are a very low bar to jump over for better explanations

This analogy doesn't apply.
The odds against winning a particular hand in cards can be calculated, & it would be small for a single trial.
But evolution works differently.
There is no single hand.....there are numerous mutations in numerous individuals over numerous years.
No single one need have the beneficial genetic mutation.
So long as a few or even one have it, it can be passed on, with greatly increased probability compared to a single individual's originating it..
Then the frequency of this mutation increases.
Moreover, there are possibly different gene mutations which can yield the same result.
To make your analogy work, you'd need millions of simultaneous card games over eons.
Then your particular hand of cards becomes likely to arise.

Quiz time....
What are the odds against my flipping a coin 10 times in a row, & landing heads up each time?
Show your work, & I'll explain why you're wrong.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This analogy doesn't apply.
The odds against winning a particular hand in cards can be calculated, & it would be small for a single trial.
But evolution works differently.
There is no single hand.....there are numerous mutations in numerous individuals over numerous years.
No single one need have the beneficial genetic mutation.
So long as a few or even one have it, it can be passed on.
Then the frequency of this mutation increases.
Moreover, there are possibly different gene mutations which can yield the same result.
To make your analogy work, you'd need millions of simultaneous card games over eons.
Then your particular hand of cards becomes likely to arise.

Quiz time....
What are the odds against my flipping a coin 10 times in a row, & landing heads up each time?
Show your work, & I'll explain why you're wrong.

There is no single hand in the casino analogy, millions of hands are dealt, and yet we'd still be suspicious of 3 royal flushes in a row, not because it's less probable, but because the pay-off provides a motive, a better explanation

Evolution does need to deal a very lucky single winning hand for every significant design improvement, millions of them, to produce one single sentient being- the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate itself.
Even most evolutionist acknowledge an extraordinary degree of 'lucky coincidences' for humanity to appear. Staggeringly improbable I think would be a better description
The millions of other species alone tell us that this is not the sort of thing evolution tends to spontaneously achieve.

chance is not impossible, I just think there are less improbable explanations

ten heads in a row.. gets into semantics here

each time as in individually is 50/50

each as in every time in sequence

2^10 or 1024 to 1