The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

 

[The Hammer]

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Actually, it is more likely that life arose at multiple points in our history, there is not one "ancestor" to all life on Earth, but potentially thousands.

 

[epronovost]

cience is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another?

It has actually been observed in tree frogs amongst other things. We have also observed it and documented it in laboratory settings with e.coli bacteria.

Your argument is based on a probabilisitc fallacy.

 

[HonestJoe]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

The inability of a random layman, even an intelligent one, to fully understand an entire field of scientific study that is still developing today isn't a valid reason to dismiss it out of hand. There are plenty of things which are much simpler and more clearly understood yet still jar with our instinctive logic, even after you know and accept the explanations.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

Even if you do believe the Genesis account, it'd still be better to say "I don't know how we all got here". That's the question that triggers the field of science that you're dismissing.

 

[rrobs]

Actually, it is more likely that life arose at multiple points in our history, there is not one "ancestor" to all life on Earth, but potentially thousands.

I won't say you are wrong, but it does mean that the sequence of events would be even more unlikely than just one ancestor being the source of life. All those thousands of creatures would have to arise by chance mutations in a perfectly precise order in both time and result. If the odds of one thing happening are pretty low, I can't imagine what thousands would would do to those odds.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Ah. What you speak of here isn't the theory of evolution. This is the theory of abiogenesis. There are many other theories about how life first took root on earth, but that is just one of them. Personally, I think life via panspermia seems more likely, but I'm no scientist.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Flora and fauna didn't arise till later, as far as I'm aware. The earliest forms of life would have been far more basic than that.

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody!

There is plenty of evidence left behind, however. If someone breaks into your home, you know this by your missing stuff and broken window, right? Same with evolution. By reconstructing the evidence of the past, we can see how things happened.

That said, we have seen adaptations and evolutionary mutations take place in closed lab situations. Because of our knowledge of evolution, we have seen how viruses have changed in response to vaccines, and with that knowledge we can better face future strains with better vaccines.

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

Viruses and Evolution | History of Vaccines

It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

Alrighty. You can do that. If you care about truth, though, you should dig a little deeper than that.

 

[McBell]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

You are demonstrating my signature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

Well of course it is hard to believe if one relies on strawman arguments. Why not try to find out what scientists say happened?

 

[rrobs]

It has actually been observed in tree frogs amongst other things. We have also observed it and documented it in laboratory settings with e.coli bacteria.

Your argument is based on a probabilisitc fallacy.

You are absolutely correct. It is possible to observe evolution within a genus. It is not surprising, nor against Genesis, that a frog can evolve into another kind of frog.

What has not been observed, and what Genesis denies, is a frog evolving into a dog or whatever. A frog is a frog is a frog.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I won't say you are wrong, but it does mean that the sequence of events would be even more unlikely than just one ancestor being the source of life. All those thousands of creatures would have to arise by chance mutations in a perfectly precise order in both time and result. If the odds of one thing happening are pretty low, I can't imagine what thousands would would do to those odds.

It appears you are assuming a goal to evolution. There was no goal. That refutes your post all by itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are absolutely correct. It is possible to observe evolution within a genus. It is not surprising, nor against Genesis, that a frog can evolve into another kind of frog.

What has not been observed, and what Genesis denies, is a frog evolving into a dog or whatever. A frog is a frog is a frog.

Right. And that agrees with the theory of evolution. Change of kind is a creationist strawman.

 

[rrobs]

You are demonstrating my signature.

In regards to Genesis or evolution?

 

[rrobs]

It appears you are assuming a goal to evolution. There was no goal. That refutes your post all by itself.

Appearance can be deceiving. Nothing I said actually precludes the supposed continuance of evolution. At least that was not my intention.

 

[The Hammer]

I won't say you are wrong, but it does mean that the sequence of events would be even more unlikely than just one ancestor being the source of life. All those thousands of creatures would have to arise by chance mutations in a perfectly precise order in both time and result. If the odds of one thing happening are pretty low, I can't imagine what thousands would would do to those odds.

Pretty sure it increases the odds, but I'm not going to actually do the statistics to figure it out, because math was never my strong suit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Appearance can be deceiving. Nothing I said actually precludes the supposed continuance of evolution. At least that was not my intention.

You claimed that life had to arise in a "perfectly precise order". That implies a goal. There was no such need for evolution to occur. If events had a different order we would have different species now. That is all. Evolution would still have occurred.

 

[rrobs]

Right. And that agrees with the theory of evolution. Change of kind is a creationist strawman.

Well, either someone has observed one genus changing into another or not. It so happens nobody has. That could be considered a straw man I suppose, but as I said, science depends on observation. The best they can say is that it may be possible for one genus to become another, but until they actually observe it, they don't know. As such it remains a theory and nothing more.

 

[rrobs]

Pretty sure it increases the odds, but I'm not going to actually do the statistics to figure it out, because math was never my strong suit.

Maybe they'll invent a super computer that can do it one of these days.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

Your thinking is extremely limited. It's impossible to conceive of evolution (or any number of other natural phenomena) happening when you suppose there are only 1 or 2, or a few (or even a few hundred) events involved. Trust me, if you could open you mind up to see that on this world, nothing happens by ones or twos or tens or thousands -- but by billions and more. Then it becomes easy.

Open up your mind. Big numbers are hard to grasp -- but big numbers are what a universe is all about!

 

[rrobs]

You claimed that life had to arise in a "perfectly precise order". That implies a goal. There was no such need for evolution to occur. If events had a different order we would have different species now. That is all. Evolution would still have occurred.

Maybe a "perfectly precise order" was not the best way to put it. But, whatever arose by chance would have to depend on it's nourishment (and many other environmental variables) arising at the same time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretty sure it increases the odds, but I'm not going to actually do the statistics to figure it out, because math was never my strong suit.

it is rather pointless in calculating the odds of an event that already happened. Take any list of lottery winners. The odds of those people winning in that order ahead of time was astronomical. The odds after the event were one.