Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Jesse James]

The difference between genetics and the traffic light and iPod comparisons is that those examples don't self replicate. Also, the mutations that just happen to be helpful are self perpetuating. It’s not as if ALL the genetic information is shuffled every generation. Genes self replicate through reproduction, thereby allowing the next generation to inherit those beneficial random mutations. If a particular mutation gives the organism a better chance of survival and reproduction than it's peers, within relatively small number generations, the entire population will have that mutation/trait, because those that have it out-compete those that don’t. Even if, by chance, the beneficial gene mutates for one individual organism, the rest of the populations will still be carrying the original beneficial mutation. So the one unlucky organism would have to compete with the rest of the population for survival and reproduction. As long as that mutation never becomes harmful in the context of the environment it will not be selected out. This population of organisms will continue on, and somewhere down the line another random mutation that happens to be helpful will occur, adding to the last helpful mutation. But if a harmful mutation happens, it only happens to one individual. It is then selected out before it has a chance to replicate further because it has to compete with the rest of the population. Think of all the species that have gone extinct.

When you refer to the "players in the system" being unable to produce consciousness, are you thinking in terms of the law of conservation of energy? If so, this rule does not apply, because the earth is not a closed system. It receives incoming energy from the sun and other cosmic rays from the universe. This is energy is responsible for all kinds of combinations of and changes to the elements that are/were present here on earth. And specifically, these forms of energy are known to cause genetic mutations. As far as adding information to the genome, scientists have observed populations of yeast adding information multiple times in only 450 generations. The trend in biological evolution is always towards complexity and diversity. Random mutation is basically the process of guess and check. Random mutations continue to happen until one is beneficial, and simply by the nature of being beneficial it becomes self-perpetuating.

Why couldn't consciousness be developed through a mechanical process? Do either of us even know what consciousness is? Watch that show ‘brain games’ you’ll see how our brains are simply pattern recognition machines that can be easily tricked if you understand how they work. Look at our physical brains. We have a reptilian brain responsible for the basic functions of our bodies, then a mammalian or limbic brain responsible for the emotions, and a neocortex that gives us the ability to reason. One layer built upon the last. When you look at the fossilized remains of our earlier primates descendants we are able to see a chronological growth in the size of the cranium. There is an unbelievable amount of data to back this up. There are NO fossils that contradict the theory of biological evolution. http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/ ... r_her.html
Again, I have to go back to the puddle in the pothole reference. You're point of view keeps assuming that the way things are is the way they were intended to be. When in actuality the way things are are completely explainable in the context of natural unconscious processes. Life fills in the gaps. Wherever random mutation and opportunity meet, that's where life goes, because those gaps are where life can self perpetuate.

Not to mention this is all has been observed by scientists in labs observing flu viruses and how they change, so they can give us an effective vaccine next year. Some deniers like to say “well, that’s just microevolution." Microevolution isn’t something different than biological evolution. It’s just on a shorter time scale. We can extrapolate from there and compare those extrapolations to the fossil evidence we see, and the way we see genes themselves behave when replicating and randomly mutating.

Take care

[jimwalton]

Your first paragraph: I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you said.

> When you refer to the "players in the system" being unable to produce consciousness, are you thinking in terms of the law of conservation of energy?

No, I was thinking of the natural processes of evolution under the understanding of no guiding intellect behind them.

> The trend in biological evolution is always towards complexity and diversity.

A curious statement. My garden goes to chaos. : ) Are you saying that biological evolution is always on the advance? Just wondering. It sounds like you're saying that the direction of biological evolution is by default in the direction of improvement.

> There are NO fossils that contradict the theory of biological evolution.

I haven't said anything to contend that I didn't believe in the possibility of evolution. What I am arguing is that there are a lot of things about biological evolution that don't add up.

> When in actuality the way things are are completely explainable in the context of natural unconscious processes.

This is one of many places we do actually disagree with each other.

> Not to mention this is all has been observed...

I haven't said anything to contend that I didn't believe in the possibility of evolution. What I am arguing is that there are a lot of things about biological evolution that don't add up.

[Jesse James]

In a sense you could say bio-evolution is on the advance towards organisms becoming more improved, but only relative to their environment. Genes that don't assist an organism in the context of its current environment aren't selected. Some species can and have become so specialized (or improved) in their given environments that if the environment changes rapidly (lame off-the-cuff examples: volcano, dramatic shift in climate change, another invasive species consuming available resources, etc) those "over" specialized species don't have time to wait around for random beneficial mutations to occur and spread through their population.

[jimwalton]

Honest question for you. Honestly. Science is the observation and collection of data, generalizing from the continuous and repeatable, to bring us to an understanding of how the physical universe functions. Is that fair? My question is: Is there any observable evidence of what you are claiming? I know we have observable evidence of mutation, but do we have any observable evidence of bio-evolution where one thing changes not from a lesser thing to a better of the same thing, but macro-evolution—changing from one kind of thing to a different thing altogether?

[Jesse James]

Yes we do. We can observe this in plants in real time and it has been observed in animals as recently as 2009 in non other than the darwin's Galapagos finches.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... speciation

Also there are portions of genomes that are identical among different modern species that prove we share a common ancestor, when also considering the proven mechanism of natural selection. The layering of some fossils also points to this. We don't see fossils in one layer that also appear in another, indicating that the original fossils evolved into different species. Fossilized DNA is another form of observed evidence. Using that DNA and the fossils themselves we can create the tree of life models that show things like ancient reptiles becoming modern birds.

Also, to make the point again: Micro and Macro evolution rely on the same mechanism of change to genomes. The time scale is what separates them.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

Also, some denyers try to ask for transitional fossils as proof. I think this points to a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Every fossil ever found is considered a transitional fossil. They are all a transition from the generation before them to the generation after them. They don't have a predetermined species destination.

[jimwalton]

Now, see, this REALLY surprises me. They have actually OBSERVED plants turning into a different kind of plant, like roses to an apple tree, or a plantain into a dandelion, or something? In the article you linked, it seems like the European blackcap cross-bred with other birds and changed migration patterns, and the Galapagos finches exhibit micro-changes, but are still...finches. But has changes in speciation been observed? If not, isn't it accurate to say it's not really science (the observation and study of repeatable data to substantiate fact), but inference, and, dare I say it, faith (meaning you believe in it based on inferences and interpolations, not on anything observable)? Do identical portions of genomes necessity progression, or only relation? Again, I'm not necessarily against evolution. I just want to make sure that science is science, and speculation is identified as speculation, and we still haven't proven anything that eliminates the possibility of a Guide for the mechanism of the journey through natural selection. I'm just not aware of ANY speciation jump that's been observed, transcending the boundaries of a single species. Finches are still finches.

[Jesse James]

Buckle up, this one is a long read Let me know what you think. The plant examples and other examples such as fruit flies are covered in this link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Observing something in real time (and to be clear, evolution has been observed in real time, so has speciation) is not the sole defining property of science. Something can still be inferred using natural laws that we extend into the past and this can also be considered science. Even if there are no eye witnesses to a crime it is still possible to prove who committed that crime by using physical evidence to create inferences based on natural laws and logic.

And the whole roses to an apple tree, or plantain into a dandelion thing is a bit off. That's not actually how you think evolution works right? Those are all modern species that have common ancestors, they did not descend from each other. Much like humans did not descend from any of the primates we see living on earth today. We share common ancestors…or like my cousin and I didn't descend from each other…we share a common ancestor, my grandfather.

And we don't have to prove that there is no "guide" for the mechanism of natural selection. 1) It's not a scientific claim…it's untestable. 2) There is no reason to think there is a guide because the process does not require intent. I have to say, that if you don't understand this idea by now you may have to actually take a class focused on evolutionary biology. It's not exactly a concept that can be tackled in this type of a forum. And some folks are just unable to see outside the paradigm of creationism, doesn't make you a bad person though. Take care -J

[jimwalton]

Yow, that WAS a long read. Full disclosure: I skimmed some and read some. I have understood before that speciation is debated, and there are many uncertain categories (where do you put an animal like a whale that is a fish and a mammal by speciation divisions? etc for many examples). I get that. We try to divide flora and fauna by characteristics that seem to bond them in commonality, but it's sometimes a judgment call, sometimes a fluid categorization, and sometimes debated and disagreed on. I get that.

I spent some time reading 5.0: "Observed instances of speciation." Even though there were transitions to new species, evolution would also necessitate transitions to new families and new orders. Like, can they observe a fruit fly changing to SOMETHING ELSE?

And I understand that inference is a valid epistemological source, but a series of apparently increasing adaptive complexities doesn't necessarily show a causal connection. Darwinianism shows that life can be explained as a result of natural process, natural selection, and without need of a creator. But what Darwin has to show is an UNGUIDED evolutionary path that is not *prohibitively improbable*. This is where Darwinians have failed. They have not shown, for example, that it is not prohibitively improbable that, for example, the mammalian eye has developed from a light sensitive spot. They show us various eyes, lined up, as I said, in a series of apparently increasing adaptive complexity, with the mammalian eye at the top. But that doesn't show that it's logically possible (that is, not prohibitively improbable) that later members of the series developed by natural processes from earlier members. Commonality (mammalian features in whales and humans) certainly doesn't necessitate causal connection. I would expect life forms to have similar traits.

> And the whole roses to an apple tree, or plantain into a dandelion thing is a bit off. That's not actually how you think evolution works right?

Right. I was just throwing together fun terms, jokingly expressing the idea of one thing coming from a completely separate thing, but knowing that the sequence wasn't plantain to dandelion to apple tree.

> We don't have to prove that there is no guide for the mechanism of natural selection.

I know design can't be tested scientifically, but let's look at it logically. The basic idea is that we observe that several of the cosmological constants of the universe are incredibly, almost miraculously, fine-tuned. The basic idea that such an idea is perfectly compatible with and not at all surprising or improbable if God exists. It's a safe assumption that God would presumably want there to be life, and even intelligent life with which (or whom) to communicate and share love. It's both probable and sensible that God would want to fine-tune the constants of the universe to accommodate human life. This all makes sense. On the other hand, the atheist claims these constants have their values by chance (not the result of anyone's choice or intention). It is not as probable, logically speaking, that the constants would be as fine-tuned for life as we know it. Given theism, fine-tuning is expected; given atheism, fine-tuning is a remote chance. Therefore theism is to be preferred to atheism.

The various parameters of the universe, as I think I've mentioned (strength of gravitational force, the weak and strong nuclear forces, the rate of expansion in the universe, among many others) can take on various values, and there is probably no logical limit to the possible values these parameters could take. Almost all of the possibilities are not life-permitting; only a very narrow band are, and all of them "in coordination" must be in specific narrow bands to accommodate life as we have it. Certainly they all could, by chance, have assumed a value in a life-permitting range. But when we talk about probabilities and reason, this is much more likely on theism than on chance. Hence, again, fine-tuning favors the logic of theism over naturalism.

Logically speaking, theism is a better explanation of fine-tuning than any atheistic explanation, and is to be preferred, given the two choices, even without the capability of being tested.

Another point: Bayes' Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_theorem). The idea inherent in the theorem is that comparing the mathematical and logical probabilities of theism and atheism, given fine-tuning that we see evidenced in the universe, the probability of theism is greater than that of atheism, and is logically to be preferred.

Evolutionary science doesn't evidence against design beliefs. It could be that these structures have evolved by unguided, natural processes, but that says nothing about a greater logic that would point to the possibility of design. The process doesn't require intent, but intent, when it comes right down to it, logically fits the situation better than naturalism.

Now, I certainly agree that naturalism has its place, and that God used natural processes, as he often does, for his activity. But guided naturalism actually has more logic to it than materialistic naturalism.

Are we haven' fun, or what???

[Jesse James]

I know i've had fun, lol. It's been great talking about this with you. It's made me have to work a little harder to put my finger on exactly what I believe/think about the universe. I fear, though, I haven't been thorough enough in my explanation against the the "fine tuned" reasons for believing in intelligent design.

The vast majority of the universe is clearly not fine tuned for life. The vacuum of space, every star, black hole, asteroid, nebula, gas super giant, etc. To say the entire universe, and all of it's harsh places is fine tuned for life I think displays a limited perspective. Thinking that way is this generations version of the "WE-ARE-THE CENTER-OF-THE-UNIVERSE" paradigm that Galileo must have been 'frustrated' with. The universe isn't designed FOR US. It is a harsh place, and we occupy almost none-percent of it, for almost none-percent of a fraction of time.

> "and there is probably no logical limit to the possible values these parameters could take. Almost all of the possibilities are not life-permitting"

This is a key fallacy in your thinking. Seriously? How is it possible to know the likelihood of life, under a near infinite amount of completely different combinations of circumstances? That's a question you need to be able to answer. Given every possible combinations of natural laws and circumstances and…...13+ billion years, how do you know that life is unlikely? We are carbon based lifeforms that require liquid water and a very narrow temperature range to survive. It's possible that different forms of life could be based on completely different molecules on some other grain of sand off in the corner of the next galaxy or our galaxy, or the nearly infinite possible combinations of conditions of universes.

For example: Imagine looking down at a random license plate and seeing the configuration HJB-546. That's the only license plate with that number out out of a combination of over 17 million, so it seems like a remarkably improbable feat that you would see that particular number if you treat it the same as you treat your percieved impossibility of life under our present circumstances. The only form of life you are aware of. This goes back to the the whole "if things were different, they'd be different" concept in one of our earlier exchanges.

And you are absolutely right, evolutionary science doesn't evidence against beliefs. Mostly because the process of science doest even address the issue. I't doesn't test for it because it's impossible to. It doesn't concern itself with the idea. It's an arbitrary concept. The concept of a designer has not assisted us in the mechanism of science in any way. The theory of evolutions allows us to make predictions, test those predictions and prove them. The concept of a designer does not allow for predictions…though many a false prophet has tried

And while I generally don't like arguments that appeal to authority (go figure), I'll appeal to the authority of those in the field of biology, astronomy and physics. What would be a logical explanation for only 5.5% of biologist and 7.5 percent of physicists and astronomers believing in an a higher power. i can promise you if they replaced the phrase 'A HIGHER POWER' in that pole with the phrase 'A DESIGNER', those percentages would be lower.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for a great exchange, Jesse. I'm not sure we can really proceed much further with this conversation, but I certainly have enjoyed it. I'll look forward to other conversations with you. Feel free to get in touch.