Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.

---

I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.

---

I don't want to pursue this line much farther because I think we're hair-splitting; any belief system that advocates that the only reality is material and that denies the existence of God is Naturalistic in nature. I suppose some theists have compromised their beliefs in order to reconcile science with the Bible: so be it. But evolution contradicts the Bible - and unless the entire Bible is true, then there's no need to take any of it seriously as the "Word of God." Just my position. We're free to let this point drop (and I ought not have pursued it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.

---

A violation of Occam's Razor: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you speculate into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out. Convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated.

---

I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.

---

A fact I'm aware of; my attacks on the "certainty" or "stability" of science are indirect attacks on its often dogmatic adherents - not upon science itself. To listen to some of the posters here, you would never guess that science is often tentative in its conclusions and is always open to revision, or (worse) that it might be wrong. Even I (liberal arts man who is fairly science-ignorant) get that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.

---

Not when you account for the number of trials taking place they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.

---

The simplest form of the hypothesis that I can give you is contained in the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which you apparently refuse to read. I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, I know very little about it, and I'm not particularly interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

A violation of Occam's Razor: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you speculate into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out. Convenient.

---

Since I'm only speculating, and not claiming what I say is fact, I can say whatever I like. There is no reason why what I said is not possible. You asked a question and I answered it based on my limited knowledge of the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Not when you account for the number of trials taking place they don't.

---

That depends on whether the stated age of the earth would support the necessary number of trials to "beat" the odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The simplest form of the hypothesis that I can give you is contained in the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which you apparently refuse to read. I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, I know very little about it, and I'm not particularly interested.

---

I have not refused so much as expressed hesitancy based on Dawkin's militant attitude towards Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Since I'm only speculating, and not claiming what I say is fact, I can say whatever I like. There is no reason why what I said is not possible. You asked a question and I answered it based on my limited knowledge of the topic.

---

No one is saying you couldn't say what you wanted; what you said may indeed "be possible" - so might the existence of God.

I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).

I acknowledge your right to post what you wish - but I also (like you) have the prerogative to indicate that your response did not effectively refute my original assertion substantially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

That depends on whether the stated age of the earth would support the necessary number of trials to "beat" the odds.

---

4.5 billion years is plenty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I have not refused so much as expressed hesitancy based on Dawkin's militant attitude towards Christianity.

---

Understandable. However, Selfish Gene is not about Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).

---

However, there is nothing inherent in the hypothesis of abiogenesis that discounts it from making testable predictions, whereas the descriptions of God seem – to my jaded eyes, at least – to be specifically designed to avoid testability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I acknowledge your right to post what you wish - but I also (like you) have the prerogative to indicate that your response did not effectively refute my original assertion substantially.

---

Your assertion seems to be the abiogenesis is impossible. It is not. Whether it is the best explaination of the origin of life is, as yet, open to debate, as it is simply a collection of hypotheses and not a formal theory. I'm not interested in having that particular debate because a) evidence is lacking and b) I don't know very much about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

4.5 billion years is plenty.

---

Enough to satisfy the chirality odds I quoted earlier (10 to the 33,133 power)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Understandable. However, Selfish Gene is not about Christianity.

---

A few degrees below insulting - as if I didn't understand the title. I would probably read a book where Dawkins discusses Christianity because I would enjoy the laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

However, there is nothing inherent in the hypothesis of abiogenesis that discounts it from making testable predictions, whereas the descriptions of God seem – to my jaded eyes, at least – to be specifically designed to avoid testability.

---

Sure - but notice how (instead of admitting to the point I made) you brought God into the equation in order to refute Him - something of a straw man (because I didn't bring up that God was a reasonable hypothesis - I just proposed we work with what is existent - so that we were working from within the evolutionist methodology of Naturalism).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Your assertion seems to be the abiogenesis is impossible. It is not. Whether it is the best explaination of the origin of life is, as yet, open to debate, as it is simply a collection of hypotheses and not a formal theory. I'm not interested in having that particular debate because a) evidence is lacking and b) I don't know very much about it.

---

No: my assertion is that the odds indicate that it is impossible. I personally cannot know if it's impossible because I wasn't there and I'm not a scientist. We don't have to have a debate about it - I simply posted what the odds against abiogenesis are believed to be and nobody has effectively refuted them yet (as far as I'm concerned). You may not want to discuss abiogenesis (and that's fine with me), but without it, evolutionists do end up with a considerable difficulty: where did life come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Enough to satisfy the chirality odds I quoted earlier (10 to the 33,133 power)?

---

Those are the odds of a fully formed bacterium springing into existence, and are therefore not strictly relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

A few degrees below insulting - as if I didn't understand the title.

---

I know you know what it's about. The point is that Dawkins' views on religion (and, for that matter, politics, literature and interior design) are completely irrelivant in a book about biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Sure - but notice how (instead of admitting to the point I made) you brought God into the equation in order to refute Him.

---

1) You brought God into the equation. 2) I did nothing of the sort. I compared two hypotheses. Abiogenesis makes certain predictions. Whether or not these predictions are correct has yet to be seen. Until then, there is very little to say about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

No: my assertion is that the odds indicate that it is impossible.

---

You cited the odds of a fully formed bacterium suddenly sprining into existence, and event that is impossible. That's why that's not at all what the hypothesis says. The same numbers obviously do not apply to entirely different events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

You may not want to discuss abiogenesis (and that's fine with me), but without it, evolutionists do end up with a considerable difficulty: where did life come from?

---

The problem of where life came from creates no more problems for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Those are the odds of a fully formed bacterium springing into existence, and are therefore not strictly relevant.

---

No they are not. They are the odds of chirality for a very simple strand of DNA/RNA forming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I know you know what it's about. The point is that Dawkins' views on religion (and, for that matter, politics, literature and interior design) are completely irrelivant in a book about biology.

---

The reason I point out his militant anti-Christianity is because it makes it difficult to read anything of his without my defensiveness being on "full alert" (which means I wouldn't be very receptive to his arguments), which, probably indicates my own issues. I'll consider checking the book out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

1) You brought God into the equation. 2) I did nothing of the sort. I compared two hypotheses. Abiogenesis makes certain predictions. Whether or not these predictions are correct has yet to be seen. Until then, there is very little to say about it.

---

Honestly, I do not recall doing so. I proposed the chirality odds, you dismissed them by stating that there might have been some other now-nonexistent life form that has since disappeared besides the DNA or bacterium. God's not involved in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

You cited the odds of a fully formed bacterium suddenly sprining into existence, and event that is impossible. That's why that's not at all what the hypothesis says. The same numbers obviously do not apply to entirely different events.

---

Nope. As stated above - I gave the odds for the chirality of DNA randomly assembling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The problem of where life came from creates no more problems for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity.

---

How does gravity cause a problem for evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

No they are not. They are the odds of chirality for a very simple strand of DNA/RNA forming.

---

Ah, see the problem here is you're assuming a certain protein chain. One protein chain isn't any more unlikely than any other. If it wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Honestly, I do not recall doing so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).

---

See?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

How does gravity cause a problem for evolution?

---

It doesn't. I was trying to point out that you are making the logical fallacy of incompleteness as proof of defect. Evolution currently cannot fully explain how life came about. Neither can gravity. That doesn't make either one defective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Ah, see the problem here is you're assuming a certain protein chain. One protein chain isn't any more unlikely than any other. If it wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way.

---

Without another reasonable substitute, we should assume that DNA was necessary for the development of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

See?

---

Almost. The second post you quoted was not my original argument - it was a further attempt at clarification; as well, the reference was a tangential jab at the provability of your hypothetical now-nonexistent life form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

It doesn't. I was trying to point out that you are making the logical fallacy of incompleteness as proof of defect. Evolution currently cannot fully explain how life came about. Neither can gravity. That doesn't make either one defective.

---

As I thought. I was pointing out that your imaginary option to the chirality problem violates Occam's Razor because evolutionists could endlessly come up with things that "don't exist anymore" to explain things that now do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

---

We've been waiting for 4000 years for anything more than "goddidit". You're a bit keen expecting them to come up with actual evidence now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I was pointing out that your imaginary option to the chirality problem violates Occam's Razor because evolutionists could endlessly come up with things that "don't exist anymore" to explain things that now do.

---

But, again, this will yield testable predictions. You would to far better to discuss this with somebody who knows what he or she is talking about, I'm afraid, but if a proto-DNA that doesn't look like the current model is necessary for an abiogenetic hypothesis to workm Occam's Razor, which states that no more things should be presumed to exist than are necessary, is not violated.

OK. I really am not prepared to stir this pot, for myself, the horse has been dead so long it should be carbon dated to determine how long, but I do propose a question. We are faced here with people with diametrically opposed views. We have the view that God created the Universe and everything therein. We have the view that chance created the universe, and evolution formed life on this planet. Now we come to the question of evidence. What sort of evidence would it take for someone to believe in God? What can the creationist say that will produce the evidence necessary for the evolutionist to give it credence, instead of dismissing it as retoric? And vice-versa. There is a mound of evidence in favor of evolution, provided you are inclined to believe that way already. But to someone who has his or her doubts, what is the single defining undisputable evidence that says, this is correct beyond any reasonable doubt?

Again, for the record, I believe God created the universe, yet evolution has and is taking place and shaping the world into what it is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pen

What sort of evidence would it take for someone to believe in God?

---

Well He presumeably has my phone number.

All fillipancy aside: ID rests on the assumption that complexity implies concious design. The creationist (for the purposes of this post, 'creationism' and 'intellignet design' are synonyms) would have to back up this assumption using comparisons of objects that are known to be designed – cars, say – to objects which are known to be undesigned. Obviously this is something one can't do if one believes that God consciously designed everything in the universe, in which case believe what you like but leave me alone if I don't believe it too. This sort of comparison, if it goes the way the creationists would like it to, will yield certain objective criteria for the sort of complexity which implies design (hereinafter DC for designed complexity). The distinction of compexity vs. design complexity is an important one. If you drop a fistful of sand from a height, it will produce a mathematically complex pattern, but it could not be sanely argued that this means that you designed the pattern. Once we have our objective definition of DC, then intelligent design can become a hypothesis.

Then, we would have to examine features of modern animals to determine if they possess DC. If it is shown that certain features do possess this quality, then we would have to carefully analyse the data to see if the hypothesis that these creatures possess DC because they were, in fact, designed explains this complexity better than the theory of evolution.

Then, we would have to throw out the fossil record entirely, and find a convincing explaination as to why endogenous retroviruses an lysomes appear across species, and as to why the genetic code is, against all odds, the same in every organism.

At this point, you'll have me convinced that some sort of deity exists. If you're shooting for Abrahamic one in particular, well, He's got my phone number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Well He presumeably has my phone number.

---

Yes - He does. As a matter of fact, He may very well have already tried calling you a few times; don't panic if you missed the call; He's very patient and I guarentee you He'll try again. He's anxious to hear from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

All fillipancy aside: ID rests on the assumption that complexity implies concious design. The creationist (for the purposes of this post, 'creationism' and 'intellignet design' are synonyms) would have to back up this assumption using comparisons of objects that are known to be designed – cars, say – to objects which are known to be undesigned. Obviously this is something one can't do if one believes that God consciously designed everything in the universe, in which case believe what you like but leave me alone if I don't believe it too. This sort of comparison, if it goes the way the creationists would like it to, will yield certain objective criteria for the sort of complexity which implies design (hereinafter DC for designed complexity). The distinction of compexity vs. design complexity is an important one. If you drop a fistful of sand from a height, it will produce a mathematically complex pattern, but it could not be sanely argued that this means that you designed the pattern. Once we have our objective definition of DC, then intelligent design can become a hypothesis.

Then, we would have to examine features of modern animals to determine if they possess DC. If it is shown that certain features do possess this quality, then we would have to carefully analyse the data to see if the hypothesis that these creatures possess DC because they were, in fact, designed explains this complexity better than the theory of evolution.

Then, we would have to throw out the fossil record entirely, and find a convincing explaination as to why endogenous retroviruses an lysomes appear across species, and as to why the genetic code is, against all odds, the same in every organism.

At this point, you'll have me convinced that some sort of deity exists. If you're shooting for Abrahamic one in particular, well, He's got my phone number.

---

I assume you're familiar with this concept:

"Design" is predicated on two principles:
1. Degree of complexity
2. Degree of specificity

Example: Lets pretend we have serveral trays of Scrabble-type letters. The following letter sequences were randomly formed:

Tray 1. E T H
*not complex
*not specific

Tray 2. I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO
*complex
*not specific

Tray 3. THE
*not complex
*specific

Tray 4. UNITED_STATES
*very complex
*very specific

Note: the probablility of those letters randomly forming the words UNITED STATES is 1 chance in 6 billion.

Tray 5. I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A
*extremely complex
*extremely specific

Note: probablility for these letters randomly forming: 1 in 10 to 85th power (the equivalent of winning 12 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket for each).

Your sand example qualifies for #2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

He's anxious to hear from you.

---

I'm sure he is :D He's got my cell phone # as well