Evolution vs. Creation

[Redzeppelin]

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.

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.

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.

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Redzeppelin]

4.5 billion years is plenty.

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

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.

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).

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?

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

Honestly, I do not recall doing so.

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?

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

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.

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

[Pendragon]

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.

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

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.

[hyperborean]

He's anxious to hear from you.

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

[Redzeppelin]

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

Excellent! Perhaps we could all join together in a conference call? I would love to be in on the conversation.

[cuppajoe_9]

Red:

I remain unconvinced at specifity as a valid measure of design. For one thing, it's entirely subjective. Mathematically, there is no difference between I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO and I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A, one just happens to mean something a bit more to you if you speak English. If I had just blown in from the planet Xerzicon 4 and spoke only Xerziconese, one would not seem any more 'designed' to me than the other.

Note: probablility for these letters randomly forming: 1 in 10 to 85th power

No, the probablity of each of those letters randomly forming is 1/27, if we're counting spaces as a character. The probability of getting them all in a row correctly is probably a bit closer to the number you cite, but so is the probability of coming up with any other string of letters that long.

One more problem:

I might suggest that language is quite possibly not the best metaphor for you to be using here, because languages aren't designed: they evolve. The metaphor between liguistic and biological evolution is actually quite precise, because, under most circumstances, parents pass on their language to the same people to whom they pass on their genetic material. We can see, from surviving texts, how the traits of Old English that are the 'fittest' retain more 'offspring' (speakers), and thus stay with us today; whereas the traits that are not beneficial (such as the dative tense, and the ð and the þ) become lost as we move into Middle English. Then, as the enivronment of the language changes (ie: a more educated and literate group of 'hosts' emerges), the traits of uniform rules of grammar and spelling (as well as other things) gain a larger evolutionary advantage and eventually become what you and I are speaking in.

Because of this phenomenon, linguists are able to classify languages in the same way biologists classify animals: using an objectively nested hierarchy. Any group of objects can be placed into a nested hierarchy, of course. Cars, for example, could be classified first by number of wheels, then by size, then by manufacturer, then by model and so on. The problem with this is that another person could come and do the classification in a different order (manufacturer, then size, then number of wheels...). This is not possible with biological species or languages, because traits that appear in one group do not, and cannot appear in other groups. You can take more or less any kind of enginge and put it in more or less any kind of car, but you can't take warm-bloodedness and put it in a fish. Let me rephrase that: there is no particular reason why warm-bloodedness should not appear in fish, but it never does, because that trait is only found in whichever mammals and birds, due to the way they happened to evolve. Similarly, there is no particular reason why kanji-like characters (which represent ideas instead of sounds) should not appear in western languages, but they never do, because of the way that those two languages evolved. There is a mathematical way to determine whether or not a given set of objects fit into an objectively nested hierarchy, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I've just realized that I'm way off topic. It's late.

In conclusion: the sentence "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America" may be designed, but the language that produced it isn't, and it is therefore a poor analogy to use when arguing for design.