Evolution discussion

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

It is completely relevant what you think if you are aware of opposing or tangential facts to the ones I believe to be true. It's completely relevant if I'm wrong and you're right, and God not only exists for certain, but exists the way you say he does.  You are one of few access points I have to the truth, if you are correct, so your interpretation of reality might be the most important one I should be considering.



Another question for you on your Faith.... What came first, your strong belief in Christ as your savior, or your conclusion that there is decent empirical evidence that Christ really rose from his grave.


Also, if you're willing to accept the possibility that God put fossil's here to test our faith, doesn't that kind of throw out anything we could ever believe about God?  The Bible?  Jesus?  Perhaps they're all some sick test that we haven't figured out yet...

[doodle]

Mountaineer,



Also, if you're willing to accept the possibility that God put fossil's here to test our faith, doesn't that kind of throw out anything we could ever believe about God?  The Bible?  Jesus?  Perhaps they're all some sick test that we haven't figured out yet...

If I were God and I was bored this is what I would do....and then sit back and laugh my ass off!

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

It is completely relevant what you think if you are aware of opposing or tangential facts to the ones I believe to be true. It's completely relevant if I'm wrong and you're right, and God not only exists for certain, but exists the way you say he does.  You are one of few access points I have to the truth, if you are correct, so your interpretation of reality might be the most important one I should be considering.



Another question for you on your Faith.... What came first, your strong belief in Christ as your savior, or your conclusion that there is decent empirical evidence that Christ really rose from his grave.


Also, if you're willing to accept the possibility that God put fossil's here to test our faith, doesn't that kind of throw out anything we could ever believe about God?  The Bible?  Jesus?  Perhaps they're all some sick test that we haven't figured out yet...

moda, I appologize.  I did not mean for you to perceive me as blowing you off.  I think it is most important to say that Salvation is for those who believe in the promises of God.  Said another way, those who believe that Jesus came to earth, lived, died, and rose from the the dead and came to atone for the sins of all from all time will be saved and have eternal life in a perfect body on the new earth.  What I believe, however, is not important for you to be saved.  But, that said, I'll try to answer your questions honestly, as I think I've been trying to do all along.

I have come to believe and understand that I was given the Holy Spirit in my baptism.  It never left me.  My recognition, however, of what that meant became increasing clear with time and study of the Word.  The more I've studied, the more I became/become convinced that Christ really did rise from the grave.  The other explanations (see the Letters I posted in the religion thread) or alternate theories just do not "hold water" like the the Bible accounts do.  Is that because of my study or the Holy Spirit guiding me?  I honestly do not know in a way to prove it, but I am sure it is the Spirit's work in me somehow.  Can you be saved without being baptised?  Yes.  Can you be baptised and lose your faith?  Yes.  This is why I harp on "hearing the Word" so much.  I am starting to wonder if you would be interested in listening to a series of apologetics discussions (defense of the faith) but I'm hesitant to recommend that unless you are really serious and would really listen to them.  But, if you are, just let me know.  Those discussions are more solid than anything I can give you on an internet forum but would require an investment of your time.

I don't think that God put fossils here to "test" our faith.  I really do not think God would give us some "sick" test; that is inconsistent with God's Word as I understand it.  I do think Satan causes us to doubt.  Doubt God's Word, doubt that God loves us, doubt that makes us think that God wants us to burn in hell, doubt in God so we desire to put faith in some aspect of the creation instead of the Creator.

... Mountaineer


 

[dualstow]

Mountaineer: Dinosaurs? Yes or no?

[Benko]

FRED on Evolution:

The Bugs in Darwin
http://fredoneverything.net/BotFly.shtml

Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmano ... evolution/

you can take all the components of a watch, but them in a bag, and shake them forever and the probability that they will fall into place still remains vanishingly small with relation to the age of the universe. You can make the probability a bit larger by adding multiple copies of some of the components, but a bit larger still leaves you a vanishing probability. You can shape the parts such that there’s only one way they will fit together, and the probability they they’ll become a watch rises again, but it’s still small; and now of course you have to explain how the parts got made. If you find a watch in the woods, that’s pretty overwhelming evidence for the existence of a watchmaker. Now what do you look for if you find a watchmaker?

Fred looks at a number of highly complex processes and asks how they might have ‘evolved”?; and his conclusion is the same as mine has been since I was in high school: We don’t know, but it sure isn’t Darwinian survival of the fittest, and it looks a lot more like design than chance. I came to that conclusion before I knew just how complex the universe it, and I have never been shown any reason to change it.

Now by design I don’t mean that there are no elements of chance in the evolution: it’s more complicated than that. I can think of a number of random steps that if made in the correct order will take you from a light sensitive  cluster of cells to an eye as that exists in nature; but not all of those steps have any obvious utility or advantage to the organism. Something that isn’t on that path could and more probably would have happened. By design I mean that somewhere in there is a glimmer of what you’re after.  It was something of this sort that Augustine had in mind when he postulated that creation was in causes, not in completion. When I was in high school I wasn’t converted to the Church by any refutation of Evolution, because I learned Evolution from Brother Fidelis despite the fact that it was still illegal to teach Evolution in the state of Tennessee in 1949. Indeed I didn’t start to question the standard theory until I learned just how complex cellular biology appears to be.


more:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmano ... on-theory/

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer: Dinosaurs? Yes or no?

I used to think so.  That is what I was taught.  Then the more I studied science, the more I realized how much speculation about the past existed and how little provable facts.  Now, I really don't know.  I think man has discovered bones that many natural scientists say are dinos.  As to what the animal, if it really existed, looked like, I have not a clue as it seems there is a lot more speculation and hypothesis than fact.  As I said in an earlier post, I have no clue as to what existed, or for how long, before the "fall" and subsequent curse.

... Mountaineer

Edit:  Darn it!  I wish I had read Benko's post and links before responding.  I could have saved a few electrons 

[doodle]

Darwin was very concerned about the cambrian explosion, the fact that creatures of all types appear very suddenly in the fossil record.  He felt that the fossil evidence was just incomplete though, and that after additional digging, we'd find the transitional forms in previous layers.  But we haven't. 

This is wrong. There are transitional fossils. Also, one has to remember the specific conditions necessary to form fossils....they are somewhat rare.

I also don't know what happened before the Big Bang, or other such questions but why does one have to insert God into the equation? This is what humans have always done when we didn't understand something.....it's a stupid habit.

[doodle]

FRED on Evolution:

The Bugs in Darwin
http://fredoneverything.net/BotFly.shtml

Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmano ... evolution/

you can take all the components of a watch, but them in a bag, and shake them forever and the probability that they will fall into place still remains vanishingly small with relation to the age of the universe. You can make the probability a bit larger by adding multiple copies of some of the components, but a bit larger still leaves you a vanishing probability. You can shape the parts such that there’s only one way they will fit together, and the probability they they’ll become a watch rises again, but it’s still small; and now of course you have to explain how the parts got made. If you find a watch in the woods, that’s pretty overwhelming evidence for the existence of a watchmaker. Now what do you look for if you find a watchmaker?

Fred looks at a number of highly complex processes and asks how they might have ‘evolved”?; and his conclusion is the same as mine has been since I was in high school: We don’t know, but it sure isn’t Darwinian survival of the fittest, and it looks a lot more like design than chance. I came to that conclusion before I knew just how complex the universe it, and I have never been shown any reason to change it.

Now by design I don’t mean that there are no elements of chance in the evolution: it’s more complicated than that. I can think of a number of random steps that if made in the correct order will take you from a light sensitive  cluster of cells to an eye as that exists in nature; but not all of those steps have any obvious utility or advantage to the organism. Something that isn’t on that path could and more probably would have happened. By design I mean that somewhere in there is a glimmer of what you’re after.  It was something of this sort that Augustine had in mind when he postulated that creation was in causes, not in completion. When I was in high school I wasn’t converted to the Church by any refutation of Evolution, because I learned Evolution from Brother Fidelis despite the fact that it was still illegal to teach Evolution in the state of Tennessee in 1949. Indeed I didn’t start to question the standard theory until I learned just how complex cellular biology appears to be.


more:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmano ... on-theory/

Pournelle is a science fiction writer with a degree in psychology and political science and Fred reed is a journalist....why does their opinion hold any more weight than what Sean Hannity thinks about global warming?

btw....for an interesting and fair documentary into these questions I recommend this....in fact no conclusions are drawn...just a variety of ideas about how real scientists are thinking about these questionshttp://youtu.be/oyH2D4-tzfM

[dualstow]

I do think the watch analogy is an unfortunate one in that it is a very powerful image & idea that spreads easily, but from the viewpoint of an athiest or agnostic it is steering people in the wrong direction.

Watch and machine parts are so...static. They are made and then they just sit there aside from rusting or breaking. They don't morph into other things. But jaw parts can morph into hearing bones and, if you don't believe that, focus on something that can be proven: shih-tzus and mastiffs can both evolve from wolves, all without God's help.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Do you think our fossil evidence provides reasonable evidence for macro evolution if they DO represent actual skulls? 

Your details around the age of the earth are fine I guess.  I'll agree that an all-powerful God can make anything happen... But the age of the earth is of utmost importance if we are to understand whether we should be interpreting the Bible literally or not.... I mean I had bacon this morning... I might as well have had gay sex!

moda,

I just reread your question and realized you had another question that I did not address in my other response to you.  This is about interpreting the Bible literally or not (and bacon  ).

My understanding is there are different types of "Law and/or law" terminology in the Bible:  The Torah, commandments, decrees, rules, teaching, instruction, testimonies, precepts, Word, promises, statutes and the like ... no wonder it is confusing.  I think your question dealt with "ceremonial law" - the law that impacted the Israelites' lives within the temple and within the community.  Examples of those are "do not mix different types of fiber" which referred mainly to what the priest wore, and "don't eat pig".  Your bacon reference dealt with this type of law.  Since the ceremonial law was for the theocracy that Israel was at that time, the best explanation I could give you as to whether or not you committed a sin by eating bacon is from Matthew 5, verse 17 which says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."  Christ fulfilled (fully filled, fully satisfied) the ceremonial law; it no longer applies to us after Christ came 2000 years ago.  You may feel free to eat bacon and do not need to confess and seek absolution for that one.  Now as for your other sins ................ that is a different question.    Hope that helped.  I do suggest you stay away from the gay sex and just eat bacon when and if the urge strikes. 


... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I do think the watch analogy is an unfortunate one in that it is a very powerful image & idea that spreads easily, but from the viewpoint of an athiest or agnostic it is steering people in the wrong direction.

Watch and machine parts are so...static. They are made and then they just sit there aside from rusting or breaking. They don't morph into other things. But jaw parts can morph into hearing bones and, if you don't believe that, focus on something that can be proven: shih-tzus and mastiffs can both evolve from wolves, all without God's help.

I agree the watch/watchmaker analogy can lead people astray.  The "watchmaker" view of God is where God made the universe, then just sat back and watched what happened with no further involvement (a very static view of God's efforts).  My understanding would be that God continues to play a very active role in matters via the Holy Spirit.  Whether or not shi-tzus and mastiffs have micro-evolved from wolves (not a species change as they can still interbreed) does not seem to me to be proof of much of anything - other than man is a curious creature and is always trying to control or manipulate his environment - for fun, for benefit, or in futility.

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

Pournelle is a science fiction writer with a degree in psychology and political science and Fred reed is a journalist....why does their opinion hold any more weight than what Sean Hannity thinks about global warming?

Pournelle was the lead writer for Byte computer magazine for many years, was a consultant to NASA, and assistant to perhaps it was mayor of major city. 

Pournelle and Fred both have common sense and are grounded in reality, something not very common these days.  YOu really should read and think about the Kipling poem I just posted.

[Benko]

But jaw parts can morph into hearing bones

The point is to use hearing as an example, in order for hearing to work, you need 3 "hearing bones" arranged just so, an eardrum held taught with the bones held in place against it just so, a way to transmit the vibration,  a way to transform the vibrations into nerve symbols and a part of the brain to understand these electrical impulses.

So the issue is that you need to evolve many many complicated things all of which work together (if engineered just so) but which are useless by themselves.  I'm not coming from the place others on this thread are, but you have to seriously violate occams razor to believe anything other than this was designed.

[dualstow]

Whether or not shi-tzus and mastiffs have micro-evolved from wolves (not a species change as they can still interbreed) does not seem to me to be proof of much of anything

When you look at those animals, is it such a stretch to think that man and other apes might share common ancestry just as different dog breeds do? Especially considering the overlapping DNA?

, in order for hearing to work, you need 3 "hearing bones" arranged just so, an eardrum held taught with the bones held in place against it just so, a way to transmit the vibration,  a way to transform the vibrations into nerve symbols and a part of the brain to understand these electrical impulses.

So the issue is that you need to evolve many many complicated things all of which work together (if engineered just so) but which are useless by themselves.  I'm not coming from the place others on this thread are, but you have to seriously violate occams razor to believe anything other than this was designed.

Firstly, though, Occam's Razor is not absolute. It does not state that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is always the right one. On the contrary. Secondly, if there is a watchmaker (or an earmaker), then we have to find out who made the watchmaker. And that sounds more complaticated than evolution. We have evolution plus the guiding hand, as Mountaineer suggested, of an entity that started it all.

Finally:

A recently discovered intermediate form is the primitive mammal Yanoconodon, from 125 million years ago in the Mesozoic, in which the ossicles have separated from the jaw and serve the hearing function in the middle ear, yet maintain a slender connection to the jaw via the ossified Meckel's cartilage, which in more advanced mammals dissolves during development.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... s_and_ears

[WildAboutHarry]

[quote=Desert]Regarding transitional forms, there should be as many in the fossil record as there are recognizable forms.  Instead, we have the cambrian explosion which supports creation much more than it does evolution.[/quote]

Dualstow has it right.  Fossilization for anything is a rare occurrence.  Soft-bodied things rarely leave fossils. 

And the concept of transitional forms is a human construct.  Life (and evolution) is a continuum.

[Benko]

But jaw parts can morph into hearing bones

The point is to use hearing as an example, in order for hearing to work, you need 3 "hearing bones" arranged just so, an eardrum held taught with the bones held in place against it just so, a way to transmit the vibration,  a way to transform the vibrations into nerve symbols and a part of the brain to understand these electrical impulses.

So the issue is that you need to evolve many many complicated things all of which work together (if engineered just so) but which are useless by themselves.

This is the bottom line:

the issue is that you need to evolve many many complicated things all of which work together (if engineered just so) but which are useless by themselves.

I have no clue what the explanation is, nor do I need to. I only know that  Darwinian evolution, as best I understand, can't really explain things like this which include the hearing mechanism, the visual system (from an anatomic point of view), and many other aspects from e.g. a physiological point of view.  So I'm left saying I don't know what caused this, but planning by whatever (god, aliens, skynet, Hal from 2001) seems more likely.  I'm open to other possibilities, but unless this is addressed, there is a whopping hole in evolution as an answer. 

NB:  I totally understand that evolution could certainly be true for everything and the answer to this solved at some later date and that this does not disprove evolution.  IT is just that for now, one can't say it answers al the questions either.

[doodle]

The insertion of God as an answer as to how we got here is a cop out answer for something which we don't exactly know. In the meantime, there is plenty of hard evidence which points towards evolution and absolutely none which points towards the existence of God. It's perfectly fine for someone to say that they don't know how humans got here....or that the present theories are lacking.....it's a completely different story to give a faith based answer for which no evidence exists. Even if you could show that all the creatures appeared simultaneously it still wouldn't be evidence for a god.....it's just as plausible to say that aliens dropped them off here.

[WildAboutHarry]

Well, I agree that transitional forms are a human construct.  But you can't defend evolution without them.  If a life form gradually evolves from a fish to a land animal, we have to have millions of years of fish with little legs crawling the earth.  Maybe a fish with one leg, later a fish with two legs, etc.  Then a big hairy fish, and then finally Harry Brown.

You forgot the vestigial "e". 

[Snoopy]

If all life has indeed evolved from some giant bag of particles, then logically, no rational thought is possible.

Therefore, because one is even able to state the proposition, "God does not exist", he thus proves God's existence.

[dualstow]

This is the bottom line:

the issue is that you need to evolve many many complicated things all of which work together (if engineered just so) but which are useless by themselves.

I have no clue what the explanation is, nor do I need to. I only know that  Darwinian evolution, as best I understand, can't really explain things like this which include the hearing mechanism, the visual system (from an anatomic point of view), and many other aspects from e.g. a physiological point of view.  So I'm left saying I don't know what caused this, but planning by whatever (god, aliens, skynet, Hal from 2001) seems more likely.  I'm open to other possibilities, but unless this is addressed, there is a whopping hole in evolution as an answer. 

NB:  I totally understand that evolution could certainly be true for everything and the answer to this solved at some later date and that this does not disprove evolution.  IT is just that for now, one can't say it answers al the questions either.

Benko, I like that last part because the earlier paragraph sounds like "I don't get it, therefore the explanation is not complete." I certainly don't understand every detail of evolution, though not for lack of trying. Science is of course an ongoing explanation, and I think we've only begun to crack the code. Significantly, though, I have seen enough evidence to be convinced.

There is the old argument that begins, "What good is five percent of an eye?" (Answer: better than zero percent!) And with hearing bones and other specialized parts, it is tempting to say they are designed by a sentient being rather than simple physical laws acting on biology (biophysics) over millions of years. Just as you leave it open that evolution could be the answer, I have to concede that there could be an alien designer. But then who designed the designer?

Speaking of simple physical laws, I love the opening to one of Richard Dawkins' books that talks about how the tide can arrange stones on a beach. He suggests that a primitive tribesman might look at the orderliness of it and draw the conclusion that a god made it happen, while we will smile smugly and explain how a completely natural process brought about that order. We may know a lot more than those primitive tribesmen but with hearing bones we might not totally grasp the "tide" that made them. But someone out there might.

Furthermore, the reason I chose hearing bones as a example is because while they may look like they were specifically designed for hearing, we can see that some of them were in fact jaw bones. Nature is not efficient in this way, but it loves redundancy and multipurposeness. That's why we swallow and breath with the same throat, whereas a designer could have circumvented the possibility of choking on tater tots.

Whether we were designed or evolved, it gives me a sense of wonder to think about how we came here from Nothingness.

[Mountaineer]

Could someone give me an reasonable explanation for how two fish mutated at essentially the same time and in the same vast oceanic location to have lungs instead of gills, sprouted legs so they could crawl onto dry land and not drown, and then found each other, mated and produced more little fish-based things with lungs and legs to continue the process? 

And, a related followup question concerning DNA - if the mutated fish were able to reproduce fish-things that had lungs and legs, why don't we see evidence today of mutated humans mating and producing more mutated humans like them (e.g. a man and a woman, each a thalidomide product with deformed arms, do not seem to produce children with deformed arms ... at least I think that is correct.  Please pardon me if this is a poor example, I certainly do not profess expertise in biology.)?
http://www.thalidomide.ca/cause-second- ... h-defects/

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

If all life has indeed evolved from some giant bag of particles, then logically, no rational thought is possible.

Therefore, because one is even able to state the proposition, "God does not exist", he thus proves God's existence.

Unicorns do not exist.....did I just prove their existence?

[doodle]

Could someone give me an reasonable explanation for how two fish mutated at essentially the same time and in the same vast oceanic location to have lungs instead of gills, sprouted legs so they could crawl onto dry land and not drown, and then found each other, mated and produced more little fish-based things with lungs and legs to continue the process? 

And, a related followup question concerning DNA - if the mutated fish were able to reproduce fish-things that had lungs and legs, why don't we see evidence today of mutated humans mating and producing more mutated humans like them (e.g. a man and a woman, each a thalidomide product with deformed arms, do not seem to produce children with deformed arms ... at least I think that is correct.  Please pardon me if this is a poor example, I certainly do not profess expertise in biology.)?
http://www.thalidomide.ca/cause-second- ... h-defects/

... Mountaineer

And 4000 years ago your question would have been "can someone please explain how thunder and lightning exist?" I can't understand it and there is no perfect scientific evidence so therefore they must be created by the Gods. Just cause you cannot conceive of how something is possible doesn't mean it isn't. To a child, a magicians tricks look like true miracles and an especially amazing trick might even convince an adult that this person had superhuman powers.....however the truth is that they are quite simple once one is explained how it was done.

[Jan Van]

If all life has indeed evolved from some giant bag of particles, then logically, no rational thought is possible.

Therefore, because one is even able to state the proposition, "God does not exist", he thus proves God's existence.

Unicorns do not exist.....did I just prove their existence?

God exists, he even has a Twitter account. And today at 2:14am He Tweeted...

Can't you all just get along? No. No you can't.

... which proves he has been reading this thread!

[dualstow]

Desert wrote: So somehow this ... would have to deliver benefits exceeding its costs.

But is that how nature works? Or does a mutation just have to confer an advantage over the critter's peers, in say avoiding prey, attracting mates, finding food.

In fact, 5% of an eye is an extremely complex system that would require (if one has faith in time and mutation) millions of years to form.
... Perhaps it started as just an opening.

It's just an arbitrary number. It may have been started by Stephen Jay Gould. Can't remember.

I think most scientists agree that it likely started with a light-sensitive patch of skin or other exterior tissue. Nothing complex.