For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?

There are all sorts of problems with this description. Let me take first crack, before better men arrive and tear it to shreds.

quote:

---

1. Evolution is an explanation, compatible with the limits of the human natural mind for observed life and order, to satisfy those who cannot accept the notion that there is, in the universe a dimension of understanding and power above the ability of finite man to comprehend, known as the supernatural.

---

It's a well-known fact that many (possibly a majority) of those who support the theory of evolution believe in or accept the existence of the supernatural, myself and many others here included. This alone invalidates definition #1. Some day you will have to accept that evolution was not invented to take the place of a god.

quote:

---

2. Evolution is a theory contrived by one

---

More correctly, it has been developed and refined by thousands over the last 160+ years. Keep an eye out for those details.

quote:

---

and believed by most

---

(and just maybe because the evidence overwhelmingly favors it?)

quote:

---

which attempts to explain the observed existence of life and order solely by billions of random/chance happenings and interactions involving things pre-existing for no explicable reason.

---

At least you're actually approaching reality here. Still, if you think you've actually described the theory of evolution as it exists anywhere but in your own mind, I'd really like to see where you got your information.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 05-05-2003]

Hi crashfrog,We seem to have had the same idea there....

quote:

---

Methinks the need to explain away the supernaturalness of the supernatural, miracle, if you will, spawned the idea in the first place.

---

Actually, it was the inability of the Genesis creation account to harmonize with factual observations that first caused scientists to question its accuracy.

quote:

---

When you really deeply think about it, what is observed necessitates inteligent[sic] design all the way.

---

Only when one is conditioned or persuaded to enter such a mindset as requires that interpretation.

quote:

---

The odds of random natural selection is simply too impossible to explain it all.

---

Natural selection is not random. It is determined by environmental factors which may change over time, but in a particular population it can be expected to favor the same traits for many generations.Now we're back to the calculations of probability after the fact. Have you ever asked a statistician how useful that is?I was once impressed in a "sermon" by some of the numbers frequently cited as evidence that abiogenesis and evolution could not occur. Now that I know more about math, I resent being manipulated by such an inappropriate use of it. All the "evidence" I ever saw while I was a YEC has now fallen into that same category: facts twisted to comfort the flock and turn their minds from intelligent inquiry based on the real evidence as observed in nature.

quote:

---

To think a supreme supernatural being would be so impotent as to have the need to progressively create a being such as man all the way from rock to slime to wigglers to creeper, to walker to grunter to intelligent praying communicating being, is imo, nonsense. Leaving it all to chancy collisions of this's n thats, bumping into one another at precise occasions so rare that the odds are nigh unto impossible, says little to the supernatural ability of any being.

---

The validity of a theory isn't determined by how it makes you feel or how it causes you to perceive a supposed higher power. You seem to be objecting to evolution because of its lack of purpose and imprecise means, which doesn't affect the evidence that many, many fields of science have provided in its favor.

quote:

---

It would be interesting to hear what sort of supernatural you believe in and what sort of supernatural happenings you accept as bonafide. Can you name a few, Zephyr?

---

I don't think this thread needs another tangent, and my beliefs wouldn't be as interesting as you might hope. I'm still looking for the truth, and open to many possibilities. The point is, large-scale surveys have disproven the idea that evolution simply provides comfort to those who are afraid to believe in a god to whom they might be accountable. I and some of the scientists who post here are simply examples of a large cross-section of society.

quote:

---

In determining the interpretation of what is observed as to origins, one must always do so after the fact. Any unbiased statistician calculating even the probabilities of a living human cell with dna and all would have to conclude that all that is required for it to formulate without intelligence, as observed, is nigh unto impossible.

---

NO!Any unbiased statistician will tell you that the likelihood of a particular event happening is UTTERLY USELESS in determining whether it has in fact happened in the past. Stop confusing unlikely with impossible! Do you know how unlikely it was that you, exactly, would be produced from the hundreds of eggs your mother will have released in her lifetime and the hundreds of millions of sperm put into her on each of (probably) hundreds of occasions? You do the math and there it is, "nigh unto impossible." Yet, here you are. This is EXACTLY the type of logic that you find convincing, but which I circular-filed as soon as I had taken one basic stats course.You have been used.

quote:

---

cells and dna errupting from inorganic mass is as apples and oranges as you can get.

---

Straw man.

quote:

---

We know the likelyhood of human eggs producing a human, don't we?

---

The likelihood of producing YOU is what I referred to. Very very small. It happened. The more important point you do not seem to understand is that the miniscule odds are irrelevant. You exhibit the classic creationist fallacy of equating small possibility with impossibility. A little math training exposes this error for what it is. Here is the simplest explanation of why: Very unlikely x many trials = LIKELY! It's that simple.Again, I repeat: The likelihood of something happening is _USELESS_ in determining after the factwhether it happened. Especially since, as others have pointed out, we do not know all the variables, and therefore your probability is only speculative.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 05-13-2003]

quote:

---

But it's not "one in a hundred kajillion chance". It's ZERO in a kajillian chances! Are there a kajillion planets capable of sustaining life? I don't think so.

---

Unsupported assertions, where is your evidence?

quote:

---

Besides, you forgot about factoring TIME into the equation to arrive at your belief in what you affirm is possible, which is why we get a zero probability since you don't have infinite time (and infinite trials) for your version of creation to occur.

---

I don't recall anyone arguing for infinite time or infinite trials. Moreover, these would only be necessary if you actually provide evidence for a true ZERO value of the probability of abiogenesis.

quote:

---

When exactly did the window of opportunity for the spontaneous generation of life appear?

---

I don't personally know, and neither do you, but our ignorance doesn't mean it didn't happen.

quote:

---

(actually, this concept was debunked by science so I don't understand why it's so widely accepted)

---

Again, you don't understand so it's impossible? Maybe you should try doing some research about theories of abiogenesis and recent experiments' effects thereon.

quote:

---

Q: Is it in the realm of possibilities contained within your belief system that a human being could come together instantaneously from inorganic matter? Technically speaking, is such a scenario possible?

---

I see a strawman being assembled, starting with this irrelevant question. The term "belief system" is totally inappropriate for the discussion, but I'll avoid that for now. The best answer: my learning leads me to expect a finite, non-zero probability of any particular arrangement of matter spontaneously coming about. My knowledge of physics will fall apart if I try to explain any further than that. Hopefully someone else can give you a better answer.

quote:

---

1. There is nowhere a total and complete geological column in one area to my knowledge. Why not?

---

I'm getting tired of hearing this claim over and over again. If you would keep up with more threads, you would know that the complete column is found in over 20 locations. In the last 2 months, I've seen your claim refuted in this very forum multiple times.

quote:

---

2. There are numerous discrepencies in the column as Morris's Grand Canyon video shows, for example. I've read of numerous others from different sources.

---

Describe these discrepancies and you will get a good explanation for them.

quote:

---

3. The walking and flying creatures were able to survive the longest time as they all likely went to high ground during the eommencement of the flood. Likely their bodies rotted, etc and were the least likely to be suddenly burried as were the tiny things. Man being the most intelligent would be the longest survivor of the flood as they would've known the highest places and were the most able to find floating debris to keep afloat the longest.

---

Now you're avoiding specific evidence and repeating a generalized claim that does not explain the sorting. Address the sorting of similar bodies by features unrelated to intelligence, mobility, ecological niche, size, or shape: the shell sutures. Explain "flood" strata both below and above desert strata. Explain a stratum representing the gradual evaporation of a sea - with "flood" strata above and below. Until you can explain the complexity of the geologic record, in detail from top to bottom, you are clutching at straws.

quote:

---

It seems that the complete column should be prevelant all over with deviations here and there the exceptions.

---

I saw a really good answer here, which I can't locate, so I'll paraphrase. (Apologies to the author, feel free to identify yourself and/or clarify) The older the earth is, the more likely that sections of the column will be missing in some places, because of long-term erosion or other effects. A young earth with rapidly formed strata would likely have a complete column in most or all areas; therefore, the complicated geologic record with its myriad distinct catastrophes and discontinuities, verifies that our world has been around a long time and subject to many long-term variations in environment.

quote:

---

BTW, how many things have you observed sitting around to become fossils for folks in the next millionth generation to observe?? Time doesn't seem to be of the essence in the process so much as how they die. Right?

---

Sure. Quick burial does seem to be a factor that encourages fossilization. Are you implying that the only way that anything would ever be buried quickly is in a worldwide flood? Or that nobody but creationists believes in floods, because they don't believe in *THE* flood? Hardly. There are floods all throughout the fossil record in many locations. Many separate floods at different strata, with dry environments preserved between them. What there isn't is a single flood at any level that reaches around the world.Creationists love the strawman of uniformitarianism, the one that implies that "evilutionists" can't comprehend catastrophes... well, modern geology is quite aware of catastrophes, including floods. It also interprets the geologic record as indicating a long and complex history which includes many large floods, but not a single one creating all the sediment in the world today.

quote:

---

I've read the arguments both of Morris and of his critics on this. He calls it "hydraulic" sorting, similar to what I alluded to. There are arguments for and against both. There are different creatures within the same species that naturally act differently. Some of the critique is assumption. And again you folks have this huge problem of things sitting around to be fossilized somehow magically. That, imo is not scientific.

---

Nobody has ever claimed things sit around to be magically fossilized. Shameless strawman.Hydraulic sorting in no way, shape or form explains the sorting of the fossil record. The ability of all modern animals, regardless of size, shape, mobility, or intelligence, to run to the highest points of the earth before a rapidly moving flood could bury a single one of them in a place where we could find it, even if it were believable, would not explain why none of them sank to lower strata during the months when the entire earth was an ocean of watery mud. Large plant-eating animals of the Mesozoic and large plant-eating animals of today, with basically the same bodies, same ecological niche, probably the same behavior, intelligence, etc., are separated worldwide. Down low in the column we find only bacteria, despite their being the least likely organisms to settle in a flood. And so on and so forth. Once you start looking at the detailed information that has been gathered, a worldwide flood just doesn't make sense.

I was expecting that. I'd vote for closing it. Not sure how democratic it really is though so do your worst!