Evolution and Genesis

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A highly skilled artist is lecturing an uninformed attorney on the extent of evidence supporting the theories and principles of evolution?

May I frame the discussion in terms that make sense to a skilled artist ...

We live in a highly advanced, innovative, technological society. Legislated laws permit us the freedom to explore theories and philosophy in all their glory. Our science permits us to connect with others and argue points of contention. We do so from the safety of constructed domiciles, that represent creative expression in engineering, design and sculpture.

These domiciles house us and our technology, along with our theories and philosophy; all of which is an essential component to a symbiotic societal life cycle. The societal life cycle is one of the miracles of the human condition.

And yet, what is the relative worth of this miracle? Even, what is the worth of one human in earthly terms?

Mother nature regularly reminds us of our worth ... in one sweeping capricious stroke of natural forces our societies and all of their knowledge, theories, technology are removed from the face of the planet. The miracle that is man and the human condition is no more.

Knowledge of evolution and natural selection as now taught and understood offer nothing to stave off our own elimination. These 'good' theories ultimately are worthless.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

One of the mathematical implications of random walks or Brownian motion is that after enough random outcomes, the universe of possible future outcomes is smaller than the universe of possible future outcomes was at time t=0.

Model enough random walks and you will see different walks yield mutually exclusive future outcome universes.

How are we to conclude that truly random mutations will by mathematical necessity produce homo sapiens?

That's even without taking into account the archeaological record of numerous mass extinctions, often precipitated by catastrophic natural disasters, which can drastically alter the universe of future outcomes in a short span of time and is completely external of the process of natural selection.

You're making several huge mistakes here.

First, you're assuming that Earth is a closed system. Earth is not a closed system. Entropy of the universe increases, but loads of energy from sunlight is being injected into the Earth system.

You're missing the point that most mutations are bad. It's just that very bad mutations that kill people or cause a baby to spontaneously abort generally don't lead to survival and reproduction, so those mutations are "selected against." Very good mutations increase survival. What is good and what is bad depends on environmental pressures.

So mutations are completely random as to how often they occur, but only the good or "not-so-bad" mutations facilitate or allow survival and reproduction.

You're not differentiating between random occurrence of mutation and the likelihood that those mutations will allow or contribute to survival, which is a mathematically testable science.

Take cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis kills people. It results when you have two mutations (one from mom and one from dad) in the same gene which encodes a chloride channel. If you only have one of these mutations, then you're just fine.

Why do these mutations exist at their current frequency? They exist because of cholera. Cholera was killing people throughout Europe. In fact, it killed a heck of a lot of people. Someone had a random mutation in a chloride channel gene, and having a single mutation allowed this person to survive and wildly reproduce because he/she had less diarrhea than all the other people. Otherwise, maybe entire nations would have been obliterated. Out of randomness comes order.

And that's why people get cystic fibrosis today. The mutation occurred randomly, and it was useful because of the confluence of circumstances where cholera was killing people. Now it's no longer useful, and it kills people today. Fortunately, it's somewhat rare to have parents who both carry a mutated chloride channel.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How did Jesus feed the 5,000 with a basket full of food? At some point, raw elements were spontaneously reorganized into bread and fish.

I believe in miracles. I don't think this miracle makes the miracle of our creation any less impressive. Personally, I'd vastly prefer that God created us through a beautiful natural process rather than stirring around some dirt.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Given that very simple example and given my comments above about the mathematical uncertainty of random walks, is there any way we can exclude with 100% certainty the possibility that mankind was created independent of any other species?

To say this, you must assume that God intentionally has misled us by giving us overwhelming evidence that we were created through evolutionary processes. See my post about your randomness argument.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I believe in miracles. I don't think this miracle makes the miracle of our creation any less impressive. Personally, I'd vastly prefer that God created us through a beautiful natural process rather than stirring around some dirt.

Personal preference is not a scientific argument.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Personal preference is not a scientific argument.

Neither is denial of the facts.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You make a poor comparison. Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory not a law.

There is concrete evidence to support the law of gravity. There is only incomplete and anecdotal evidence to support the theory of evolution. Maybe it's better to describe evolution as a hope.

Gravity is a law? What does that mean? There is no book of laws for the physical world. Gravity is an observed phenomenon. Newton didn't invent gravity, he described it, using a scientific theory which has been revised over time but which odes not mean that gravity no longer exists or was changed.

Similarly, based upon the fossil record and even more so on the DNA related molecular evidence, evolution and nat. selection are the laws of biology, the laws of life and the laws of speciation and adaptation as observed in the world around us. The evidence supporting these thoeries is very solid and substantial. While some aspects of these theories may be revised over time, this will not mean that evoution no longer exists, it just means we will understand it differently.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

You're missing the point that most mutations are bad. It's just that very bad mutations that kill people or cause a baby to miscarry generally don't lead to survival and reproduction, so those mutations are "selected against." Very good mutations increase survival. What is good and what is bad depends on environmental pressures.

The express purpose of this existence is to die. Mutation is a condition of mortality. We cannot control all mutation in this life time.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Neither is denial of the facts.

Denial of the facts? Scientists can't even definitively link our species to the whichever one that immediately preceded it, let alone multiple "generations" beyond that.

I presented some reasons why pure randomness, even if limited by mutations that are not "survivable", is problematic if the evolutionary endgame is to yield a life form that is in the image of God.

If one contends there is no fixed evolutionary target, then this whole argument is meaningless.

In summary, I do not deny the possibility of the Theory of Evolution, as presently constituted, successfully explains how mankind descended from a single-celled organism. However, I do think there are enough unanswered issues to question it.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I presented some reasons why pure randomness, even if limited by mutations that are not "survivable", is problematic if the evolutionary endgame is to yield a life form that is in the image of God.

Is your opinion of God so low that you don't think He could know in advance the result of a process which He started?

I'm still not convinced that you read and processed my discussion of randomness and mutations, etc.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The express purpose of this existence is to die. Mutation is a condition of mortality. We cannot control all mutation in this life time.

I'm not talking about controlling mutations. You and I are both completely full of mutations. That's just a fact.

I'm talking about the fact that mutations are constantly happening randomly, and that this is the basic process which allows variation.