Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse One would expect that a hundred years after Darwin geologists would continually find transitional forms, but this has not been the case.

Give me a couple days or so. I don't know what school of paleontology you are following, but thousands of intermediates have been found. I have already mentioned several species for whom every intermediate going back millions of years is known.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse "The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 10^46 occasions is then about 10^-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected" Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization

"To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10^-20 giving maximum combined probability of 10(-2000.)" Michael Denten, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis


I assume you are familiar with Borel's single law of chance are you not?

You are really doing yourself a disservice here. All of these guys are again talking about single-step selection. No evoutionist postulates that a fully living cell spontaneously assembled itself. They are arguing with no one, and so are you. You are making up improbable theories that don't exist and then refuting them.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname This is all that needed to be said. We don't dig for fossils at the bottom of the sea, and land creatures without skeletons are not likely to leave fossils - in fact, most paleontologists would say 90% of all species that ever existed likely left no record. This is no threat to anything. What Darwin expressed as the gravest threat to his theory would be an organ or system so complex that it could not have reasonably arisen through cumulative selection. Such a thing has never been found.

In fact, how do you explain that so many land vertebrates do show a perfect progression? If evolution didn't happen, why would any species show a perfect progession through morphological intermediates? If all species were independently created, there is no reason for them to show any relation at all. There is no reason for the existence of vestigial organs. There is no reason why the human backbone should be so perfectly suited to quadrapedal locomotion. There is no reason why human beings should so show such a remarkable genomic similarity to single-celled archae. How do your competing theories explain any of this? Evolution explains it all. The simple fact is, creation doesn't make sense, because it can't explain any of these things, nor can it explain complexity without postulating pre-existing complexity. For this reason, belief in creation requires a huge leap of faith, in that many pieces of evidence are completely ignored that seem to invalidate the theory. Evolution does not require this leap. Evolution is perfectly logical and explain every bit of evidence ever found. Nothing found has ever contradicted the theory.

Evolution doesn't "explain it", it assumes it all. It assumes we evolved because the fossil record shows progression. By the way, for record purposes, Darwin did state in his Origin of Species that the lack of intermediates would prove dangerous to his theory. And it remains the case today. Belief in creation requires no more of a leap in faith than belief in random haphazard evolution. The reason why nothing has ever contradicted the theory is because the theory itself is ever changing, always being patched up and corrected to fit whatever is found to hold fast to an immutable theory. That the divisions between kingdom, phyla, classes and orders suggest a structual plan with no room for intermediates, is obvious. Where are the links between these groups? The only answer that a Darwinist can give is extinction. The only thing geologists have discovered in the fossil record are species that appear suddenly out of nowhere. One would expect that a hundred years after Darwin geologists would continually find transitional forms, but this has not been the case. At some point we need more than ingenious excuses to fill the gaps. One look at the Cambrian explosion reveals another great problem of evolution.

Originally posted by loseyourname I told you that Eden is calculating the probability through single step selection. Evolutionary theory does not postulate single-step selection. He is making a straw man argument, and again, this was realized almost immediately after he made the argument. Why you continue to cite it, forty years later, when no one else but completely ignorant creation scientists do, is beyond me. Check the math yourself. The flaw is very obvious.

"The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 10^46 occasions is then about 10^-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected" Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization

"To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10^-20 giving maximum combined probability of 10(-2000.)" Michael Denten, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent designer." Richard Dawkins, The Necessity of Darwinism

I assume you are familiar with Borel's single law of chance are you not?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse [BTo be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly land vertebrates.

This is all that needed to be said. We don't dig for fossils at the bottom of the sea, and land creatures without skeletons are not likely to leave fossils - in fact, most paleontologists would say 90% of all species that ever existed likely left no record. This is no threat to anything. What Darwin expressed as the gravest threat to his theory would be an organ or system so complex that it could not have reasonably arisen through cumulative selection. Such a thing has never been found.

In fact, how do you explain that so many land vertebrates do show a perfect progression? If evolution didn't happen, why would any species show a perfect progession through morphological intermediates? If all species were independently created, there is no reason for them to show any relation at all. There is no reason for the existence of vestigial organs. There is no reason why the human backbone should be so perfectly suited to quadrapedal locomotion. There is no reason why human beings should so show such a remarkable genomic similarity to single-celled archae. How do your competing theories explain any of this? Evolution explains it all. The simple fact is, creation doesn't make sense, because it can't explain any of these things, nor can it explain complexity without postulating pre-existing complexity. For this reason, belief in creation requires a huge leap of faith, in that many pieces of evidence are completely ignored that seem to invalidate the theory. Evolution does not require this leap. Evolution is perfectly logical and explain every bit of evidence ever found. Nothing found has ever contradicted the theory.

You never addressed how evolution is mathematically improbable, you just gave an example of Dawkins and a monkey experiment playing the piano keys.

I told you that Eden is calculating the probability through single step selection. Evolutionary theory does not postulate single-step selection. He is making a straw man argument, and again, this was realized almost immediately after he made the argument. Why you continue to cite it, forty years later, when no one else but completely ignorant creation scientists do, is beyond me. Check the math yourself. The flaw is very obvious.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
You never addressed how evolution is mathematically improbable, you just gave an example of Dawkins and a monkey experiment playing the piano keys. Now the best you can do is to smear Eden and me for using him to state a position against evolution.

Actually, Dawkins wrote a computer program simulating the randomness of a monkey using a typewriter coupled with generational selection, which is not random. It does disprove Eden's math. Read the Blind Watchmaker already.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You need to read Dawkin's and Miller's debunking of punctuationism. You will see, that, in fact, it is Darwinism in disguise, no different. Gould and Eldredge thought that they had discovered some remarkable new principle, and they made celebrities of themselves, but in reality, they had nothing. It is unreasonable to expect that you would find all intermediate forms. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that any given organism, upon death, will become fossilized? Especially in organisms that lack skeletons or shells of any kind, you find almost nothing. Every paleontologist expects this. You act like it is some astonishing fact that we don't find all intermediate forms, but what the actual researcher finds astonishing is that we find so many, especially among more recently evolved species. Go look up the evolution of the horse or the elephant. Those are two animals in particular where we have found every single intermediate species over the past 10 million years. It's hard to see what you are trying to advocate here. Did some species evolve, but those that show no intermediate forms were created separately? There is no reason to think something like that would have happened. Evolution makes perfect sense, and explains all observed biological phenomena, including geographic distribution, biodiversity, anatomical and molecular homologies, and vestigial features. No other theory can explain these, nor can any other theory explain how complexity can arise from an inherently simple and chaotic universe, without postulating pre-existing complexity.

"It makes perfect sense", is the phrase asserted. To a creationist, creationism makes perfect sense really. It's all about faith Mr. Loser. On the contrary, it is not an astonishing fact that the intermediate forms are missing. In fact, it is only to be expected as Mr. Darwin himself said that this would present a very grave danger to his theory. Gould and Eldridge, were only brought up as an example of how, when confronted with a need to explain, Darwinists will patch up the evidences and change it up to fit the theory. Whether punctuated equilibria or not, makes no difference, as Darwinism lacks the essential pedestal for it's theory. You can choose to marginalize it, it doesn't change it. The very respected paleontologist David Raup at the University of Chichago and Field Museum, wrote:

Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonable smooth continuum of ancestor-descendent pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had in Darwin's time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be inalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms.

Now this is explained away by the lack of intermediates in three ways. To me there is no point in constantly marginalizing it and trying to dig up excuses when evidence doesn't yield your way. This is akin to constantly reshaping their position to hold fast to an immutable theory.

Originally posted by loseyourname I'm not going to say that this proves 100% beyond any doubt that evolution took place, or that chance mutation and natural selection alone can account for it, but the Bayesian probability is extremely high. Even the prior probability isn't as low as you seem to think it is to begin with. I have already debunked the mathematical calculations that you beloved Dr. Eden made, showed you exactly what was wrong with them, and you ignored it. If you knew anything about current research, you would know that nobody even brings this guy up anymore, he's been disproven so many times. You're getting hung up on objections that were raised forty years ago that have already been addressed numerous times.

Another thing for all of you: quit whining about the name calling. I've addressed every point made, and I'm not evading anything. I'm mean, and I'm just messing with you. Deal with it, and quit whining like a six-year old girl. Address my points as I've addressed yours.

You never addressed how evolution is mathematically improbable, you just gave an example of Dawkins and a monkey experiment playing the piano keys. Now the best you can do is to smear Eden and me for using him to state a position against evolution. If that helps reaffirm your belief in evolution, so be it, but it does remain a belief nontheless. I have also read a few essays on Lee Spetners probability analysis of evolution in his book Not By Chance. Evolution is not impossible, but it is improbable, and if you can't deal with that on it's face value, then you are trying too hard to believe, perhaps harder than I expected for a man of science.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Loser made mention of the fossil record. He claims, and it is indeed evident, that the fossil record shows a gradual progression of species, into more complex species. Now, he states this is indisputable evidence of us evolving. I have replied saying that whereas it does show that to our eye, it is not however, in scientific terms, showing how we evolved, nor is there evidence to suggest that one species evolved and led to another. It only appears so to our eyes. It is obvious there is "evolution" presented by the fossils. There are however, no intermediate forms. Up until Gould and Eldrige, this presented a bad case for evolution, as Darwin himself stated the lack of intermediates. Gould's 'punctuated equilibria', essentially fixed this problem, since now we didn't need intermediate forms.

You need to read Dawkin's and Miller's debunking of punctuationism. You will see, that, in fact, it is Darwinism in disguise, no different. Gould and Eldredge thought that they had discovered some remarkable new principle, and they made celebrities of themselves, but in reality, they had nothing. It is unreasonable to expect that you would find all intermediate forms. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that any given organism, upon death, will become fossilized? Especially in organisms that lack skeletons or shells of any kind, you find almost nothing. Every paleontologist expects this. You act like it is some astonishing fact that we don't find all intermediate forms, but what the actual researcher finds astonishing is that we find so many, especially among more recently evolved species. Go look up the evolution of the horse or the elephant. Those are two animals in particular where we have found every single intermediate species over the past 10 million years. It's hard to see what you are trying to advocate here. Did some species evolve, but those that show no intermediate forms were created separately? There is no reason to think something like that would have happened. Evolution makes perfect sense, and explains all observed biological phenomena, including geographic distribution, biodiversity, anatomical and molecular homologies, and vestigial features. No other theory can explain these, nor can any other theory explain how complexity can arise from an inherently simple and chaotic universe, without postulating pre-existing complexity.

I'm not going to say that this proves 100% beyond any doubt that evolution took place, or that chance mutation and natural selection alone can account for it, but the Bayesian probability is extremely high. Even the prior probability isn't as low as you seem to think it is to begin with. I have already debunked the mathematical calculations that you beloved Dr. Eden made, showed you exactly what was wrong with them, and you ignored it. If you knew anything about current research, you would know that nobody even brings this guy up anymore, he's been disproven so many times. You're getting hung up on objections that were raised forty years ago that have already been addressed numerous times.

Another thing for all of you: quit whining about the name calling. I've addressed every point made, and I'm not evading anything. I'm mean, and I'm just messing with you. Deal with it, and quit whining like a six-year old girl. Address my points as I've addressed yours.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I have never brought forth religion into this discussion. Rather I have only tried to use criteria that any scientist demands of God, evidence. I am not harping on your belief in evolution, but rather the only thing I harped on was loser's maintenence that its some sort of fact. The fact that two people can look at the same thing and see totally different things, is the mystery of human human origin and creation, since I believe we are all created distinctly. With that said, if you admit God intervening in "evolution" then it becomes akin to creation, in my opinion, so evolutionists, or at least traditional evolutionists are right to exclude God or intelligence from evolution since they have to maintain it is a totally random and haphazard process.

You have been arguing for creation. You cannot deny that. I am not going to go back and read the thread but it is there.

Again, I am keeping it basic. Like I said before, you have a different opinion about what is more plausible as a basis to build your thoughts and that cannot be argued. If someone approaches it as I do, it is factual as a general concept the minutia of which cannot yet be explained.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by dusken Loseyourname also mentioned that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that God's hands may be in evolution but there is evolution nevertheless. In that sense, whether I agree or not, theoretically it does not matter that there are no intermediates.

My belief that evolution is a scientific phenomenon, stems from a due thought process. The only reason the origin of species is attributed to God is because God preexisted as an idea that was created without the threat of evolution. If it did not exist as an idea and the problem of evolution came up, we would not resort to the idea of God being responsible and just assume we do not have all of the facts to explain what we see. There is nothing wrong with not being able to explain something and not having all of the facts. At any given time in scientific history, there was something like that and it was eventually explained. I do not think that the attitude "I am right until proven wrong" is the right attitude to have when seeking empirical truths. And of course you are going to say that evolutionists do the same, but the only reason it appears that they do do that is because they are being attacked by a philosophy that does that even more heavily.

I cannot believe I was dragged into this again. But what I am stating is a basic idea that makes it ok to accept evolution, whatever the mechanism by which it occurs is. If you disagree with me it is because you have a different opinion about what is more plausible as a basis to build your thoughts and that cannot be argued.

I have never brought forth religion into this discussion. Rather I have only tried to use criteria that any scientist demands of God, evidence. I am not harping on your belief in evolution, but rather the only thing I harped on was loser's maintenence that its some sort of fact. The fact that two people can look at the same thing and see totally different things, is the mystery of human human origin and creation, since I believe we are all created distinctly. With that said, if you admit God intervening in "evolution" then it becomes akin to creation, in my opinion, so evolutionists, or at least traditional evolutionists are right to exclude God or intelligence from evolution since they have to maintain it is a totally random and haphazard process.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Fadix I don't understand how you can separate the blaim in two equal part when baby anon slander everyone everywhere and claim later to be slandered and attacked... one just has to see his cheap trick to answer my every single posts when he knows that I won't even answer him.

One wonder how someone can have his position when beside the fossiles in our own DNA there is traces of our bacterial encestory... but again, what can we expect from someone that consider Earth revolving around the Sun as much supportable as Earth being the center of the Universe.

By posting this you are being no better. If you want to be respected, be respectable. Everyone, including you, me, and lyn, throw out unintellectual comments. If they are infrequent and in moderation, it has no bearing. But this thread became insults and redundancy.