The battle over Evolution (continued)

[winoman]

I think the answer is obvious ... God created evolution.

where is the proof....and if she did why would she have been so foolish as to create men? (I'm just trying to see it from her perspective you know...)

[winoman]

Is evolution Science?

This article alone should be enough to convince anyone....

Science is largely verified when predictions based on the model turn out to be observed and found true...

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

[Anonymouse]

That improbability analysis is inherently flawed bacuse of its misunderstanding of evolutionary change...its not chance...and its not chance upon chance...

This objection has been considered and doesn't change anything. Yes the changes that occured and the events and such that caused such (not random but based on external stimuli - a profound difference) - are likley not repeatable (to arrive at some place - where we are today) - but they did occur and we are here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

from above:

Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.

Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

from above:

suggestion that this mechanism is part of evolutionary theory is false; it is a "straw-man" -- a false creationist caricature of evolution -- used repeatedly by creationists to mislead naive audiences into thinking that evolution is illogical. It is false because it demands a specific sequence in a SINGLE selection step from a pool of random sequences, whereas the real evolutionary model for the origin of protein sequences involves MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF RANDOM MUTATION followed by MULTIPLE selection steps as outlined above.

And make sure to read the Methinks it was a weasel bit just below this quote above...so clearly this statisctical issue - while certainly one that is worth considering - is no imediment - it is - as presented - a straw man argument....

There is nothing in talkorigins that disputes the improbability of evolution. They are smart to not question mathematics. What they do instead is go into semantics of how randomness is really not randomness. If it is not random then the only other alternative is purposeful, therefore intelligent, which would call for a God. Orthodox evolutionists are wise not to call evolution purposeful as then it would involve intelligence, and design. But what talkorigins does is instead play on semantics.

As far as Dawkins, we have already discussed this exact same thing in the older evolution thread.

"Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. "

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm

In fact this whole article above is dedicated to the improbability of evolution. And Dawkins' attempt at trying to use evolutionary algorithms to indicate complexity only takes away complexity. In other words, the results are the opposite of what evolution seeks to establish and this article makes a very detailed discussion of Dawkin's example.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-algorithms.html

Phillip E. Johnson further elaborates that to program such patterns into a computer only shows employing intelligence and guiding it, as the case for animal breeders who use intelligence and specialized breeding. He states:

"Dawkins must realise at some level that the task is hopeless, because he continually tries to solve the problem by smuggling an intelligent designer into his illustrations. For example, he explains that a random letter generator can produce a coherent sentence like Shakespeare's "Methinks it is like a weasel" if one programmes the target phrase into a computer, and the computer then selects the first "m" to appear in the first space, the first "e" in the second space, and so on. Of course it can, and a properly programmed computer with a sufficiently rapid random letter generator can also produce the complete works of Shakespeare in a matter of hours. It is nearly as fast as printing the whole thing out from memory, because that is exactly what it amounts to.

The real problem that the comatose watchmaker presents is how such a dubious mechanism could attain the support of so many intelligent people when it is so clearly at war with the evidence. Selective animal breeding is guided by intelligence, working by protecting specialised breeds within a species from the destruction they would face if natural selection were allowed to operate."

[Anonymouse]

This article alone should be enough to convince anyone....

Science is largely verified when predictions based on the model turn out to be observed and found true...

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/c...o_science.html

But in the case of evolution nothing was observed. Please empirically verify how it was observed that a simple organism led to a complex organism.

[winoman]

But in the case of evolution nothing was observed. Please empirically verify how it was observed that a simple organism led to a complex organism.

Again another repost (for those who either can't or fail to read) -

Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method.

[Anonymouse]

Again another repost (for those who either can't or fail to read) -

Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method.

The DNA is a verifiable thing. I asked a simple question. The scientific method is based on what is observable and reproducible. Evolutionists know they cannot do this, therefore they make it elastic so as to hold fast to the theory. I asked a simple demonstration of how it was observed, that we evolved. By that I mean, we need some scientific evidence and verification that links the evolution from simple organisms to complex ones, not mere assertions.

[winoman]

I already covered Dawkins in a prior post - just today - concerning randomness/chance...(its not)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

Ok - so with this last post (Johnson quote) you are telling me that evolution is OK as long as their is an intelligent design? (BTW the expirement was only to disprove this idea of the improbability of comming to a certain point with the # of variables - etc - over time - and it proved that indeed it could...

Aside from this contention concerning randomness - which is a non-issue as it does actually adress the evolutionary process of natural selection - there is no other reason to put forward Intelligent design - there is nothing at all in the science that calls for it - that requires it. Sure we breed animals - and it shows that it is possible to select for traits and to evolve a species - etc. But there is nothing to say that any guiding force is required or needed in nature - unless reponse to nature (environment) alone could be considered the inteligence(or of course who is to know how the bacteria are manipulating us...) .

[winoman]

The DNA is a verifiable thing. I asked a simple question. The scientific method is based on what is observable and reproducible. Evolutionists know they cannot do this, therefore they make it elastic so as to hold fast to the theory. I asked a simple demonstration of how it was observed, that we evolved. By that I mean, we need some scientific evidence and verification that links the evolution from simple organisms to complex ones, not mere assertions.

disagree. Just what about contentions found in certain aspects of Astronomy - such as how the sun makes its energy - can be directly observed or reproduced for instance. Again your argument is a strawman. The Science of Evolution is on par with any other science. The predictions of evolution have been observed and the fossile record, the various genetic findings and so on and so forth are all consitent and supportive.

[Anonymouse]

I already covered Dawkins in a prior post - just today - concerning randomness/chance...(its not)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

Ok - so with this last post (Johnson quote) you are telling me that evolution is OK as long as their is an intelligent design? (BTW the expirement was only to disprove this idea of the improbability of comming to a certain point with the # of variables - etc - over time - and it proved that indeed it could...

Aside from this contention concerning randomness - which is a non-issue as it does actually adress the evolutionary process of natural selection - there is no other reason to put forward Intelligent design - there is nothing at all in the science that calls for it - that requires it. Sure we breed animals - and it shows that it is possible to select for traits and to evolve a species - etc. But there is nothing to say that any guiding force is required or needed in nature - unless reponse to nature (environment) alone could be considered the inteligence(or of course who is to know how the bacteria are manipulating us...) .

The problems with Dawkin's model have already been covered. As Dembski stated regarding Dawkins evolutionary algorithm:

"This result refutes the claim that evolutionary algorithms can generate specified complexity, for it means that they can yield specified complexity only if such algorithms along with their fitness functions are carefully adapted to the complex specified targets they are meant to attain. In other words, all the specified complexity we get out of an evolutionary algorithm has first to be put into the construction of the evolutionary algorithm and into the fitness function that guides the algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms therefore do not generate or create specified complexity, but merely harness already existing specified complexity. Like a bump under a rug, the specified complexity problem has been shifted around, but it has not been eliminated."

To summarize it, that is with Johnson was referring to when he said it was manipulated in that everything was plotted and programmed thereby employing intelligent design, planning, and purpose.

And to clarify, I don't believe Johnson or myself state that evolution is okay if it is intelligent. The lines of demarcation are clear in the case of evolution, it is about random changes, lacking purpose. The inverse of that would be intelligent design, and purpose, thereby bringing in a God. If it is intelligent design then it is no longer evolution is what I am saying.

[winoman]

Again - its not random - you fail to absorb this fact. There are mechanisms at work. And a fallacy to your critique concerning the Weasel expirement is twofold. You are tryin gto claim that it is trying to prove more then it is meant to...and secondly any expirement done by man is by definition intelligently designed (OK at least designed)...so you can conduct an expirment whereby man is out of the loop. But this isn't the point - its only trying to show that the claim of improbability is false -

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/coinflip.html

So don't just relay on someone saying that they have calculated the odds and its improbable. You can make up a scenario to render that conclusion to just about anything.