"Evolution is a chance process"

[Guest Genxpastor]

GenxPastor

The yes/no answer is no, but I think your post deserves more than that right? Before I go into the answer on the scientific method, lets make a few things clear:

Are assumptions always bad?

Firstly, it's not always bad to base your conclusions on assumptions. We all base our conclusions in everyday life on what we already know to be true. For example, when I find something missing from my fridge, I know it's likely my fiancee's eaten it. That conclusion is not logical unless I assume that my fiancee lives with me or has a good access to my home, that my fiancee gets hungry, that my fiancee knows what a fridge is for and how to open it, that noone else has ready access to my fridge because my fiancee and I live alone etc etc.

All of these are assumptions - but they are things that I know to be true through evidence and experiment. They led me in this case to a probabilistic conclusion, that it was likely that my fiancee ate it, because noone else has ready access to my fridge, and I know she does, and she has eaten things out of there before.

So assumptions are great as long as you have ready evidence to back them up - however, assumptions start going wrong when you start to deny evidence against those assumptions - when you start to get dogmatic about those assumptions, in other words. You see, even those assumptions were based on evidence (or they should have been to hold water) - and therefore they should be subject to evidence for disproof.

Scientists use assumptions all the time in their work - they're called "assumed knowledge". For example, physicists will use the working assumption that the earth is about 5 billion years old when creating cosmological models - not because they really want it to be that old, but because there's a lot of evidence to say it's that old. What would really be dangerous is if physicists started using the assumption that the earth was 5 billion years old in order to dismiss evidence that the earth wasn't really 5 billion years old, that'd be disastrously stupid. The point is, assumptions must themselves be based on evidence, they cannot just be dogmatic assumptions based on what we want to believe, and they must themselves be subject to evidential disproof.

Many Scientists do believe in God

Secondly, scientists do not assume, as you seem to imply, that God doesn't exist, or that God had no hand in the creation of the earth. Many scientists believe in God, many in a Christian God (that Christ was the messiah, that he was born, lived sinlessly, died for our sins and conquered death through resurrection). However, that doesn't blind them to the evidence that is all around them, that the earth is very old indeed, that the great flood didn't really happen, that life is older than 6,000 years old etc. etc. etc.

Now, these scientific beliefs may require a slightly different interpretation of the bible from the one you have - but that is as may be - the evidence isn't going away just because it appears at face value to contradict the bible, so they have to make their interpretation of the bible fit the evidence.

Inference can lead to fact

Lastly, you seem to imply that inferential knowledge cannot be fact, in other words that knowledge inferred about the past from evidence in the present cannot be factual. If we define a fact as "a proposition to which it would be irrational to withhold the tentative consent of the mind", then I see no reason why past events that leave effects in the present cannot be inferred as fact in the present.

For example, if I find a body with 30 stab wounds in its back, with paralysis drugs in its veins, tied up and heavily beaten, I would infer that a murder took place. I would also hold that this was a factual inference - no other likely theory explains the evidence we have. In other words, the past affects the present in ways that we can predict and create theories to explain.

How does science work?

Okay, now onto the meat of your question. Let me go through how science works with you:

The Primacy of Evidence in Science

Firstly, in science evidence is King. You mustn't get stuck on one theory or another in science, because we've not got all the evidence, and as more arises, it could make the old theory look redundant, and demand a new theory. Science moves from evidence to theory - in other words, we try to find the best theory to fit the evidence, we don't try to fit the evidence to the theory (or else, we shouldn't, it's unscientific)

The Importance of Prediction in Science

So, we go out and gather evidence, and come up with a hypothesis to explain it. But hang on! What if there's more than one hypothesis that can possibly explain the evidence. That does happen, quite a lot - now what do we do? The answer is simple. We make a rule that every single hypothesis and theory must make testable predictions - that is, to be a scientific theory you've got to make predictions about new evidence before we find it, or results of new experiments before we do them. So, we've got a few competing hypotheses, they all make their predictions, then we go out looking for evidence to test those predictions. Only one hypothesis is likely to get predictions consistantly right - the true one. False hypotheses will likely get most predictions wrong. By the way, it's worth noting now that in order to move from being a hypothesis to a theory, you have to have made at least one prediction that's been tested and is right.

Continual Testing and Falsification

Right, so we've got our evidence, we've made predictions, we've got more evidence to test those predictions, and we're left with one theory that clearly has a lot of truth in it. Is that where science stops? Nope! We continue to look for more and more detailed evidence to test the theory. Eventually, we will find a mismatch, and have to modify the theory, or in extreme cases, scrap it and start over. However, once a lot of predictions have come true, it's unlikely it'll have to be scrapped altogether, because it's likely to contain at least some truth! For example, Newton's theory's of motion and gravitation are wrong - but we still teach them in school, because they're such good approximations to the truth, and they only require slight modification to be corrected for relativity.

Summary of Scientific Method

So, in summary, we:

1. Gather evidence

2. Create hypotheses that:

i. Explain the available evidence

ii. Make testable predictions to that they can be tested and falsified

iii. Are internally logically consistant

3. We gather more evidence to test the predictions of these hypotheses, and choose the one whose predictions come true. This then becomes a theory, rather than a hypothesis.

4. We then gather more and more and more evidence until we find fault with a theory, in which case it can either be modified (any modification is considered a hypothesis, and has to go through this loop again) or wholly rejected and replaced (and we start over again).

Comparing Creationism with Science

Hypothesis is Primary, not Evidence

Firstly, many professional creationists do not believe in the primacy of evidence, but rather the primacy of hypothesis. They start with a hypothesis, the literal interpretation of Genesis in this case, and refuse to budge from it no matter what evidence develops. In fact, in Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education, it came out that ICR members had to sign a pledge that they believed that the bible was the literal word of God to the last autograph - as the judge put it:

"While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation."

Now, we talked about assumptions before, how they were not always bad. But they turn sour when we refuse to countenance any evidence against the assumptions - and they've turned very sour in the case of creationism. Rather than objectively looking at the evidence and coming up with a hypothesis, creationists have a hypothesis and try to mould the evidence to fit. This isn't scientific, and it's unlikely to come up with the truth (unlike the scientific method, that is likely to move closer and closer to the truth).

Making Testable Predictions?

Secondly, creationists seem to do anything to avoid making testable predictions. Every scientific theory, when expounded, has to make predictions explicitely that are testable and do in fact follow logically from the theory. Check out the origin of species, or any other original scientific work, they all make predictions. Creationists try to avoid it. They also try to avoid explaining the available evidence in any sort of exact way - rather they focus on criticising the way evolution explains the evidence, hoping that by discrediting evolution they are by default supporting creationism.

Testing Creationism's Implicit Predictions

However, literal biblical creationism does make implicit predictions, even if creationists try not to make them obvious or explicit. For example, you brought up the issue of what sort of a fossil record we'd expect if creationism were true. Ken Ham oversimplified it when he said we'd expect billions of fossils - he's right, we may expect this in both scenarios - but we would expect the fossils to be in the same order worldwide if evolution is true, and no particular order, or very disordered, if creationism is true. Secondly, we would not expect layeringand zoning of different types of rock if flood geology were true, or surface features on those rocks, or the geomagentic properties of the rocks to be aligned and flipping every so often. We would not expect mass extinctions in the fossil record, or coexistant iridium anomolies if flood geology were true. We would not expect unconformities (such are common in the Grand Canyon), and especially angular unconformities, were flood geology true. The fossil record is a whole lot more than billions of fossils dumped in places.

There are many more features of the fossil record I could name - and that's just one single type of evidence, there are many types of evidence used in evolutionary theory - none of them fit with the creationist model. But this post isn't about that level of detail, it's about comparing the two methodologies. When you think about the implicit predictions in creationism, it becomes clear why creationists don't talk about them much, because they've almost all been proven false. Once a prediction is proven false, a theory is rejected, and creationists can't have that, because they put the theory before the evidence, and before everything else, and no matter what contrary evidence develops, they have to stick with their theory.

I hope this helps,

NIkolai

Thank you SA. You've given a good glimpse into the mind of an athiest. I find that very useful as to how to approach. I am well aware that many scientists believe in God. I'm also aware that creationists use the Bible as there starting point for every interpretation of every evidence found. However, I do believe your side suffers from political and idealogical motives as well...human nature right? Modern Scientists do change their models. Textbooks are often outdated when new theories and suppossedly new evidence comes along and are thus discarded. Creationists suffer from this as well but we will not accept anything that blatantly challenges the scripture. The Bible taken literally stands in opposition of evolution on a large scale. For instance, Evolution believes the Sun came first. According to Genesis 1 the Sun was not created until the 4th day. One of the issues with creationists is the past...you can't test it without assumptions. Creationists choose to believe that the Bible is an infallible piece of literature divinely inspired. It was wrought over 1500+...literature speaking..it's a marvel. I hold to a belief system

and I fully believe that evolutionists do too. We don't feel we have a blind faith. The evidence we interpret fits nicely in the Bible. There is also another factor to consider when dealing with creationists...we hear from God. If you are a christian you have heard from God...not in an audible sense but another. You think you have trouble explaining evolution..try explaining that to an unbeliever. Regardless of brain chemistry being cited- we are not delusional, heh. Many on this board will attest to answered prayer, unexplainable coincidences, etc.

As for the objective facts of evolution, I don't see them existing. I hold a minor in geology..doesn't make me a whiz, but I saw enough holes in the fossil record to justify my beliefs. Now I had a strong belief in God before than, but I had up to that point conceded millions of years, however, I've seen enough problems with radiometric dating and asserted circular reasoning with index fossils to further bolster my position. I don't mind sensible debate, but I regret that very few evolutionists will admit to assumptions. Assumptions are a natural part of life...I know you addressed the assumption issue. I appreciate what you wrote. I hope you'll appreciate that I have little patience with long disertations on message boards. I often type way to slow so I speak in generalities to a degree.

You've been most kind. As for my fellow Christians who add millions of years to Biblical text. I can only say I strongly support their relationship with God, but I certainly don't hold to their positions. I could list a whole host of logical arguments, but I don't think it would change their mind and it might cause you to look at Christians as extremely narrow minded and factious people.

I read most of your post. I hope you'll forgive I have two children begging for attention which I am about to give them.

Blessings,

And thank you very much for your point of view.

P.S. Michael Behe has a great book "Darwin' Black Box" I think you'd enjoy it.

[Bread_of_Life]

GenxPastor

However, I do believe your side suffers from political and idealogical motives as well...human nature right?

Yes. Fortunately though, we don't just have one politic, or ideology. We have many. In fact, science as a field probably represents all the way from far right to far left politically, and every moral and religious ideology known to man.

Of course, you might say that's a bad thing right? But actually, what it means is that we have people from all different religions and political idealogies examining evidence and debating over it, and coming to consensus - meaning that we don't fall onto the side of one idealogy or religious bias and stay there, but rather that our biases tend over time to cancel out.

However, the creationist community all share the same bias, the problem being that peer review within the creationist community will only re-enforce this bias, not challenge it. If I write a paper with, say, an atheist bias, and send it out for peer review, it will meet boards of people at various publications, not all of whom will be atheists, in fact in reality, many will be theists (especially in the field of physics).

Then, if published, my paper may be read by hundreds, thousands, even millions (if I get published in nature or something like that) scientists from across the world. Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Atheists and all the rest will read my paper and potentially review it. Anyhow, you get the picture.

Modern Scientists do change their models. Textbooks are often outdated when new theories and suppossedly new evidence comes along and are thus discarded.

Yes, they do, this is one of the key strengths of science - when new evidence is discovered that contradicts a theory we need to modify or discard.

Creationists suffer from this as well but we will not accept anything that blatantly challenges the scripture.

If only creationists suffered more from open-mindedness and flexibility concerning their theories, we'd all agree!

The Bible taken literally stands in opposition of evolution on a large scale. For instance, Evolution believes the Sun came first. According to Genesis 1 the Sun was not created until the 4th day.

Agreed, but I think the key words there are "taken literally" - it's important to understand that not every Christian does (and I agree that you do understand this)

One of the issues with creationists is the past...you can't test it without assumptions.

Actually, that isn't necessarily so - or should I say, it is possible to test the past without making assumptions that arn't shared by pretty much everyone, creationists included.

Also, the past can tell us about itself in a quite direct way. For example, light from stars tells us that radioactive decay was the same millions of years ago. This also tells us that the speed of light has been fairly constant, meaning that the starlight is authentically old, and therefore a good record of radioactive decay from a long time ago. In other words, this method allows us to test some of our assumptions (the constancy of the speed of light, the constancy of radioactive decay).

There are other assumption checking methods that I could go into, but you get the point!

We don't feel we have a blind faith. The evidence we interpret fits nicely in the Bible.

Firstly, if you refuse to try to interpret evidence that does not fit into the bible, then this statement will be tautologically true - that is, it will be true, but trivially so, it wont tell us anything about the state of the evidence.

Secondly, I would say that actually even a lot of the evidence that creationists do consider doesn't fit with the literal biblical interpretation.

There is also another factor to consider when dealing with creationists...we hear from God.

Many on this board will attest to answered prayer, unexplainable coincidences, etc.

The evolutionist Christians claim the same or similar link and coincidences, don't forget their testimony and witness.

but I saw enough holes in the fossil record to justify my beliefs.

How many holes does it take to verify creationism, and how many does it take to disprove evolution? This is a serious question by the way, because I've never been quite clear as to why a gap in the fossil record acts against evolution, or for creationism.

however, I've seen enough problems with radiometric dating and asserted circular reasoning with index fossils to further bolster my position.

Well, firstly, I'd be happy to discuss radiometric dating with you, and supposed problems with it, as I have with others on this board.

Secondly, index fossils are rarely used as a primary method of dating a fossil, because of course they make an assumption about the period within which the index lived (although this assumption is often well tested a verified in other parts of the fossil record nonetheless.)

I hope you'll appreciate that I have little patience with long disertations on message boards.

That's okay, I don't mind at all.

[artsylady]

So what is the actual evidence that the fish saw the food on the land?

QUOTE

Then why did you say it can see the food on the land, or even know that there WAS food on the land?????

QUOTE

We're talking about fish living in the water and seeing food on land,

The answer is, I didn't say it saw food on land. I said that there was food on land. That's true, there was, and with noone to eat it.

Did the fish know about the food on the land? If yes, how, if they couldn't see it?

That meant that fish who could get further and further ashore and back again before becoming oxygen starved had an advantage, not only because they could escape from predators, but because they would have access to food that none of their competitors had.

Again, how did they know about the food if they didn't see it. If they didn't 'will' it to happen, it just happened accidentally?

But the fish didn't see the food, and think "well now I have to grow legs". Rather, the fish simply hunted for food, and some of those fish, the ones with legs or protolegs, had a larger and more fruitful potential hunting area than the others.

What's the evidence that fish grew legs though. Sure, there were fish with legs. Might even be around today.

QUOTE

So there's no fish with stumps. No evidence!

Correct, we havn't yet found the intermediate form of fish with stumps. However, we have found fish with legs in the fossil record, fish which we do not find today, because they evolved into amphibians.

What about the fish with legs caught by that 8 year old girl? Did you see that footage? Did you compare it to the Spotted Ratfish? It's NOT a spotted ratfish. You haven't offered an opinion on this. Do you have one?

What is your explanation of why we no longer find these fish with legs?

I don't have that opinion. I think one was recently caught actually.

QUOTE

it seems there's no evidence for either, yet you beleive one of those lil' stories!

No, I don't really believe either hypothesis, or any other hypothesis. These are just possibilities of how fish evolved into amphibians - they are good ideas of how it might have happened, but we may never know exactly how it did - but there's no reason for me to come down heavily on one side or other.

So you don't believe either story. Are you trying to confuse us all into believing in evolution?

QUOTE

So no evidence again. Thank you.

Apart from the fact that we know that it must have happened at some point, no evidence.

Well, again, thank you for that admission. Now don't forget about the wise man proportioning his belief to the evidence. I think that quote is a good one.

QUOTE

Yeah, we're related because we were all created by the same designer.

Many evolutionists believe this also. But it's definetely not the only relation we have, we are cousins with other creatures also, in a literal sense.

How do you know God didn't just use the same designs in creating different species? There's no way you can prove this wrong. I'm sure you realize this.

QUOTE

Well thank you for starting to use the much more appropriate word 'inference' rather than evidence

What do you think inferences are made from? The answer is "evidence".

Well, creationists do use the same evidence.

QUOTE

How do you feel about the platypus? Personally, I'm sure God created creatures like these specifically to make evolution look stupid.

What about the platypus? In many ways, it should really make creationists look stupid. It shares analogous similarities with some reptiles, but groups of homologous similarities with mammals, and therefore is classed as a mammal.

It doesn't fit with evolution. It shows our Creator's creativity. It shares characteristics of reptile, bird and mammal. It's a mosaic. How does it fit with any of your lineage theories. If it had never been discovered, evolutionists would say such a species could never evolve to such.

In many ways, this should make creationists wonder why a creature with such a completely different type of life than other mammals should share groups of functionally unrelated characteristics with them. It should also make them wonder why DNA evidence proves that platypus is far more similar to mammals than reptiles.

Tell me how the platypus fits.

QUOTE

With no evidence for any of it. Very sad that it's taught as fact, don't you think???

It is a fact. Our ancestors did escape the sea. Life started in the oceans, and fish evolved first - there is incontravertible fossil evidence to that effect. That means that, somehow, life came onto land, that's factual.

Sigh. But there is no evidence for it. You already said there are no fish with stumps. That might be the evidence you need but it isn't there. And there may very well be fish with legs today. You don't know it's a fact, but you keep telling yourself that over and over again.

QUOTE

Then why is God created the world and all the species in it so ridiculous.

It isn't, and many evolutionists believe this to be true. But they also believe in evolution. Is this so hard to fathom?

No, it's not hard to fathom. It's not hard to fathom because scientists are not given a CHOICE to believe in the creation theory. They aren't allowed to even discuss it in an educational setting. Do you think that's fair? No wonder they're all brainwashed. They look around and clearly see evidence of design and a designer but have no choice but to believe in evolution because they are taught no other alternatives and aren't even allowed to think about the creation theory at university level. You do know this is true. Really, is this fair? Why can't scientists at university level be given the option to study either theory? Why can't both theories be offered? If the theory was so ridiculous, scientists wouldn't abandon years of study of evolution to follow the creation theory, right? The scientist who started the Creation ex Nihilo magazine was head of humanism at a Canadian university. He was open minded enough to take a look at the creation theory and changed his mind. He then became a Christian, and then started publishing this magazine. There are many others like himself but unfortunatley, there's such an unfair prejudice against studying creationism that most will blindly turn away for fear of ridicule. NOW IS THAT FAIR??????

QUOTE

I totally disagree. The earth speaks of balance in every way - none of this survival of the fittest crap. Everything is balanced so that all creatures have a fair shake. Small animals that don't live long produce far more offspring. Large animals that live long produce far fewer offspring.

Actually, firstly, not all small animals produce a lot of offspring, but that's a different argument.

However, you say that you think survival of the fittest is "crap". Well, then, explain to me, one of these small animals that have a lot of offspring, what happens to all those offspring? Given that most animal populations of stable on average, what happens to the hundreds and thousands of offspring they have? If they all survived to adulthood to have children of their own, the oceans would be completely filled with fish in only a few generations?

So exactly what happens to the vast vast majority of all this offspring? How is the population balance maintained?

Don't you see this? There's a balance here. Creatures are designed to live harmoniously. It should be very obvious. The creatures that have more babies live shorter periods. The creatures that have fewer babies live longer. Nature is in harmony until man, in his infinite wisdom and with years of 'study' decides to mess with it. Like introducing rabbits in Australia. Seemed like a good idea but a big mistake. There's balance with all these creatures and with the plants and the planet and it screams that there is a designer - someone that you don't want to acknowledge for whatever personal reasons.

QUOTE

And why NOT common designer?

Again i say it, many evolutionists also believe we have a common designer - but they also believe in evolution. Common design does not explain the grouping of functionally unrelated characteristics in the animal kingdom, nor the heirarchically nested configuration in which they are grouped, nor the DNA/embryological and other evidence to support this, nor the fossil record.

The fossil record is full of anomalies. You really should check them out. I mentioned an entire book dedicated to living fossils. Do you want to learn more about them, or have you already made up your mind? I asked you before if you wanted to learn more about them and you didn't answer. I guess that means you have already made up your mind. You think of yourself as a 'free-thinker' but you are a slave to believing what you have already learned, and not to question it or think about it or ponder it. If you were a free thinker, you might not be so robotic in believing what you are taught in your 'higher education".

QUOTE

I actually think it's not the predators who camoflage for the most part - it's the prey who usually have this ability.

On the other hand, you thought that stuff about ape and human and goat milk, but you couldn't come up with any substance for it.

Don't change the subject first of all. And you haven't proven me wrong anyway. Surely there are stats out there - the ones we need but I can't find them. Can you? If so, prove me wrong. Be my guest. Why do you keep bringing this up? You haven't proven me wrong. lol. You're funny SA.

So have you investigated predation? Have you found out how many predators are camoflaged, and how many are not? Have you researched the lifestyles of each group, and their method of hunting?

Are you avoiding my question by asking a bunch more? Are these questions intimidation tactics? Sure sounds like it. So...... your answer is? I guess the question again. You asked for examples of predators that stick out like a sore thumb. I said snakes brightly colored - how 'bout red and black or yellow and black. So, why did they evolve to be so easily seen? I know it's a tough question, but you could at least try.

QUOTE

Well why didn't they all change into humans?

Because, as we know from the 2 million creatures we've already classified, and the many more we're probably still to find, there's more than one way of making a living on earth.

Actually, that brings up another argument for my balance theory. The food chain - another perfect example. All creatures designed to live together. And a very intelligent designer overseeing the process.

QUOTE

Take a fish and put him in a small pond where there's food visible on land and see if he'll grow some legs or stumps.

It won't, because this isn't how evolution works. I wonder if you've been reading my posts carefully enough. I'll say it again, just in case - adaptions are not dependent on the creatures will to adapt, they are driven by random mutations.

Ah yes. So again, the fish didn't see the food. How DID or WHY did they grow the legs? Maybe there's a way to perform this experiment yet.

QUOTE

Well, what about the ones who AREN'T predators - the ones on the bottom of the food chain. They are still here!

Yes they are, because they have been fortunate enough to evolve a sufficient ability to escape their predators more times than not, or at least enough for a few to survive and breed.

If survival of the fittest was true, any species could thrive and takeover if they could both have lots of babies that lived a long long time. They can do one or the other, not both. Balance. An intelligent being made them that way.

QUOTE

So.... then, as you stated before, there was food on the land that the fish wanted to get to because they didn't have enough in the water, right? I guess you can throw that hypothesis right out, right? It's all about a bunch of lucky accidents that are dependant on NOTHING.

Well, there are lots of accidents going on. Every one of us has a few genetic accidents in our genome that make us slghtly different from our parents.

That's not mutations though. That is chance. Nothing to do with lucky mutations.

Some of these accidents are unlucky. Some of them are unnoticeable, they have no immediate effect. And some are lucky. After hundreds of generations, only the lucky ones will remain - accumulating through natural selection in the gene pool, as the unlucky ones are weeded out.

Not true. In humans, unlucky mutations include dwarfism and downsyndrome. Through thousands of generations, these mutations have NOT disappeared.

QUOTE

I can't beleive we are continuing in this ridiculous conversation... but since we are

is there any evidence that the fish held it's breath?

Yes artsylady, I have a video here of a fish 400 million years ago holding its breath on a raid for food on a shore of an island somewhere.

No, of course there is no direct evidence for this.

I thought you didn't like sarcasm? lol. I don't mind. I think your video joke is funny. But you're right. Of course there's no evidence for this.

That's why it's a hypothesis - not a theory. It's a way it could have happened, not a way it definetely did happen. But happen it did, in whatever way.

I think I got it. Because we find old dead sea life and because we are now here, that means that we evolved from this old sea life. Whew. Alrighty then!

QUOTE

You asked for experiments? This should be an easy one. Put a guppy in a tank with a fish and see if he can jump out for a second to hold his breath.

Do you have an aquarium? If so, pull a fish out for a 20 seconds, and put it back. It'll survive. It'll survive for longer than that actually, if it's well oxygenated to start off with.

Ohhhh. Okay, easy experiment. But you have me, the intelligent person, interfering with the process. I thought it all happened without intelligence or intervention.

So, you think the guppy would jump up and hold it's breath in a tank with a shark all on its own?

QUOTE

How often do bad mutations happen as opposed to 'good' ones?

Good question. It actually depends on several things:

1. What is "good" and "bad" will often be dictated by the environment and ecosystem that the animal lives in. As this changes, then so do "good" and "bad" as defined evolutionarily.

2. It depends on what part of the genome you're talking about. For example, in the alpha-haemoglobin protein, all mutations will either be bad or neutral - because the alpha-haemoglobin is already maximally adapted to binding to oxygen (it's used up all the "good" mutations already in the course of evolution, and now binds to oxygen the best it possibly can, and so any change will either be neutral or bad)

On the other hand, in an ecosytem with biting insects that spread disease, a mutation on the 6th protein of the beta haemoglobin subunit is "good", because it prevents you from being affected by diseases spread by biting insects. In other ecosystems, without biting insects, this mutation would be disadvantageous, bad.

Unfortunately, mutations are hard things to spot. We don't have a machine that goes off every time there's a mutation going on. Also once we've found one, testing whether a mutation is good or bad is also very hard - because it's affect can be very subtle, or it can be difficult to tell if the effect is advantageous to the animal being studied.

So there are actually very few "famous" mutations that we know about. One is an example I've given before, which is the sickle-cell mutation. Depending on the environment, this can be good or bad. It's good in Africa, but bad in the USA.

So the sickle-cell mutation is obviously not necessarily advantageous.

So, what's your answer? How often do bad mutations happen as opposed to 'good' ones? I'll give you multiple choice... a) often b) not very often c) seldom d) we don't know

[artsylady]

bump

[Bread_of_Life]

Artsylady

Some of these questions I have answered before, but some are new, so here goes:

Did the fish know about the food on the land? If yes, how, if they couldn't see it?

Again, how did they know about the food if they didn't see it. If they didn't 'will' it to happen, it just happened accidentally?

I've answered both of these questions before. I said:

"But the fish didn't see the food, and think "well now I have to grow legs". Rather, the fish simply hunted for food, and some of those fish, the ones with legs or protolegs, had a larger and more fruitful potential hunting area than the others"

What's the evidence that fish grew legs though. Sure, there were fish with legs. Might even be around today.

Well, that fish with legs in the fossil record shares both amphibian and fishlike characteristics, making it an early intermediate.

As for these fish still being around today, I would require evidence of this. Of course, it isn't impossible, but it would be unlikely that such fish would be of the exact same form, after millions of years of evolution.

If you could link me into a peer reviewed paper on the discovery of such a species, I'll be happy to comment on it.

What about the fish with legs caught by that 8 year old girl? Did you see that footage? Did you compare it to the Spotted Ratfish? It's NOT a spotted ratfish. You haven't offered an opinion on this. Do you have one?

I you would link me into a paper on this discovery I would be happy to come back with comments.

So you don't believe either story. Are you trying to confuse us all into believing in evolution?

No, in fact, I made my views quite clear in my last post, and by cutting and pasting only part of my views and commenting on them you are being very disingenuous.

I have made it clear that what we are certain of is that evolution did happen, but that we are less certain of exactly how it happened, or exactly why things evolved. We know of course that natural selection was involved in population dynamics and such like, and so was mutation. But exactly what mutations, and selected under exactly what selection pressures, we may never know.

That's the last time I'm going to make this clear on this thread.

Now don't forget about the wise man proportioning his belief to the evidence. I think that quote is a good one.

I havn't, which is why I don't hang my hat on any particular hypothesis regarding why fish took to land, because there is insufficient evidence to show *exactly* why this happened (although there are considerable clues).

How do you know God didn't just use the same designs in creating different species? There's no way you can prove this wrong. I'm sure you realize this.

It doesn't fit with evolution. It shows our Creator's creativity. It shares characteristics of reptile, bird and mammal. It's a mosaic.

Again, I have answered these questions in my last post. Evolutionist do not believe in evolution because animals share features in common, or at least, that they share any old features in common. Rather, scientists look at the grouping of functionally unrelated characteristics to infer evolutionary relationships.

Characteristics that are functionally unrelated, and unrelated to way of life and environment are called "homologies". Scientists have found that, no matter what group of homologies we take for a given set of animals, we always end up inferring the same hierarchy of relationship, and also the same type of hierarchy. This is inconsistant with seperate creation, because the groups of characteristics we are using are not related to way of life, and the phylogeny (relationship tree) we infer is not reflective of environment or way of life. I have explained this before of course, when I said:

"In many ways, this should make creationists wonder why a creature with such a completely different type of life than other mammals should share groups of functionally unrelated characteristics with them"

Tell me how the platypus fits.

The Platypus is a mammal, of the very small order Monotremata, which was seperated from other mammals early in their evolution when Australasia broke away from the asian subcontinent. It has evolved to suit a marine environment in Australia. It has evolved several functionally related features to help solve the unique problems of living in water, such as webbed feet and a duck-like bill.

However, they also share similarities with therapsid reptiles (from whom mammals evolved), and clearly that have maintained many of these similarities that other mammals (following a seperate evolutionary path away from Australia) lost. For example, they maintain a complex pectoral girdle, laying of eggs rather than bearing live young, limbs oriented with humerus and femur held lateral to body, and a cloaca, all features of their therapsid ancestors, which, unlike their asian cousins, they never lost. However, they also have some features exclusive to mammals, such as fur (but they lack vibrissae), a four chambered heart, a single dentary bone, three middle ear bones, and the ability to lactate.

They also share some characteristics exclusive to marsupial mammals, also Australian, such as large epipubic bones in the pelvic region.

DNA analysis also confirms that the order Monotremata is of the mammalian lineage. The Platypus, once understood in the context of evolution, provides confirmation that mammals are indeed descended from therapsid reptiles as the fossil record also shows. However, unlike other mammals who lost most of their retilian charateristics, the geographical isolation of the monotremata order allowed the few animals in the order, including the Platypus, to retain reptilian features while other mammals lost them.

Sigh. But there is no evidence for it. You already said there are no fish with stumps.

Fish with stumps would be evidence of one particular theory of how life got onto land - what I claimed as a fact is that life did evolve onto land, not exactly how this happened.

It's not hard to fathom because scientists are not given a CHOICE to believe in the creation theory. They aren't allowed to even discuss it in an educational setting. Do you think that's fair?

Erm, I was saying that many evolutionary scientists DID believe in creation. How then, have they been brainwashed?

Also, please make a distinction between "creation" and "creationism". Creation is the idea that we are created by a deity or powerful entity. Creationism is the belief in the literal interpretation of the Genesis scriptures. Many scientists believe in Creation, and many scientists believe in Christ. No scientist believes in creationism.

They look around and clearly see evidence of design and a designer but have no choice but to believe in evolution because they are taught no other alternatives and aren't even allowed to think about the creation theory at university level.

There are two reasons why creationism is not taught at university (or in schools). Firstly, it's been proven wrong many times. Secondly, it isn't science, and therefore cannot be part of a science curriculum. So yes, it is perfectly fair that creationism (the belief in the literal interpretation of genesis) is not taught in school or university science classes.

Don't you see this? There's a balance here. Creatures are designed to live harmoniously. It should be very obvious. The creatures that have more babies live shorter periods. The creatures that have fewer babies live longer.

THis wouldn't prevent a population explosion. In fact, it would make it even worse - creatures that live a short period having many offspring would create a very very quick population explosion.

So, in answer to my question, what happens to all these excess young? If populations are stable, yet creatures are having thousands of children, what happens to the vast majority of these thousands of offspring? Given that you do not believe in natural selection, this should be a difficult question to answer.

The fossil record is full of anomalies. You really should check them out. I mentioned an entire book dedicated to living fossils. Do you want to learn more about them, or have you already made up your mind? I asked you before if you wanted to learn more about them and you didn't answer.

I'm happy to be linked into any peer reviewed literature you have on the fossil record.

And you haven't proven me wrong anyway. Surely there are stats out there - the ones we need but I can't find them. Can you? If so, prove me wrong. Be my guest. Why do you keep bringing this up? You haven't proven me wrong.

It's not up to me to find them artsylady, but rather it is up to you. You made the claim about human and ape milk, so you can provide the evidence to back up your claim, otherwise I simply won't believe it.

Similarly, I claim, say, that the world is 5 billion years old, then I have to come up with evidence to prove it - rather than expecting you guys to get evidence to prove me wrong.

Are you avoiding my question by asking a bunch more? Are these questions intimidation tactics? Sure sounds like it. So...... your answer is? I guess the question again. You asked for examples of predators that stick out like a sore thumb. I said snakes brightly colored - how 'bout red and black or yellow and black. So, why did they evolve to be so easily seen? I know it's a tough question, but you could at least try.

I'm not attempting to intimidate you, I am attempting to learn more about the species in question so that I can answer your queries.

Now, which species is it that you are talking about? Where do they live? What do they eat? How do they hunt? Where do they sit in the food chain? What sort of environment do they live in? What is their hunting strategy?

All of these questions, and more, are necessary to answer your question about the colours used by these snakes. Therefore, I would advise you to find out about a particular species of snake, how they live etc etc, and then come back with your information and ask me a specific question about that species.

The food chain - another perfect example. All creatures designed to live together.

And eat each other. I thought there was no death before the fall?

If survival of the fittest was true, any species could thrive and takeover if they could both have lots of babies that lived a long long time.

This is a simple misunderstanding of game theory.

Firstly, not all creatures that live for a short time have few children, and vice versa. For example, Fish can live for 5 or 6 years (which is, in the animal kingdom, a medium life expectancy) but they are some of the most fecund animals on earth. You will have to show evidence of a positive correlation between lifespan and fecundity for me to believe this assertion.

Secondly, it's not quite as simple for a species to "take over" as you'd think. For example, you say that it would be simple to take over if a species had a lot of babies. Yet, you neglect the fact that babies can involve a considerable investment on the part of the parent, especially if they are big. Some animals get around this by investing less in babies (fish have small eggs, fertilise them and leave the larvae to fend for themselves) and therefore having more (fish can lay thousands of eggs). However, this has the drawback that many many more of these babies die. On the other hand, some animals invest considerably more in babies, but have less, for example, elephants only have a few babies in a lifetime, but look after them from day 1, and the babies are born pretty much as fully formed elephants, with a lot of growing to do. This involves a lot of food, milk, and looking after time by the parents, preventing them from having more babies.

You also said that an animal could thrive and take over if only it could make itself live for longer. But then, how would it do that? Animals don't always die of old age you know - they usually are attacked, or starve, or are eaten. There isn't a magic gene that can make them live longer - all genes can do is give animals the best possible set of features to try to avoid mortality for as long as possible. Furthermore, if animals lived a long long time, then what would they eat? After all, if a fly lived for 20 years, then it would exist with it's children, it's grandchildren, it's great grandchildren, its great great grandchildren etc - all younger and fitter and more able to get scarce food resources. So how would this old fly survive - what would it eat with the billions and billions of flies it had produced through breeding? You see, the answers to evolutionary problems arn't always as simple as "live longer", or "breed more" - these have their up sides and down sides, and many other considerations (such as limited resources) besides.

That's not mutations though. That is chance.

But, as I've said before, mutations *are* chance, they are completely random, as far as we know, caused by cosmic and solar rays interacting with genes in the germ line as they divide.

Not true. In humans, unlucky mutations include dwarfism and downsyndrome. Through thousands of generations, these mutations have NOT disappeared.

Not so, they disappear almost every generation, downsyndrome children have very very little chance of reproducing. However, they also reappear. Mutations happen all the time, so the same unlucky mutation can happen again, and they do.

However, if a mutation is really unlucky (as in fatal) it is not inherited (by definition). Fatal mutations (by definition) die out after one generation - and are not inherited. They may reappear, but only through more unlucky mutation, not through replication or being passed down. They will never become common, because they will never be passed on, they will only occur at the rate that the mutation occurs, and then immiediately die out.

I think I got it. Because we find old dead sea life and because we are now here, that means that we evolved from this old sea life.

No, and again, you are being deliberately disengenous. We have other evidence that all animals are related, that we evolved from a common ancestor. Given that fact, and the fact that sea life comes first in the fossil record, we can conclude that life did indeed evolve onto land.

But you have me, the intelligent person, interfering with the process. I thought it all happened without intelligence or intervention.

Firstly, not all evolutionists believe this - many believe in divine interference as well as natural selection.

However, secondly, I have explained about fishes and hunting areas before, now several times.

So, you think the guppy would jump up and hold it's breath in a tank with a shark all on its own?

No, but I do think it would head for shallower water all on it's own. In fact, if you had a population of guppies in a tank with a shark, and a shoreline, the guppies would head to shallower and shallower waters, depending on the size and range of the shark.

Also, if you put too little food in the tank to eat, but more and more food closer in land, the guppies that could get further onto the shore without being beached would tend to survive better, because they would have access to a larger hunting ground, and therefore more food.

So the sickle-cell mutation is obviously not necessarily advantageous.

There is no such thing as a "necessarily advantegous" mutation. Whether a mutation is advantegous or not will depend on the environmental context in which the mutation occurs, and it's embryological context.

Sickle-cell is advantageous in Africa, but not in America, it is a classic example of why mutations cannot be "necessarily advantageous"

[jmwhalen]

Scientific Atheist:

"What is an evolutionist's upside/downside"

Leaving the doctrinal question "aside" for now-what is your opinion(and as you well know, truth and opinion are independent)on the following:

If evolution is true and the Holy Bible false, then the the Lord Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead. And if He did not rise from the dead, "Eat, Drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow we die", "Go for all the gusto

[Bread_of_Life]

If evolution is true and the Holy Bible false

This is based on the false premise that Christian faith and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive. Many Christians do believe in evolution.

Also, if you want me to answer Pascal's wager, which is what this is in a particularly fundamentalist form (one that substitutes atheism with evolutionism, which is just wrong), I can - but on another topic. If you want to post up a new thread with Pascal's wager in whatever form, and I'll explain my objections to it.

[jmwhalen]

Scientific Atheist wrote:

"This is based on the false premise that Christian faith and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive. Many Christians do believe in evolution."

____________________________________

No, this is your "opinion" that "Christian faith and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive is a false premise".

They are mutually exclusive. It is irrelevant what "many Christians" believe-again, belief and the truth are independent. What is relevant is:

1.Christianity focuses on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who said, as it is written:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Mt. 19:4-6

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." Mark 10:6-8

Sir, no "spin" needed here. The Lord Jesus Christ verifies the truth of the Genesis account. So, even a 5th grader can understand that evolution and Christianity cannot be true. In the beginning they were made as male and female, and not as "mud in the ground". Again, even Jethrow Bodine and his 6th grade education("The Beverly Hillbillies") can figure this out.

2. The premise of evolution is that man is "progressing". The premise of Christianity is just the opposite-man is rotten, no good, desperately wicked.....and getting worse-and hence the NEED FOR A SAVIOUR, the only SAVIOUR, the Lord Jesus Christ.. You have a false view of Christianity if you do not understand this concept. If you do not agree with this "premise", it is either because you cannot read, or have not read the Holy Bible. No "reasonably prudent person" could conclude otherwise.

3."Many Christians do believe in evolution."

That is your "opinion", not an argument. You make an assertion, not an argument. Evidence, please.

Additionally, you can only make such such an assertion if you know what a "Christian" is. Apparently, you do not. If you do, please provide me your understanding of "what a Christian" is.

In Christ,

John Whalen

[Bread_of_Life]

jmwhalen,

Firstly, I am no theologian, but the argument that you posted was pascal's wager with atheism substituted for evolutionism. Of course, evolutionism is not equivalent to atheism, and I was pointing out that it was also not necessarily equivalent to disbelief in Christianity, according to some people's Christian belief.

However, you did post some interesting scriptures concerning Jesus' references to the Genesis account. I do not see a contradiction between the statement "he made them at the beginning made them male and female" with evolutionism - since humans were, from the beginning of the species origins, sexual beings. Again, it depends on whether you read Genesis, and hence references to Genesis, literally or non-literally, but I suppose as an atheist and not a biblical scholar I'm not one to argue with on this point.

The premise of evolution is that man is "progressing".

This is false. Progression is not a premise of evolution - in fact, I would think it hard to make it a premise, because progression is such a necessarily subjective word, and could refer to almost anything.

The only thing that is guaranteed is that mutations and selection will adapt a species as best they can to any given environment, they will maximise adaptive capability (by the way, maximisation does not mean perfection, in case you read it like this). If that's what you call "progress", then fine, but it's certainly not what I call progress, especially the sort of progress you were talking about when you said:

The premise of Christianity is just the opposite-man is rotten, no good, desperately wicked.....and getting worse-and hence the NEED FOR A SAVIOUR,

Clearly here you are talking about moral progress and regression. Evolution does not claim anything whatsoever about morality (being a scientific rather than a moral theory), and certainly does not claim that man is getting more moral, or striving toward moral perfection. It does not claim this for any animal. Rather, it claims that natural selection and mutation will maximise fecundity and reproduction in any given species, in other words maximise adaption to any given environment. This is true, given the occurence of mutation and a struggle for existence.

Evolution also claims common ancestry, but that's a different topic entirely.

Additionally, you can only make such such an assertion if you know what a "Christian" is. Apparently, you do not. If you do, please provide me your understanding of "what a Christian" is.

A Christian is someone who believes that man was created by God in his image, that he fell into sin through disobedience of God, that God made a series of covenants with the Israelites (through leaders and prophets such as Moses) who agreed carried his word and obey his commandments.

They believe that the final covenant is fulfilled in Jesus, the son of God, a perfect, sinless sacrifice atoning for mankind's wrongdoing through his voluntary crucifixion and suffering at Calvary on the cross. They believe that Jesus was resurrected, and ascended to heavan to be at the right hand of his father, but that he will return to judge us for our sins in the last days.

This, I think, is what a Christian is. Agreed, or am I wrong?

That is your "opinion", not an argument. You make an assertion, not an argument. Evidence, please.

Okay, an example of a "high ranking" christian who believes in evolution would be the Bishop of Oxford, who is very public in defending science against "religious" attack. He, as far as I can tell, believes all the things that I have said above in my definition of a Christian.

[ted]

Sometimes I pray that God would just give us all the answers so that debate is no longer needed.

Is that selfish?

t.