Best Evidence for Evolution.

[PlastikBuddha]

There is evidence against it, not a lack of explanation. There has never been a satisfactory evidence and people are realizing this by turning to life coming from space. Information is another MAJOR problem for it. Anyways, that's precisely what makes Paley's theory scientific. You merely have faith in naturalism.

THe idea of panspermia is neither new nor particularly credible. Most people still believe in a terrestial start ot life. What evidence is there against it? Lists trying to show how improbable it may have been using sketchy numbers are not evidence against abiogenesis. To be frank, the fact that life exists puts the odds at rougly 1:1. Admitting we don't understand how it happened, and steps are being take to try and remedy this ignorance, is not evidence against it having happened. Information is not really a problem at all. It is not faith, it is undertsanding.

 

[macguy]

I disagree. So do the vast majority of those who study biology. This "design" seems to be obvious only to those with an emmotional stake involved.

Of course you disagree but irreducible complexity and specified complexity go hand in hand to demonstrate a designer. Let's say the IC and SC fails, but this would prove that these methods are not proper investigations for design. That is nothing but empty rhetoric and has no place in the discussion of science. I could say the same about evolutionist who have an emotional stake involved.

Maybe so- but that is not what science is for. It is for studying and understanding this world.

I said that science is for studying and understanding nature and made the difference between naturalism which states that nature is all there. Not sure what you are disagreeing with...The assertion that nature is all there is, is essentially an atheistic philosophy.

If so, I apologize. It was my impression that you were arguing that by ignoring the possibility of the supernatural, science is ignoring what may in fact be the truth- that the supernatural was the cause. That reasoning is not based on science, however- it springs from faith.

What I was saying is that they are ignoring the possibility of a supernatural which could show design in nature. What I am not saying is that the supernatural should be studied as you're saying.

 

[macguy]

THe idea of panspermia is neither new nor particularly credible.

I didn't say it is new since neither are the naturalistic explanations for origns or design explanations could be said to be "new". The best we've done is increase our knowledge which in turn improves the design explanation. Nothing can be said with certainty in science so please demonstrate why we are not JUSTIFIED in saying that a designer is the best explanation.

What evidence is there against it?

There is a lot of evidence against a naturalistic explanation. The thing you fail to realize is what if design is a true explanation and naturalists can never explain it? You'd still continue to tell us to wait for science to figure it out, but it is getting worse.

1. Why Abiogenesis is Impossible
2. Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks


Tell me, how can abiogenesis be falsified? Do you really think that science can provide a 100% answer to the problem? Science works with what they know, and we understand that abiogenesis is not possible. They're not using sketchy numbers, that is an assumption on your part. Of course chance is an explanation for everything even for the lowest of probabilities. Thus you should be charged with chance-of-the-gaps. It is a serious problem... It takes faith to believe that science will solve the problem and not an understanding. Paley's theory remains true in his prediction. Miller's experiment also showed how impossible it would be for life to evolve from non-life. Again, if the cell is irreducibly complex, what is so hard about accepting a designer? It seems all you want to do is exclude design as any possible explanation.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

There is evidence against it, not a lack of explanation. There has never been a satisfactory evidence and people are realizing this by turning to life coming from space. Information is another MAJOR problem for it. Anyways, that's precisely what makes Paley's theory scientific. You merely have faith in naturalism.

It isn't faith, I am simply allowing for the possibility that the study of abiogenesis will determine if/how life arose from non-life. You are writing the entire field off from the get-go because of religious objections. How very intellectually honest of you!

And by the way, why do so many Christians say things like "you only have faith in naturalism" as if it is a terrible thing. In case you have forgotten, Christians "only have faith in God"! So, faith is good when you have it, but bad when others have it?

 

[Evoken]

You have got to be kidding me! This lack of artistic "evolution" may be due to the extremely limited cognitive ability of apes (in comparison with humans). I don't find reason to believe that the enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes is evidence against TOE.

Ah, so you admit that there is an "enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes", good. I am not saying that this is necessarily evidence against the TOE. I am saying that it is evidence that should bring into question some of the claims it makes and that the case for the evolution of man from lower animals is not as strong and stablished as it is touted to be.

Example: Animal X survives just fine with limited intelligence in Location A. Part of the Animal X tribe migrates to Location B and increased cognitive ability is evolutionarily advantageous due to more trying environmental conditions. The more intelligent species of Animal X in Location B will survive, thrive, and natural selection will continue to favor those who can outwit their counterparts. The less intelligent species of Animal X in Location B will die off, as they are at a continously greater disadvantage in the search for food/shelter/water. Meanwhile, Animal X in Location A faces little difficulty in surviving since its environment requires little intelligence in order to acquire food/shelter/water. Now, follow this path for a couple million years, and you can begin to understand why there is such an enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes, and why there is no cultural overlap.

Since you do not have evidence for degrees of intelligence, as it developed towards the one found in humans and are left with the "enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes". And since we don't find even a rudimentary development of culture, art, civilization, etc in any of the animals living today, then how is your scenario here anything more than a "just so story"?

Further, intelligence is not necessarily linked to the ability of passing on genes. Being more intelligent does not entails that your genes will become more dominant in a population. Poor people, without much education for example, tend to have more children than rich and successful people, as a consequence, their genes and traits are more dominant in a population. This fact argues for the very opposite of what you described in your scenario.

I have a hunch that the "old" Evoken would have already pointed this out.

"old" Evoken would be willing to embrace any evolutionary explanation with religious fervor. I have observed that among atheists, there is a tendency to accept evolutionary explanations without much use of critical thinking. "new" Evoken is more skeptical about this issue and won't accept evolutionary explanations without first subjecting them to the amount of scrutiny that they deserve.


Evo

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Ah, so you admit that there is an "enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes", good. I am not saying that this is necessarily evidence against the TOE. I am saying that it is evidence that should bring into question some of the claims it makes and that the case for the evolution of man from lower animals is not as strong and stablished as it is touted to be.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_5.htm

And since we don't find even a rudimentary development of culture, art, civilization, etc in any of the animals living today, then how is your scenario here anything more than a "just so story"?

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand that humans are very much an exception when it comes to biological organisms. Not only have we evolved extraordinary cognitive ability and communication skills, but we have developed bodies (opposable thumb, upright mobility, etc.) that have enabled us great control over our environment (agriculture) and other species. The unique combination of all these abilities have allowed humans to develop art, culture, civilization, etc.

Further, intelligence is not necessarily linked to the ability of passing on genes. Being more intelligent does not entails that your genes will become more dominant in a population. Poor people, without much education for example, tend to have more children than rich and successful people, as a consequence, their genes and traits are more dominant in a population. This fact argues for the very opposite of what you described in your scenario.

Two completely different scenarios. When food, shelter, and water are readily available to the vast majority of humans, intelligence holds minimal survival advantage. When a mostly unintelligent species (in relation to modern humans) are faced with limited resources, there is obviously an advantage to being able to outwit the competition. Apes aren't exactly the most agile or quick of animals, so the development of weapons and strategy (via the more intelligent tribes) would surely be advantageous to survival. Apples to oranges.

 

[Neverfox]

Like the extrapolation of expansion of the universe backwards without limit this is a paradox, because obviously there would have to be a first living creature that did not have a living parent. The argument among evolutionists and creationists is what was this creature like?

Evolutionist: a single primitive protocell which arose naturally somehow.

Creationist: multiple types of fully functional sea, land and air creatures designed and created by God.

In neither case can people specify anything more specific than that about the first creature.

Ah, with all due respect, you have changed the frame on me here. Your original question was

For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).

What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?

This specifically concerns post-origin scenarios. If you are now more interested in discussing the first life, then I'd say I agree with you (if I read you correctly) in saying that it's a tough question that neither side can answer. We each have our current guess about the first life but, given the nature of the question, there isn't more we either side can really do. We can only theorize by finding ideas that seem to fit with later stage evidence.

But after that, and to your original question, we can discuss whether evolution takes place. Given the content of your posts thus far, may I attempt to summarize what I think it is you believe? If I'm wrong, I apologize.

1. God created the first living things.
2. Those living things have not evolved since that creation, but were created as they are today.

I think that by showing you that evolutionary theory is better at explaining the current observable evidence of life on record, you will be unable to hold onto the second point. It then seems to follow, that if we can show that humans were a much later stage of life on Earth, then while it certainly doesn't disprove the first item (nor does it need to), it sure does create a problem for the modern western religions that need both points to be true for their holy books to not be false.

My true or false question was meant to be a first step in that proof. It's really not a trick question. You either think it's true or you believe in something like flies come from rotten meat, like they did long ago. Please tell me that no one here still thinks that or needs us to do an experiment to determine it. If so, we have much more work to accomplish in this proof than I realized. My hope is that everyone agrees that we all had a mother and father (or living cells from one or both) and so did every other creature alive today. For asexual creatures, this includes the previous living organism in the asexual process etc. Even cloning involves living tissue not dead. I'm not trying to extrapolate backwards without limit, as bob claims, because I clearly conceded that the origin could be a fixed event and take your pick at god or inorganic matter. I'm only going one generation back right now. Baby steps.

 

[Neverfox]

When one looks at the world around us, any mature person can easily see that it could not possibly have come about by natural means only. This is why most people in the world reject the concept that everything has arisen by natural forces only and believe in some sort of force beyond nature.

And this is despite the intense propaganda in modern societies that currently pushes a nature-only agenda. Thank God that common sense prevails on this subject.

You are affirming the consequence here. Statements like yours and "If the universe had been created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organization everywhere. And we do see order, not randomness -- so it's clear that the universe had a creator." are fallacies of logic.

The reason some are confused by your claims to be a science lover is that a scientist would never kick back and say "common sense tells me so I'll just leave it there." They instead test and attempt to falsify their own and others' theories to determine the best explanation.

The common sense of mature people is, unfortunately, a poor guage of truth. Please remember that the common sense of mature people once thought that flies came from rotting meat and that the earth was the center of the solar system. I can just hear them now, saying, "When one looks at the sky, any mature person can easily see that the sun is obviously moving across it. This is why most people in the world reject the concept that the sun is the center of the solar system. And this is despite the intense propaganda in that currently pushes a sun-centric agenda. Thank God that common sense prevails on this subject."

Have you ever seen one of those pendulums with the sand at the bottom for sale in the Museum Store and elsewhere? When you release it, the tip of the pendulum will slowly trace out a beautifully symmetrical pattern. I wonder if you showed this to someone before the time that we understood complex harmonic motion what their common sense would tell them.

But all of that is just conjecture on my part. But still, complexity does not logically require intelligence. So if we want to discuss why things are "complex" (I'll leave aside for now the fact that most life on earth is single cell), we can't do so by making these kinds of affirmations.

 

[CRMRC]

It then seems to follow, that if we can show that humans were a much later stage of life on Earth, then while it certainly doesn't disprove the first item (nor does it need to), it sure does create a problem for the modern western religions that need both points to be true for their holy books to not be false.

I think this is one of the major problems. You say that if the second point is gone, so is the religious belief. I would reword your sentence with one added word:

"...it sure does create a problem for the modern western religions that think they need both points to be true for their holy books to not be false."

 

[bob b]

But still, complexity does not logically require intelligence.

Of course not, but a high degree of ordered complexity does.

 

[bob b]

Given the content of your posts thus far, may I attempt to summarize what I think it is you believe? If I'm wrong, I apologize.

1. God created the first living things.
2. Those living things have not evolved since that creation, but were created as they are today.

You obviously have not read many threads here, because I quite frequently criticize evolutionists for their "straw man" characterization of creationist belief like your second point. Why would anyone who ever visited the animal barns at a county fair ever think that animals or other creatures do not change over time?

You think creationists are quite stupid don't you?

Makes you feel good about yourself I'll bet.

 

[noguru]

Of course not, but a high degree of ordered complexity does.

What criteria do you use to determine whether there is a "high degree" of ordered complexity?

 

[noguru]

You obviously have not read many threads here, because I quite frequently criticize evolutionists for their "straw man" characterization of creationist belief like your second point. Why would anyone who ever visited the animal barns at a county fair ever think that animals or other creatures do not change over time?

You think creationists are quite stupid don't you?

Makes you feel good about yourself I'll bet.

Bob, the poster could have meant "no change" outside of the original determined biblical kinds. I realize that the poster could have been more explicit, but I think you are jumping to an uneccessary conclusion by thinking that he thinks creationists are "stupid".

 

[bob b]

Bob, the poster could have meant "no change" outside of the original determined biblical kinds. I realize that the poster could have been more explicit, but I think you are jumping to an uneccessary conclusion by thinking that he thinks creationists are "stupid".

Are you blind?

Evolutionists typically believe YECs are stupid. One could make a lot of money placing bets on this for any random selection of evolutionists.

Why do you think an atheist would come to a forum like this if not for "kicks" and/or ego self-stroking?

 

[bob b]

What criteria do you use to determine whether there is a "high degree" of ordered complexity?

The number of interrelated and interdependent automatic feedback control systems, such as is found in any cell.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Are you blind?

Evolutionists typically believe YECs are stupid. One could make a lot of money placing bets on this for any random selection of evolutionists.

Why do you think an atheist would come to a forum like this if not for "kicks" and/or ego self-stroking?

Sounds like the one who has a mountain of contempt for the "other side" is you, Bob. People come here to learn- because there is no teacher quite as effective as someone who disagrees with you completely. It forces you to re-examine your ideas, to lay them out in clear terms, and to defend them. Some YECs are brighter than others, but holding what I view as an erroneous belief doesn't make someone stupid. If they wanted ego-stroking they would go to a website where they were the majority, and could look forward to simply reinforcing their beliefs.

 

[bob b]

Sounds like the one who has a mountain of contempt for the "other side" is you, Bob. People come here to learn- because there is no teacher quite as effective as someone who disagrees with you completely. It forces you to re-examine your ideas, to lay them out in clear terms, and to defend them. Some YECs are brighter than others, but holding what I view as an erroneous belief doesn't make someone stupid. If they wanted ego-stroking they would go to a website where they were the majority, and could look forward to simply reinforcing their beliefs.

You are not an atheist.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You are not an atheist.

Not anymore. It wasn't that long ago that I was, so I still feel a bond with them, and I believe that they share the same reasons for being here that I do. The majority of athiests here seem interested in serious discussion on a wide range of topics and come here because of the varied views under discussion. It broadens the mind. Those who come to gloat soon leave, when they find that the believers here bite back.

 

[bob b]

Those who come to gloat soon leave, when they find that the believers here bite back.

But many do not give up that easily, since that would be an admission of defeat.

In other words they get "hooked".

 

[noguru]

The number of interrelated and interdependent automatic feedback control systems, such as is found in any cell.

What types of systems do you use for comparison, when judging that one system has a more "highly ordered complexity"? IOW, which "more highly ordered" systems spefically are you referring to, and which systems are you measuring them against.