Evolution

[Pavlos]

Being as familiar with anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, and biology as I am, I find it so unlikely for a human being to have occured by chance that it's about as possible as picking out the right atom out of the entire galaxy. The visual system alone is so complex that I cannot imagine that it occured as a statistical blip. We have 5 layers of cornea, a lens, vitreous gel (the goo inside the eye), 10 layers of retina with their specific cells and tissues, the photorecepters themselves, an optic nerve, optic tract, visual cortex, and visual processing centers. That's not including the surrounding support structures, extraocular muscles, other cranial nerves, the specific hydration and chemical makeup of the tissues, and cell types. That's an extraordinarily simplistic discussion of the vision system, too. Anything goes wrong with any of these cells, tissues, or processing centers and you either have poor or no sight.

If God can create the entire universe, why can't God decide to guide the formation of the world and creatures in a manner that others would call 'evolution'?

 

Although the eye is a remarkable organ, and I have to agree with you when you marvel at it, God must have been a pretty poor designer if we are to believe in Creationism. The optic fibre from each of the photo-receptive areas of the eye group in one spot in your peripheral vision, resulting in a blind spot. It is not a disadvantage, as in most people the blind spot is barely noticeable, but surely a designer brilliant enough to create the universe and the laws that bind things together, would not have made such an obvious mistake. The creator must have preferred an octopus' eye to ours, as it is nearly identical and yet... it doesn't have that pesky little blind spot.

 

My thought is that because the human being is so complex (eyes being one small part of that complexity and an easy example for me since that's my field), that I don't think enough mutations etc. could have happened by chance for the first human to even been created anywhere close to properly, much less survive. It's too much of a stretch for me to go from simple one cell organism to full-blown human via chance mutations, even with natural selection.

 

Even though you have stated that you don't think Natural Selection could have resulted in a human being, I'm going to stress the point that, to me at least, it does explain matters. I'm going to take the matter of selective breeding:

 

I have a cow and I breed that cow with a bull. They have x offspring. One of these offspring has a characteristic that I like... let's say that it produces more milk. Because I like it, I'm going to breed it with other bulls, and then breed the offspring with those that share similar characteristics. Eventually, I come out with an entirely new species of cow - a mega-super-ultra milk producing cow.

 

If we remove myself and put in place nature (The natural environment) then everything makes sense still. One cow produces slightly more milk, this is beneficial because her offspring will get more food and thus will be more likely to survive the elements and in turn making it more likely for it to pass on the "better milk production" gene to its offspring... because it is more likely to breed before it dies. One of those offspring (Or maybe it is hundreds of generations in the future) may have a slight mutation for even better milk production - the same effect. And eventually we end up with the same situation as we did with selective breeding, as the "more milk cows" slowly take up more and more of the population and as the "better milk production" gene is selected for.

 

Sure, our Hondas (we have one, too) started out as a rock, but it didn't come together by chance. Someone built our Hondas.

 

I take it that your Honda example is a modern translation of Paley's watch? Then (Forgive me if you have already looked at and dismissed the idea) I introduce the blind watchmaker... or car engineer. If I take apart a watch and scatter it at sea, statistically (And don't say that statistics lie, because they don't - it is merely interpretation and usage that does that) the pieces will eventually wash up on the shore as a whole watch once more - it is statistically possible.

 

The reason why everything in the world seems so wonderful and marvelous is that everything that didn't work, died.

[TK-8252]

Sure, our Hondas (we have one, too) started out as a rock, but it didn't come together by chance. Someone built our Hondas.

 

Which presents an even bigger problem: who built the builder?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I find it so unlikely for a human being to have occured by chance (...)

As already stated, it didn't happen by chance, it happened through evolution, natural selection, and adaption.

 

And don't say that statistics lie, because they don't - it is merely interpretation and usage that does that

That's merely another way of looking at it. It's like saying guns don't kill people - people kill people.

[Q]

Which presents an even bigger problem: who built the builder?

 

Good question, and one that neither faith nor science will ever answer to any level of satisfaction.

 

Since God transcends the universe, is not beholden to any of its laws and can not be assigned a value, He is impossible to quantify, and therefore impossible to understand.

 

From a faith-based viewpoint, He has no beginning or end, He just always was, is and always will be.

 

Am I correct when I say that everything that exists in this universe can be assigned a quantitative value, and therefore can eventually be explained/understood by the human mind?

[Jae Onasi]

Although the eye is a remarkable organ, and I have to agree with you when you marvel at it, God must have been a pretty poor designer if we are to believe in Creationism. The optic fibre from each of the photo-receptive areas of the eye group in one spot in your peripheral vision, resulting in a blind spot. It is not a disadvantage, as in most people the blind spot is barely noticeable, but surely a designer brilliant enough to create the universe and the laws that bind things together, would not have made such an obvious mistake. The creator must have preferred an octopus' eye to ours, as it is nearly identical and yet... it doesn't have that pesky little blind spot.

 

 

The optic nerves do come together and exit the eye, and there are no photorecepters at that point. However, it's offset in both eyes, so there's no blind spot when both eyes are open (the vision in one eye covers the blind spot in the other, if I'm explaining that in a way that makes sense). Also, the visual acuity in the periphery is poor (gets to about 20/200 once you get a certain distance from the macula--the part of the retina where we have our best vision), so we're not missing much. The vision of an octopus is not as good as ours, so I don't consider the position of the optic nerve to necessarily be a design flaw.

 

I don't know why some of the things that we currently consider 'design flaws' are made that way. Maybe He liked it that way. Maybe there's a reason that science doesn't understand yet. It's one of those things I plan on asking when I get to heaven.

 

Ah, the chance vs. evolution/natural selection thing. We're still dealing with probabilities, which is likely the more accurate term. Every time you have a single mutation, there's a probability that it will either be beneficial, not beneficial (i.e. having no real effect), or detrimental.

Let's say you have evolved to the point where you now need insulin. You have to have the right configuration and right type and number of amino acids for that organism to survive. The probability of getting the right insulin configuration is something like 2.22(e to the -67 power) . You're going to go through a bazillion (purely professional term for 'a lot') organisms to get one that survives, because all the rest won't survive. And imagine doing that kind of stat on DNA. I don't know that you can burn through that many organisms fast enough even over billions of years to get where we're at today.

[Achilles]

From a faith-based viewpoint, He has no beginning or end, He just always was, is and always will be.

One of the Creationist arguments against evolution is that nothing as complex as a human can occur without having been designed. Yet something infinitely more complex and powerful (i.e. God) is allowed to do so without any question. The argument seems slightly hypocritical to me.

 

If it's impossible to accept that mankind could not come into being without devine intervention then, by applying the same rules, it's equally impossible to accept that Builder came into being without similar intervention. Of course the logic goes on ad infinitum.

[Q]

^^^

You're speaking from an assumption that He had a beginning. He didn't.

 

Since everything in this universe had a beginning and will have an end this is an impossible concept to grasp, regardless of whether you have faith or not.

 

I don't pretend to understand it; I just accept it without understanding it. That's what faith is, in a nutshell.

[Achilles]

I think you misunderstood me.

 

If mankind HAS to have been created by a Creator, then by those same rules, that Creator also has to have had a Creator.

 

You're speaking from an assumption that He had a beginning. He didn't.[/Quote]

everything in this universe had a beginning and will have an end[/Quote]Is this a contradiction or am I missing something?

 

I don't pretend to understand it; I just accept it without understanding it.[/Quote]To each their own.

[Pavlos]

The optic nerves do come together and exit the eye, and there are no photorecepters at that point. However, it's offset in both eyes, so there's no blind spot when both eyes are open (the vision in one eye covers the blind spot in the other, if I'm explaining that in a way that makes sense). Also, the visual acuity in the periphery is poor (gets to about 20/200 once you get a certain distance from the macula--the part of the retina where we have our best vision), so we're not missing much. The vision of an octopus is not as good as ours, so I don't consider the position of the optic nerve to necessarily be a design flaw.

 

Point taken, thanks for enlightening me on this matter .

 

Ah, the chance vs. evolution/natural selection thing. We're still dealing with probabilities, which is likely the more accurate term. Every time you have a single mutation, there's a probability that it will either be beneficial, not beneficial (i.e. having no real effect), or detrimental.

Let's say you have evolved to the point where you now need insulin. You have to have the right configuration and right type and number of amino acids for that organism to survive. The chance of getting the right insulin configuration is something like 2.2

 

Ok... well, first of all, your calculation is flawed. There are far too many variables over a long period of time (Four billion years) to possibly calculate any meaningful value. And even if you could and that number was impossibly small... such a small probability does not automatically infer divine creation. If something highly improbable happens, do you automatically assume it is the will of the fates, or of a god, or the God?

 

Naturally, a lot of random events happening conveniently does make you suspicious. But let us look at another example, shall we? I'm going to look at a rock in my back garden. It is flat and unremarkable, cool to the touch, but from a certain angle it bears a remarkable resemblance to Elvis. Remarkable, but it doesn't suggest some sort of design.

 

I'm going to use a well worn and oft used second example: Mount Rushmore. Wonderfully carved, is it not? We know that it is designed. But wait a moment! Did I not just prove your point? Nope, I know that Mt. Rushmore is a human invention because of my experience with other mountains and cliff faces. There are mountains all over the world, and yet none of them look anything like Rushmore. Thus, I know that it has been designed.

 

But with evolution, I have no point of reference. I cannot take our example of the eye and say that after billions of years of mutations and natural selection that the eye is a very unlikely conclusion, usually we end up with something very different. I, along with everyone else, lack that experience. Thus, the use of probability theory to prove creationism in a debate that concerns natural selection (Not just probability, as the "Watch and Honda" example we had before was - which was merely to prove that it is statistically possible for such a thing to occur without natural selection) is void, it cannot be used - absence of experience leaves us unable to distinguish design from "Oops."

 

Thus this argument cannot be solved. I can offer you some scientific evidence that evolution occurs. When you look at the makeup of an organ, or an organism - whatever you want - you will note that from the standpoint of an engineer, they make very little sense. They appear to be modifications of bits and pieces found in precursors - something you would expect from random variation sorted via natural selection.

 

I don't pretend to understand it; I just accept it without understanding it. That's what faith is, in a nutshell.

 

That is a somewhat absolute statement to make in a scientific discussion.

[Q]

If mankind HAS to have been created by a Creator, then by those same rules, that Creator also has to have had a Creator.

 

And you'd be right, if the laws of this universe applied to Him. They don't.

 

Is this a contradiction or am I missing something?

 

Nope. He isn't a part of this universe and is not bound by its laws.

[Achilles]

And you'd be right, if the laws of this universe applied to Him. They don't.

 

Nope. He isn't a part of this universe and is not bound by its laws.

So religion > observable laws of phyics + logic?

 

Before you answer: If God cannot be observe and therefore cannot be measured, then how does one support the hypothesis that the "law of the universe" do not apply to him?

[Q]

So religion > observable laws of phyics + logic?

 

Almost.

God > observable laws of physics + logic.

God transcends the universe, which He created, along with its laws.

 

He can not be contained by the universe, logic, or the human mind.

 

This could explain why He assumes forms other than His true form at different times in the Bible (ie: a burning bush that doesn't burn, a man, a storm, to name a few), forms that can be observed.

 

BTW: He transcends religion and its flawed, human perception of Him as well.

 

I'm sure it could be explained better by someone more knowledgeable than I, but never to the satisfaction of science.

 

I'm doing my best, though.

[Prime]

This isn't entirely a 2-side thing unless you're talking about the literal 6-day creationists. There's actually a continuum of philosophies that span the 2 sides.

Good point. I was refering in particular to the "extreme" take-everything-as-literal creationist position. But I agree there is a whole spectrum of thinking...

[Jae Onasi]

One of the Creationist arguments against evolution is that nothing as complex as a human can occur without having been designed. Yet something infinitely more complex and powerful (i.e. God) is allowed to do so without any question. The argument seems slightly hypocritical to me.

 

If it's impossible to accept that mankind could not come into being without devine intervention then, by applying the same rules, it's equally impossible to accept that Builder came into being without similar intervention. Of course the logic goes on ad infinitum.

 

It's not entirely like that--God's not hanging out in space saying 'ha ha, I'm not going to tell you what I'm all about'. It's because we don't at this time have the capacity to understand His nature fully. How do you comprehend something that spun galaxies into being? That has intimate understanding of the formation of a child from conception to the baby's first breath? Who knows how to hold subatomic particles together? It'd be like asking a bumblebee to understand the most esoteric philosophy, molecular biology, or nuclear physics.

 

 

 

 

Thus this argument cannot be solved. I can offer you some scientific evidence that evolution occurs. When you look at the makeup of an organ, or an organism - whatever you want - you will note that from the standpoint of an engineer, they make very little sense. They appear to be modifications of bits and pieces found in precursors - something you would expect from random variation sorted via natural selection.

 

Why couldn't it also be designed that way? Maybe God chose to use natural selection/evolution--just guided it along the way. I don't consider religion and science to be mutually exclusive.

 

Yep, I know there're a lot more variables along the way, and there are thousands and thousands of biochemicals to create just in a human, too. I was using that one particular protein as a relatively easy example of the kinds of numbers we'd be encountering along the way. Let's say there's something modifying it that makes it a billion times more likely--all you've done is change it to e to the -58th instead of e to the -67th. If my math is off tonight a bit, forgive me. I'm plain worn out at the moment.

 

I just find it requires more faith to think we're nothing more than that cosmic 'oops' and as a result have no meaning to our existance. You either have faith that you're a statistical blip on the radar or that something designed you for some purpose. However, the philosophical discussion is another thread entirely.

 

Edit--yes, the flu does mutate, but only in minor ways. We don't see it changing into something other than another flu virus.

[Maverick5770]

Ok you guys can have a half victory, I don't, and won't believe in Evoloution, but i won't try and convince antone else of creation, since i keep "recycling' old arguements. But, have any of you evoloutionists managed to consolidate the several theories of evoloution into one solid theory?

[TK-8252]

But, have any of you evoloutionists managed to consolidate the several theories of evoloution into one solid theory?

 

This puzzles me. I was unaware that there are multiple theories of evolution. All mainstream scientists agree on the same theory... I'm totally lost by what you mean by several theories.

[Maverick5770]

I always thought there was more than one Theory of Evoloution, That we evolved from Amoeba, that we came from Monkeys or that oceanic creatures were first and that everything evolved from the tiny organisms on the Seafloor. Is this right, or am I simply breaking one theory into many?

[Hallucination]

But, have any of you evoloutionists managed to consolidate the several theories of evoloution into one solid theory?

Have any of you Creationists managed to consolidate all religions into one solid religion?

[TK-8252]

Is this right, or am I simply breaking one theory into many?

 

I believe you are... the theory of evolution - like any scientific theory - is overwhelmingly complex (which is why it's just so much easier for people to say "god made everything"). I'm not a math and science type of guy myself and when I hear people like Dagobahn and Skin posting these complex scientific laws and formulas I kinda just sit back clueless... but I know the basics of what evolution theory says, and it makes enough sense that I can know it's right. I mean, why would we need flu shots every year if things didn't evolve?

[Maverick5770]

I'll say this, I still believe in Creation, but every other group of evoloutionists I've come up against, i've been able to prove my theory to, at least get them to admit it might be possible. You guys (the ones who believe evoloution) are the best evoloutionists I've ever come across. One more question though, the Flu virus keeps mutating, but will it ever evolve into something like a new type of intelligent creature, or is it possible that it is out own screw ups that keep it mutating?

[Jae Onasi]

I believe you are... the theory of evolution - like any scientific theory - is overwhelmingly complex (which is why it's just so much easier for people to say "god made everything").

 

Actually, I took a lot of time investigating the science from both sides of the fence. I certainly didn't look at evolution, throw my hands up in the air and say 'gee, that seems too hard. Think I'll just go believe in God instead.'

 

@Hallucination--what, you're taking all the fun out of learning different religious philosophies if you group them all together. Or you get my ridiculous treatise on the creation of the universe near the beginning of the thread, because I was feeling rather sassy right then.

[TK-8252]

One more question though, the Flu virus keeps mutating, but will it ever evolve into something like a new type of intelligent creature, or is it possible that it is out own screw ups that keep it mutating?

 

Give it a few billion years and we'll see.

[Achilles]

It's not entirely like that--God's not hanging out in space saying 'ha ha, I'm not going to tell you what I'm all about'. It's because we don't at this time have the capacity to understand His nature fully. How do you comprehend something that spun galaxies into being? That has intimate understanding of the formation of a child from conception to the baby's first breath? Who knows how to hold subatomic particles together? It'd be like asking a bumblebee to understand the most esoteric philosophy, molecular biology, or nuclear physics.

Then why give us the bible? Your earlier post hypothesized that the bible doesn't reference dinosaurs, etc because we weren't advanced enough to understand. Well then, why haven't we recieved an updated version now that we do? Mankind seems to be doing a pretty good job of figuring this stuff out without any kind of explanation from above.

 

Whether or not we fully "understand his nature" the logic still stands: If something had to create us, then something had to create it. Similiarly if it's possible for Him to exist without a creator, then it is equally possible for us to do the same. The idea that everything in the universe operates according to observable laws except for some mysterious, unmeasurable "thing" seems kinda suspect to me.

 

Why couldn't it also be designed that way? Maybe God chose to use natural selection/evolution--just guided it along the way. I don't consider religion and science to be mutually exclusive.

I think I've tried to address this before. It seems that no one was interested on commenting on my response *not directed at you specifically*.

 

<snip>

 

I just find it requires more faith to think we're nothing more than that cosmic 'oops' and as a result have no meaning to our existance.

I think there's a huge difference between "natural evolution governed by observable rules" and "accident". As for meaning, if religion were proven false tomorrow, you would still have just as much meaning in your life as you do today. The percieved source of that meaning would probably change and you might have to adjust some of your values, but your life would be just as meaningful.

 

Lack of religion != lack of purpose/ethics/morality/etc. A majority of the laws passed down by religion have an ethical merit that can and does exist completely separate from religion.

 

You either have faith that you're a statistical blip on the radar or that something designed you for some purpose.

I think you may be oversimplifying here.

 

Edit--yes, the flu does mutate, but only in minor ways. We don't see it changing into something other than another flu virus.

So the flu has always been the flu and will always be the flu? There wasn't some precursor to the modern flu that existed thousands of years ago? Clearly we can see mutation/natural selection taking place on a year-by-year basis, but still we don't feel comfortable presuming that it might one day be something else? Evolution on that scale takes hundreds if not thousands of generations. How long has modern virology been around? How many years have we been able to properly sequence the genetic code of influenza?

[Maverick5770]

How do we know what it was a few thousand years ago, no one even knew what the flu was 200 years ago. It might have always been just the flu.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yes, the flu does mutate, but only in minor ways. We don't see it changing into something other than another flu virus.

What about the new SARS virus? I'm not saying it comes from the flu, but it's certainly something new.