Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree completely. Evolution is a fact. I can go along with everything an evolutionist can propose. The only difference is that I believe common sense dictates that it's all guided and not random. It's following a grand schematic like the mapping of the genome. Everywhere we look there's design, and we know design on such a grand scale just doesn't happen by chance, or we should regularly be able to throw jigsaw puzzles up in the air and occasionally have them land fully assembled.
Good post Thriller.
I am the biggest Bible freak around, and I would tell people that evolution is a fact, and the Bible teaches it.
If there is a God, he didn't create the universe to leave evidence of evolution to prove himself wrong, I think it just depends on who is reading the bible, and it's design
3
Over and over and over and over and over.
3
The garden begins with 3.
Those 3 have 3.
Noah had 3
Then came another 3.,
3 more came, and after those 3, another 3.
The 3 siblings came with a Temple of 3 sections.
3 major feasts.
The kingdom of heaven is shown to be 3 in Elijah, Moses, and Jesus.
3 on a cross.
3 in the west, 3 in the east, 3 in the north, 3 in the south.
It is just like nature, and in fact, knowing the bible is being able to translate poetry as you read it.
The poetry is nature itself.
I know two olive trees, but they are not trees.
When one reads the word,'' blood, or water.'' He should not think of blood or water, there is a design as in all nature, and that design shows evolution.
To know the poetry of nature is to be able to read the bible, it is written in a language that has to be learned like any language.
I agree completely. Evolution is a fact. I can go along with everything an evolutionist can propose. The only difference is that I believe common sense dictates that it's all guided and not random. It's following a grand schematic like the mapping of the genome. Everywhere we look there's design, and we know design on such a grand scale just doesn't happen by chance, or we should regularly be able to throw jigsaw puzzles up in the air and occasionally have them land fully assembled.
Your understanding of the process is, while well intentioned, fatally flawed. First and foremost, the assumption that one could tell the difference between a designed "something" and an evolved "something" is presumptuous at best and ridiculous at worst. You say there is design everywhere we look but you fail to explain what it would look like if there weren't design everywhere we look. In other words, what does design look like and how is it different from non-design - assuming you know the difference.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Everywhere we look there's design, and we know design on such a grand scale just doesn't happen by chance, or we should regularly be able to throw jigsaw puzzles up in the air and occasionally have them land fully assembled.
The problem with this argument is you start by saying "I believe what scientists say about evolution" and then you completely and utterly mischaracterize and fail at explaining the process of randomness in the context of evolution. In other words, you are comparing the probabilistic chances of throwing a jigsaw puzzle in the air and landing with a complete puzzle and mixing a bunch of random DNA nucleotides together to get a human or bird or whatever....
I'll do what I can to explain the difference between the two but, in the past, I often find people get spooked at the slightest suggestion they could be wrong and then back themselves further into a corner. Either way, here's the problem with what you suggest:
Suppose there is a multiple choice test with 25 questions and four possible choices - A, G, C, or T. You can think of these as no different than A,B,C,D - all we've done is change a few letters. There is an "answer key" that can be graded on the same scale as we're all familiar with in school. 0 - 100%. 0 means 0% survivability chance and 100 means 100% survivability chance. The answer key is a function of the environment. In other words, it changes over periods of time - but sometimes it rapidly changes and other times it doesn't change at all.
But, let's assume there is, for the time being, an optimal answer key. Your suggestion is that evolution takes all 25 questions and assigns a random answer to each one - all at once. What are the odds that we'd get 100% on this?
Well: 1/(4^25) or 1 in 1125899906842624
You can characterize this same thing for a length, n, of any test as 1/(4^n). So, a 50 question test is: 1/(4^50). You quickly begin to see how astounding these odds are and just how ridiculous it would be to expect anything to fall into place accurately.
However, fortunately that is not how evolution works because one of the key components of evolution is natural selection. And selection is the key word here. Because rather than throwing a random guess in the air, evolution starts with a predecessor and let's say that predecessor had only a 4% chance of survivability. In other words, he only had one question right.
Now, Mr. 4% meets Mrs. 4% - no one said the same two questions are correct. Only that they both have a 4% chance of survivability and they're trying to answer the same test. It's not great, to be sure, but it's better than 3% or 2%! They decide to produce another test (offspring) by taking half of the answers from Mr 4% and half of the answers from Mrs 4% and combining them. Oh, and they might decide to randomly change one or two of those answers along the way, just in case.
Now, let's assume a perfect scenario in which the offspring gets the correct answer from Mr. 4% as well as Mrs. 4%. He now has 2 correct answers PLUS any correct answers that happened to be provided during the random mixup. For the sake of argument, we'll just say he only has the two from Mr. and Mrs. 4%. Well, now he has an 8% chance of survivability. And what happens if he meets a 4%? If he meets a nice 4%, It's very highly likely that they both share the same answer that makes them both AT LEAST 4%. Thus, at a minimum, the offspring, will most likely share the 4% answer and there's also a possibility that the offspring could get the 8% traits and there's a possibility it could even get really lucky and get 12% traits! As time goes on, there will be a diminishing amount of 4%, an increasing amount of 8%, and an emerging group of 12%.
Now, what happens if the answer key changes suddenly? It's possible some of the answer keys of the 8 and 12 percent group are actually better suited and earn higher percentages! And, it's also a very real possibility that they drop to less than that and even more of a possibility that they disappear altogether! That's called extinction!
It is the change in the FREQUENCY in which you see certain answer key characteristics that is evolution. Of course, this sounds so simple because we are talking about only 25 answers rather than billions but, nonetheless, you realize that it is far more efficient to merge two answer keys, throw out some of the incorrect answers, and then merge again.
Your understanding of the process is, while well intentioned, fatally flawed. First and foremost, the assumption that one could tell the difference between a designed "something" and an evolved "something" is presumptuous at best and ridiculous at worst. You say there is design everywhere we look but you fail to explain what it would look like if there weren't design everywhere we look. In other words, what does design look like and how is it different from non-design - assuming you know the difference.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, you say:
The problem with this argument is you start by saying "I believe what scientists say about evolution" and then you completely and utterly mischaracterize and fail at explaining the process of randomness in the context of evolution. In other words, you are comparing the probabilistic chances of throwing a jigsaw puzzle in the air and landing with a complete puzzle and mixing a bunch of random DNA nucleotides together to get a human or bird or whatever....
I'll do what I can to explain the difference between the two but, in the past, I often find people get spooked at the slightest suggestion they could be wrong and then back themselves further into a corner. Either way, here's the problem with what you suggest:
Suppose there is a multiple choice test with 25 questions and four possible choices - A, G, C, or T. You can think of these as no different than A,B,C,D - all we've done is change a few letters. There is an "answer key" that can be graded on the same scale as we're all familiar with in school. 0 - 100%. 0 means 0% survivability chance and 100 means 100% survivability chance. The answer key is a function of the environment. In other words, it changes over periods of time - but sometimes it rapidly changes and other times it doesn't change at all.
But, let's assume there is, for the time being, an optimal answer key. Your suggestion is that evolution takes all 25 questions and assigns a random answer to each one - all at once. What are the odds that we'd get 100% on this?
Well: 1/(4^25) or 1 in 1125899906842624
You can characterize this same thing for a length, n, of any test as 1/(4^n). So, a 50 question test is: 1/(4^50). You quickly begin to see how astounding these odds are and just how ridiculous it would be to expect anything to fall into place accurately.
However, fortunately that is not how evolution works because one of the key components of evolution is natural selection. And selection is the key word here. Because rather than throwing a random guess in the air, evolution starts with a predecessor and let's say that predecessor had only a 4% chance of survivability. In other words, he only had one question right.
Now, Mr. 4% meets Mrs. 4% - no one said the same two questions are correct. Only that they both have a 4% chance of survivability and they're trying to answer the same test. It's not great, to be sure, but it's better than 3% or 2%! They decide to produce another test (offspring) by taking half of the answers from Mr 4% and half of the answers from Mrs 4% and combining them. Oh, and they might decide to randomly change one or two of those answers along the way, just in case.
Now, let's assume a perfect scenario in which the offspring gets the correct answer from Mr. 4% as well as Mrs. 4%. He now has 2 correct answers PLUS any correct answers that happened to be provided during the random mixup. For the sake of argument, we'll just say he only has the two from Mr. and Mrs. 4%. Well, now he has an 8% chance of survivability. And what happens if he meets a 4%? If he meets a nice 4%, It's very highly likely that they both share the same answer that makes them both AT LEAST 4%. Thus, at a minimum, the offspring, will most likely share the 4% answer and there's also a possibility that the offspring could get the 8% traits and there's a possibility it could even get really lucky and get 12% traits! As time goes on, there will be a diminishing amount of 4%, an increasing amount of 8%, and an emerging group of 12%.
Now, what happens if the answer key changes suddenly? It's possible some of the answer keys of the 8 and 12 percent group are actually better suited and earn higher percentages! And, it's also a very real possibility that they drop to less than that and even more of a possibility that they disappear altogether! That's called extinction!
It is the change in the FREQUENCY in which you see certain answer key characteristics that is evolution. Of course, this sounds so simple because we are talking about only 25 answers rather than billions but, nonetheless, you realize that it is far more efficient to merge two answer keys, throw out some of the incorrect answers, and then merge again.
I think I get what you're saying though you're right, your explanation is very complex, probably too complex for my addled brain to comprehend fully. But I think I can pick up something from it and that is that in my jigsaw example I am not taking into consideration "selection" in that certain molecules "select" each other to come together and we don't see this with inanimate objects.
Except that molecular bonds also break very easily; some bonds are a little stronger than others (ionic vs covalent--I'm not a chemist so I only have a rudimentary understanding of this) and if these bonds can break after half assembling a complex protein molecule like my illustration, then the process has to start all over again. So what increases the odds of life (selection) also decreases them (easy breakage).
In sum, regardless of whether the universe is mostly empty space or not, there are roughly 1 trillion galaxies in it, most very distinctive spiral galaxies like the Milky Way with well-formed "arms" extending out from a dense core of stars. That in itself suggests order and not random process. We either have chaos or order dominating the universe and this order operates on such a razor thin law of physics that to tweak it like 0.0000000000001% would cause the whole thing to fall apart. That, to me, suggests a higher power holding it all together. I'm not "wishing' or "hoping" there is a higher power; I'm stating that, as a logical person, it's logical to assume, given all the order, that something more than random process is at play here.
I think the universe is 98% ordered, 2% chaotic (like, say, the Horseshoe nebula). Please don't call me on those %'s they are just for illustration purposes.
That in itself suggests order and not random process. We either have chaos or order dominating the universe and this order operates on such a razor thin law of physics that to tweak it like 0.0000000000001% would cause the whole thing to fall apart. That, to me, suggests a higher power holding it all together. I'm not "wishing' or "hoping" there is a higher power; I'm stating that, as a logical person, it's logical to assume, given all the order, that something more than random process is at play here.
.
You're looking at all this as if the way the earth ended up was some predetermined event conducive to allowing life as you know it.
Do you think it strange that there is no human life on the moon or any other planet or star that we've been so far able to study?
If one tiny thing had happened differently then, yes, probably there would be no 'life' as you know it on earth.
If that were the case, you wouldn't be here wondering about it which translates into the idea that you think humans are some extra special development and all that did happen happened only for that specific purpose.
You're looking at all this as if the way the earth ended up was some predetermined event conducive to allowing life as you know it.
Do you think it strange that there is no human life on the moon or any other planet or star that we've been so far able to study?
If one tiny thing had happened differently then, yes, probably there would be no 'life' as you know it on earth.
If that were the case, you wouldn't be here wondering about it which translates into the idea that you think humans are some extra special development and all that did happen happened only for that specific purpose.
Exactly. He is only taking into consideration of life as WE know it. Sure a very small change could mean no more us. A small change to something could also mean different life that evolved to live in a different setting over time.
You bring out these amazingly low numbers but I think you're taking those numbers and thinking of impossibility as opposed to probability. Don't get too caught up in large or small numbers predicting probability as they are only estimations based on the data that we currently have or even just guesses.
Exactly. He is only taking into consideration of life as WE know it. Sure a very small change could mean no more us. A small change to something could also mean different life that evolved to live in a different setting over time.
You bring out these amazingly low numbers but I think you're taking those numbers and thinking of impossibility as opposed to probability. Don't get too caught up in large or small numbers predicting probability as they are only estimations based on the data that we currently have or even just guesses.
I can't get my brain around that phrase.
If something is impossible then there's no probability and vice versa.
Here on earth we have what appears to be an "impossibility" far as ordered assemblage of a human being, not a probability. I don't see life here on earth has having any probability that it could occur, despite the earth having the core elements necessary for life being sparked and then evolving.
We talked about the necessary elements being present here on earth because they were planted by asteroids and comets and other sundry "visitors" from space striking the earth. What if just one of those comets carrying a vital ingredient for life had missed the earth by a hair. Then what?
And we can separate dinosaurs from humans by millions of years. How is it that a whole diversity of reptilian species evolved before us, were wiped out by a giant asteroid, and then the process started all over again? The dinosaurs had to have evolved into male/female. Then they're wiped out. Then evolution evolves into male/female mammals.
What guides this drive to always create a male and a female? If it's all random why don't we have a hundred or a thousand different sexes evolving? Why sexes at all. Why aren't higher orders androgenous and self-replicating? What mechanism dictates that a vagina goes between a female's legs and a penis goes between a male's legs and both fit together just perfectly (well, most of the time just perfectly ) so that a man can ejaculate to fertilize a female ovum to produce a new generation? And we find this in all the higher species. Doesn't this even remotely suggest that an intelligence is guiding this process? I just cannot fathom random molecules with no thought process gathering together and saying, "Okay, I'll go here and you go there and between us we'll get something really spectacular created here."
. What if just one of those comets carrying a vital ingredient for life had missed the earth by a hair. Then what?
."
Then you, or not 'you' as you recognize yourself, probably wouldn't be here wondering about all the other things you brought up.
All those others things are the way they are because it all did obviously happen the way it did.
And we can separate dinosaurs from humans by millions of years. How is it that a whole diversity of reptilian species evolved before us, were wiped out by a giant asteroid, and then the process started all over again? The dinosaurs had to have evolved into male/female. Then they're wiped out. Then evolution evolves into male/female mammals.
Sexual reproduction (male/female) is old - much older than the dinosaurs and, thus, there were nothing that we would call dinosaurs that were asexual replicators (to my knowledge). That is if we're talking about dinosaurs as something like those in Jurassic Park. There were, of course, bacteria and other single-celled organisms back then that asexually reproduced.
The dinosaurs were wiped out by a giant meteor, and the evidence for that seems to get more and more solidified even as recently as within the last few months. However, it's important to note that not every single dinosaur died and not all of life on earth was eliminated. The largest dinosaurs, especially the ones that needed large volumes of food to survive quickly died off because, well, there was a lack of food.
The smaller dinosaurs, like the cute little ones from Jurassic Park that ate that guys' face are the ones from which mammals evolved.
Interesting Factoid: As a side note, on the scale of time, did you know that there is less historical time between us and the T-Rex (approx. 65 million years) than there is between the T-Rex and the Stegosaurus (approx. 90 million years)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
What guides this drive to always create a male and a female? If it's all random why don't we have a hundred or a thousand different sexes evolving? Why sexes at all. Why aren't higher orders androgenous and self-replicating? What mechanism dictates that a vagina goes between a female's legs and a penis goes between a male's legs and both fit together just perfectly (well, most of the time just perfectly ) so that a man can ejaculate to fertilize a female ovum to produce a new generation? And we find this in all the higher species. Doesn't this even remotely suggest that an intelligence is guiding this process? I just cannot fathom random molecules with no thought process gathering together and saying, "Okay, I'll go here and you go there and between us we'll get something really spectacular created here."
I'm not trying to be insulting but you obviously didn't understand my previous post - which may be my fault. One of the problems people have when trying to conceptualize this process is that they keep trying to anthropomorphize it. Even the word "selection" admittedly insinuates something of an anthropomorphic process - which it really isn't. On the other hand, using words like "random" also seems to trigger the common misconception that life is nothing but throwing the proverbial jigsaw puzzle in the air. It is neither.
Evolution is a mixture of random processes guided by natural selection. Sure, there are very small changes (transcription errors) that occur in replicating DNA which can be described as random. Whether those small changes provide a positive, negative or neutral benefit is selected for in the environment.
Sexual reproduction (male/female) is old - much older than the dinosaurs and, thus, there were nothing that we would call dinosaurs that were asexual replicators (to my knowledge). That is if we're talking about dinosaurs as something like those in Jurassic Park. There were, of course, bacteria and other single-celled organisms back then that asexually reproduced.
The dinosaurs were wiped out by a giant meteor, and the evidence for that seems to get more and more solidified even as recently as within the last few months. However, it's important to note that not every single dinosaur died and not all of life on earth was eliminated. The largest dinosaurs, especially the ones that needed large volumes of food to survive quickly died off because, well, there was a lack of food.
The smaller dinosaurs, like the cute little ones from Jurassic Park that ate that guys' face are the ones from which mammals evolved.
Interesting Factoid: As a side note, on the scale of time, did you know that there is less historical time between us and the T-Rex (approx. 65 million years) than there is between the T-Rex and the Stegosaurus (approx. 90 million years)?
I'm not trying to be insulting but you obviously didn't understand my previous post - which may be my fault. One of the problems people have when trying to conceptualize this process is that they keep trying to anthropomorphize it. Even the word "selection" admittedly insinuates something of an anthropomorphic process - which it really isn't. On the other hand, using words like "random" also seems to trigger the common misconception that life is nothing but throwing the proverbial jigsaw puzzle in the air. It is neither.
Evolution is a mixture of random processes guided by natural selection. Sure, there are very small changes (transcription errors) that occur in replicating DNA which can be described as random. Whether those small changes provide a positive, negative or neutral benefit is selected for in the environment.
No insult taken, not to worry. I'm regularly called every name permissible over in the Christian forum. I probably am misunderstanding the point you're trying to make. As I get it, random works in tandem with natural selection. What I am missing intellectually in my mind is a solid definition of how, for example, sexes "evolved' via natural selection to just two.
Is it that there might have been 7, 10, even 50 different sexes at one point and the other 48 just dropped out because they weren't as efficient as two, male and female. What do scientists say is the mechanism by which two sexes evolved, getting beyond the term "natural selection" by itself?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) so that a man can ejaculate to fertilize a female ovum to produce a new generation? And we find this in all the higher species. Doesn't this even remotely suggest that an intelligence is guiding this process? I just cannot fathom random molecules with no thought process gathering together and saying, "Okay, I'll go here and you go there and between us we'll get something really spectacular created here."
