The Gradual Illumination of the Mind [Evolution]

Scientific American ^ | February 2002 issue | Michael Shermer

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the referral on the book and for the example of his hypothesis!

The idea of natural truths speaking to spiritual truths reminds me of this:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. [John 12:24]

[muawiyah]

Maybe I erred in not being explicit enough. Think of life as being a very, very large machine. You and I probably have 5% of the available parts - we do what we can. Our little friends in the pond may have 3% of the parts, and the ones living down in the very rocks probably have less than 1%.

In any case, out there somewhere would be another 95%!

Let's say that 95% gets "delivered" and "incorporated" in the existing genomes via some process we don't yet know. One thought is that the viral bodies raining down on us from space are the sources of the additional information needed to complete the machine.

An evolutionist would see all of this incorporation of pre-existing information into life's machinery as being evolution, which, of course, it would not be, any more than putting an improved part on an autombile can be construed as evolution.

Now, where would this "life" have originated? There are many competing theories, obviously. But noting that a particular lifeform added a part would not be a demonstration of evolution if that part already existed, and had been intended, by design, to be added.

[memetic]

But noting that a particular lifeform added a part would not be a demonstration of evolution if that part already existed, and had been intended, by design, to be added.

true enough. but an equally valid story line would be that each planet was evolving the "parts" that it can, then incorporating additions that "arrive" into the local story of evolution, and then presumably supplying some portion of the local inventory back to space next time the planet gets whacked by a big enough asteroid or comet. i don't think panspermia points one way or the other on the creation vs evolution debate except providing an "out" for evolutionists to the "there hasn't been enough time" attack on evolution.

[memetic]

of course it is also clear as in the research on radiation induced mutation in fruit flies in addition to all the field work back to Darwin, that some local manufacture of parts (at least) is going on. I don't see any functional need for "parts from space", though as I posted above it may be a useful way out of "enough time problems" if those turn out to be irresolvable. Of course to keep panspermia in contention over the long haul someone has to find one of these viruses!

[PatrickHenry]

The theory of evolution only shifts the idea of creation back further.

It does a bit more than that. I think you skimmed your biology text a bit too quickly.

[desertcry]

I don't beleive that, there is any contradictions between Creation, and Evolution(it is simply a process of Creation). Why should the existence of man be discontinuos(from nothing to a modern man). Now, Godless evolution is something else, it is simply arrogance on the part of those, who spouses this proposition(not a theory, because they can't prove it). The probability that the Universe should exist the way it is, is extremely close to ZERO(according to those who understands the Big Bang, and the SINGULARITY). Which then would require an infinite time for the Universe(hence Man) to evolve the way it is, without God's intervention on Stochastic processes. The Universe however, is now more than 15 billion years old.

[muawiyah]

Ordinary ocean water has an extremely high virus count. There are a truly stupendous number of different kinds there as well. No one has managed to catalog all of them, and many seem not to have any relationship whatsoever to any known viruses.

[Junior]

who spouses this proposition(not a theory, because they can't prove it).

Is this your way of saying they are married to their theories?

[rim shot]

Seriously though, folks (you're a great audience), what do you mean "they can't prove it?" Have you ever actually read any up-to-date current stuff on evolution? How about taking a gander at (drum roll, maestro):

The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource

It truly is your one-stop shop for all your crevo needs! Think you have an argument that'll bring science to its knees? Look it up on one of our convenient threads! There are hundreds to choose from, and odds are one of them will fit your bill! At the least, you won't look like a complete loser in front of your friends!

You'll be the hit of the party. Your teeth will be whiter and your breath minty fresh. Might I suggest a selection from our Speciation Links?

Speciation

• Ensatina eschscholtzi: Speciation in Progress

• Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

• Macroevolution: Introduction to Speciation [Missing]

• Observed Instances of Speciation

• PATTERNS OF SPECIATION [ICR]

• Population and Evolutionary Genetics

• Process of Speciation, The

• Pupfish of the Western Deserts: A Case Study in Speciation [Missing]

• Some More Observed Speciation Events

• Speciation

• Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium

You should find these selections crunchy with just a hint of ketchup...

[PatrickHenry]

Now, Godless evolution is something else, it is simply arrogance on the part of those, who spouses this proposition(not a theory, because they can't prove it). The probability that the Universe should exist the way it is, is extremely close to ZERO(according to those who understands the Big Bang, and the SINGULARITY).

Well, opinions vary.

[longshadow]

it is simply arrogance on the part of those, who spouses this proposition(not a theory, because they can't prove it).

It bears repeating from time to time on these threads that scientific theories are NEVER "proven"; their acceptance is based on widespread support by evidence and repeated failures to falsify the theory. In this sense, Evolutionary Theory is no different than the Theory of Gravitation, though neither is proven or ever will be, nor should we expect them to be.

[desertcry]

Married to their theories In debating Evolution vs Creation, most debaters are as you say, perhaps more married than spouses to their openion. Spousing an openion envolves supporting your point of view with less emotion, and more logic, married envolves more ego, than logic. Is this what you refer to as rim shot?. Proof of man's evolution from the singularity(a point in Space-Time out of which the Universe evolved), requires a demonstration that such an event could take place in Finite time, much less in 15 billion years. I have not seen this proven anywhere in Science.

[desertcry]

Well opinions vary You are correct, otherwise there will be no debate.

[desertcry]

You are correct, absolute proof is imposible in Science, for the Absolute can not be a property of MAN, including man's science. Thus perfect theories does not exists, it too evolve over time. As man, we are all very limited. This is why, I believe that Evolution is a part of God's Creation process, and Godless evolution is near impossible. The probability that man(a very small part of the Universe) arose from the singularity(very close to nothing)purely on stochastic(no intervention) processes is ZERO. This therefore implies that the evolution of man from nothing, or very close to nothing, will take an infinite time. But the Universe according to the best scientific information is less than 15 billion years old, too young for being infinitely old. But then again, I'm only human, very far from being perfectly correct, thus the above is nothing but a rumbling of an old man, of the desert.

[longshadow]

You are correct, absolute proof is imposible in Science, for the Absolute can not be a property of MAN, including man's science.

Actually, that's not the reason why most scientific Theories are never "proven."

First, let's discuss things that ARE proven: statements in logic, and theorems in Mathematics. It is in these areas where we have the tools that allow us to make categorical conclusions that no falsification of a given statement or theorem can exist; hence we conclude the statement or theorem is TRUE. This is "proof" in an absolute metaphysical sense.

But with most scientific theories, we simply do not have the means to exhaustively test every potential falsification of a given theory, and the tools we use in logic and Mathematics are limited to those applications, so we have no means of producing "proofs" for scientific assertions (theories) the way we can for logic and Mathematics, is it requires metaphysical certitude that NO falsification can exist in order to conclude that something is "proven" true. That means EVERY potential falsification must be excluded. (as only one is required by logic to disprove an assertion.)

In short, it is a purely practical consideration that precludes "proof" of scientific theories, not some philosophical limitation of man. Most theories have way too many potential experiments or observations that could falsify them for us to ever do ALL of them. Hence, if science is to make any progress at all, it demands us to relax the requirement for acceptance to something less than absolute logical certitude. That's why they're called scientific Theories, and not Theorems: the former are never proven, the latter ALWAYS are.

That is why on the one hand scientific theories are not proven, but to be scientific, the must be DISPROVABLE.

[desertcry]

Theorems in Mathematics,... The subject of this debate is of course, Theory of Evolution, and Creation, a Physical Phenomena, not of mathematical logic. It is in this context, I was writing about.

[PatrickHenry]

The probability that man(a very small part of the Universe) arose from the singularity(very close to nothing)purely on stochastic(no intervention) processes is ZERO.

I have no idea where you get your figures from, but there is one important fact that must be considered: we are here. So rather than zero, I would rate the odds at 100%. Of course, way back when we weren't here, it was a different matter, and I don't know how one could have computed the likelihood of our future appearance; but as we are most definitely in existence, I should think settles the "odds" issue.

But then again, I'm only human, very far from being perfectly correct, thus the above is nothing but a rumbling of an old man, of the desert.

Yes, well that might explain a lot.

[f.Christian]

Indeed. A dog that is trained to act a certain way or he'll be punished is not virtuous when he behaves properly. He's just well-trained.

148 posted on 1/21/02 10:45 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry

Are you house broken--scratch the door--Truth--surface yet...

just leaving this mess to prove enlightenment...messy cave--basement you have here!

Teaching evolution in Govt. schools is breaking the establishment clause--false-esoteric-quack theories should only be taught in private not publicly funded schools using brainwashing techniques--lies/contortions-denials-fabrications(OWKisms).

And you care about--preach the constitution---separation of politics and religion--cults--demoniacs?

Would reason--principle self derived teach you to use the bathrom--toilet?

I think(bs)...therefore I'll flush--presto---civilization--enlightenment??

[desertcry]

....WE ARE HERE Yes, we are here indeed, that's why there is a CREATOR, and no thanks to Godless evolution. Please do this experiment: Try to evolve an ant out of nothing, and tell me how long it took you to do it.

[PatrickHenry]

I think(bs)...therefore I'll flush--presto---civilization--enlightenment??

Big squeegee day; Thunderbird binge; stagger; collapse in alley; vomit; urine; sleep; dream.

[PatrickHenry]

Please do this experiment: Try to evolve an ant out of nothing, and tell me how long it took you to do it.

It seems to take a few hundred million years. Give or take.