Evolution's “Molecular Clock”: Not So Dependable After All?

PLOS (Public Library of Science) ^ | 8/17/04 | Staff

[stremba]

Is there a corresponding 'List of "people who BELIEVE evolution"' that DO matter???

No there isn't. The truth or falsity of evolution is not dependent on who or how many people believe it. I wish people would stop relying on argument from authority (on both sides of the issue.)

[orionblamblam]

Yes.

Is there a reason you're shouting?

[delapaz]

I disagree, this is not a non-sequitur. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the theory of common descent rests on an assumption that there has been no supernatural interference in the origin of life.

I believe in God, therefore a supernatural world. This belief is reasonable based on what I have observed. It follows logically that on omnipotent God could have created the world in 6 days.

This may appear to be an unreasonable belief to some who do not believe in God or a supernatural world. Therefore my question remains, is it unreasonable to believe in God?

[js1138]

What you are describing is a crude form of evolution -- make every possible combination, then select the useful ones.

I suspect that life has refined this process considerably, and we are looking at a system that produces mutations with a higher than random probability of being useful. As a recent notorious Scientific American article asserted, evolution has evolved.

[VadeRetro]

... the “punctuated equilibria” theory, which postulates that the fossil clock fluctuates wildly (long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid periods of evolution) ...

There's really no excuse for you still not knowing that punk-eek says about mutation rates. (Next to nothing.) No excuse. All you guys do is bludgeon with your own ignorance, forever.

[Dimensio]

God is implied if not acknowledged.

What are the specific properties of this implied "God"?

[Elsie]

Ah........

but some INTELLiGENCE was used to determine that the new stuff was, indeed, 'useful'.

[Elsie]

Yes

[Elsie]

then select the useful ones.

Using WHOSE criteria?

[js1138]

but some INTELLiGENCE was used to determine that the new stuff was, indeed, 'useful'.

In living systems that intelligence is called differential reproductive fitness, or selection, for short. That is what "useful" means to living things.

[js1138]

In life, the criterion is whether an organism reproduces.

[Dimensio]

The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the theory of common descent rests on an assumption that there has been no supernatural interference in the origin of life.

No, it does not.

I believe in God, therefore a supernatural world. This belief is reasonable based on what I have observed. It follows logically that on omnipotent God could have created the world in 6 days.

"Could have" does not translate to "did".

This may appear to be an unreasonable belief to some who do not believe in God or a supernatural world. Therefore my question remains, is it unreasonable to believe in God?

Why do you believe in this "God"? How did you infer its existence and by what means did you deduce its properties?

[Elsie]

Is that ALL?

[Elsie]

[It's that 'clock' thing.]

[delapaz]

I'm going to guess that you're answer to my question is "No, it is not reasonable to believe in God."

[Dimensio]

I'm going to guess that you're answer to my question is "No, it is not reasonable to believe in God."

First, it's "your", not "you're". Would it make sense to say that "You are answer to my question..."? Clearly not.

Secondly, I did not say that it was unreasonable to believe in a God. I merely asked what motivated you to hold such a belief.

I find it unreasonable to believe in things for which there is absolutley no evidence, but thus far you've not stated that you have absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God.

[js1138]

You asked about the selection criteria. Yes, differential reproduction is it. Where have you been since 1859?

[orionblamblam]

> The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the theory of common descent rests on an assumption that there has been no supernatural interference in the origin of life.

That is incorrect. Evolution is not incompatible with divine intervention, just as it's clearly not incompatible with human intervention.

> It follows logically that on omnipotent God could have created the world in 6 days.

And in the process building in place evidence that it took, instead, many billions of years.

> is it unreasonable to believe in God?

Depends on your beliefs. If you believe ina God who created a universe that appears to be self-sustaining and following fairly consistent principles, no, it's not unreasonable. If, however, you believe in a God that is contradicted by the clear evidence at hand, then, yes.

Belief in the supernatural is not unreasonable so long as that belief does not contradict the known facts of the natural world. You may believe in elves, if you so wish, but if you choose to believe that streetlights are elves, then you're unreasonable. Believign that a God created the universe in six days, plants ahead of the sun... that's unreasonable. Believing in a God that created the universe via more "natural" means, and explained it via parable to goat herders who woudl not understand thigns like evolution and proton decay... that's more reasonable.

[orionblamblam]

Practising to be a Democrat?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Creationists don't believe in DNA.