Posted on 05/09/2010 8:03:40 AM PDT by truthfinder9
So what we have through “evolution” is:
1. Life from non-life.
Well, *FLASH* + *POOF* doesn't quite explain the origin of life.
2. Spontaneous generation of irreducibly complex systems.
Give an example.
3. Sight from non-sight.
Mechanism explained by evolution.
4. Flight from non-flight.
Mechanism explained by evolution.
5. Intelligence from non-intelligence.
Mechanism explained by evolution.
6. Aesthetic appreciation from previously non-aesthetic beings.
Could you elaborate?
And all through “time, plus chance, plus the impersonal” (Francis Schaeffer).
Anyone who believes that has faith in “random,” or is a total hypocrite in what they assert, believing none of it. I would rather have faith in God, even though He transcends my intelligence. At least He doesn’t insult it.
To call it "pure chance", is to precisely insult your own intelligence by letting poetic metaphors force you to disregard a distinct possibility. Evolution is not akin to the mere toss of a coin. Each intermittent step, is dependent on the previous. The choices available for operation are basically at the molecular level - implying billions to trillions of interactions every moment, for a useful result to arise out of, in a time span stretching across 4 billion years. The Avogadro number, a quantity describing the number of molecules in a mole of a substance (1 mole of carbon is 12 grams) is 10 raised to 23, just to have a feel of the scale here.
Nothing is as severe as having only a single mating pair to generate all the genetic material for effectively 6 billion progeny, for a complex species.
Can you cite such a drastic circumstance in any evolutionary bottleneck?
If you go back far enough, we're all related.
At what point do you define a species, James? There will be an original breeding pair, unless you're going to further complicate matters to an even more improbable degree, and claim that the species arose simultaneously in different locales, yet somehow "found" one another, in order to avoid inbreeding to such a level as to be deemed acceptable.
Or, on the other hand, you could entertain the notion that the first breeding pair were put here, whether you accept a religious explanation or an irreligious one, which would mean that the genetic material necessary for 6 billion progeny were present from the outset.
Sounds rather simpler and therefore more likely to me.
Gerald Schroeder bump.
You might be able to use the immensity of numbers to confuse others, like “billions” of years (time), and gadzillions of interactions (chance), with no guiding intelligence (the impersonal), however, it won’t work with me.
1. The burden of proof is on you to explain how life came from non-life. Would you please do so and cite your empirical evidence?
2. An irreducibly complex system is one that requires all its parts to work. If one part is missing, the whole system fails. Like an eye. I note the following argument: “Since Darwin’s day, the eye’s ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.” How convenient — just believe — since the evidence is not there. It COULD have happened.
3., 4., 5. Could you demonstrate the development of sight, flight, and intelligence empirically, as you are the one claiming scientific supremacy? Or are you just asserting it COULD have happened. I’d like you to PROVE it DID happen.
6. Please explain the universal religious nature of man, including the scientific and atheistic communities.
I wonder if your parents felt that way.
He is the only one who makes sense.
You posted: “To call it “pure chance”, is to precisely insult your own intelligence by letting poetic metaphors force you to disregard a distinct possibility. Evolution is not akin to the mere toss of a coin. Each intermittent step, is dependent on the previous. The choices available for operation are basically at the molecular level - implying billions to trillions of interactions every moment, for a useful result to arise out of, in a time span stretching across 4 billion years. The Avogadro number, a quantity describing the number of molecules in a mole of a substance (1 mole of carbon is 12 grams) is 10 raised to 23, just to have a feel of the scale here.”
So you would call evolution “pure chance” to the exponential power.
Instead of one toss of the coin (50/50), you postulate millions, billions, trillions, etc. tosses of the coin with the result of life spontaneously generating and “beneficial” changes taking place — all with no guidance or “force” pushing things in a “positive” direction.
Sounds like “pure chance” to me. If you (because of your intelligence) disagree, could you please explain to me why there is order instead of disorder, and evolution instead of devolution. What is this “mechanism” explained by evolution. Does the mechanism drive evolution, or does evolution drive the mechanism?
As I said, you have faith in the random, or you are being hypocritical.
The two are not the same couple, nor existed at the same time.
Species don't separate with sharp boundaries. The process is too gradual to demarcate any meaningful boundary depicting drastic genetic separation between parent and offspring.
This is precisely what I meant by saying that it is a result of the accumulation of favourable traits.
It is akin to how poodles and wolves are basically the same, genetically, yet different.
Simple.
The earth is not under energy isolation, for your Second Law of Thermodynamics implication to hold. The sun pours enough energy onto this planet, to allow order from disorder to occur.
Let me illustrate this characteristic of chance and probability you speak of, assuming the mythology of Adam and Eve to be true.
Suppose you have an individual, named James, born and living in Los Angeles, today. Let us assume that James won the lottery last week. A million dollars. Now let us break the process that lead him to winning this, into parts:
For James to have won the lottery, he needed to buy the right ticket. A matter of 1 in millions, if not more.
For James to buy the right ticket, he needed to do things in exactly the same manner as he did, that day. Walk the particular steps to the store. Make the particular decisions every single moment of that day, all out of innumerable options. Now this is just for James buying the right ticket.
If you go back into James' history, he'd need to have grown up and made decisions every single moment after his birth, in just the right way, until he was old enough to purchase the ticket on his own. Out of all possibilities James could have explored all through his life, what are the odds?
Then you need to go back to James' parents. How they conceived him, how they met, how they themselves existed. Out of all the options each parent had, what are the odds?
That's just one generation. How many generations between James' parents, and your Adam and Eve? How many decisions played between the intermediary generations, that lead to these descendents following the paths that lead to James' birth in Los Angeles?
Remember, the total probabilities are not additive; they are one-out-of-the-product-of-all-odds from start to finish.
Now, don't people win lotteries to this day? What are the true odds? Mind-boggling.
Proof of concept.
Bees do this, to this day, with their queens, in a similar manner.
According to your “simple” logic, the odds are astronomical that you, a descendant of the biblical Adam and Eve (whether you believe it or not), will randomly be sitting at a keyboard to reply to this post.
Of course, you can still keep throwing out “astronomical” number figures to illustrate the “possibility” that your faith in randomness has some basic in logic and empirical science.
Until you can demonstrate, empirically, that life came/comes from non-life, you have the freedom to choose faith in your god of evolution, as I choose faith in my God as revealed in Christian Scripture.
Care to offer any experimental proof?
You have all the available evidence at your disposal.
You have the right to interptet based on that, or deduce from simplistic Stone Age mythology, repeatedly challenged by science. The choice is purely yours to make.
The truth will have its own say.
We agree: the truth will have its own way.
You must be arguing something here I'm not understanding correctly? Self-evidence involves concluding logically for your information.
I know everyone's not a Christian, and I'm sure they love reading God doesn't operate logically...That's a real winner!! Now what am I missing, please do explain?
Biblical hermeneutics / Hebrew semantics fail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.