What's wrong with this rant? Evolution vs. Creation

[hammegk]

Perhaps you're thinking 20 in., not 20 cm.

Or maybe not ....

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/horse/Eohippuscoloring.shtml


Tiny, anyway. Want to go for 20 hands next? That one is a s.w.a.g.

 

[c4ts]

Welcome to Bizarro world, where evolution goes backwards and well-supported observation is no match for imitating speculative noises.

 

[hammegk]

Welcome to Bizarro world, where evolution goes backwards and well-supported observation is no match for imitating speculative noises.

Whatever, bunkie. How many times have evolutionists here contended that evolution is not predisposed towards higher complexity -- it just so 'happens' that way? It is interesting that evolution (scientific defintion) seems to mirror evolution (nonscientific definition) in that critical things seem to "improve" over time.

I am surprised no one has mentioned hominid dna over the last few million years and touted the darwinist narratives written to support blind evolution based on that data (all those 'improvements', huh).

 

[JAK]

Whatever, bunkie. How many times have evolutionists here contended that evolution is not predisposed towards higher complexity -- it just so 'happens' that way? It is interesting that evolution (scientific defintion) seems to mirror evolution (nonscientific definition) in that critical things seem to "improve" over time.

I am surprised no one has mentioned hominid dna over the last few million years and touted the darwinist narratives written to support blind evolution based on that data (all those 'improvements', huh).

Stuart Kauffman is postulating a drive toward higher complexity as virtually a natural law. Essentially, "evolutionary potential" is a field running from simple to complex. "Simple" is easier to attain and has been handsomely filled by evolution to date. Complexity, however, is more difficult to achieve, and new progress in that direction seems more important - "pushing the envelope," so to speak.

Hey hammegk, it looks like they're ganging up on you. Maybe I can help (or at least help "stir the pot"). What side are we supporting - pro-evolution or pro-creationism?

 

[hammegk]

Pray tell me, who are more qualified than a geneticist to determine whether or not it's different species we're talking about? After all, they are the one that has the facts about the genetic structure.

When have we settled on a genetic structure definition that actually works without those darn qualifiers?

And what will the evolutionary thory predict: That a fly that speciates will instantly be non-fly species, or that there will take a lot of speciations before would eventually start to get something that could classified as something else than a fly?

So far, flies are flies. Sorry.

And is what is actually happening consistent with the predictions?

You mean that flies may-could-should-maybe 'evolve' to be a non-fly? Genetically? Certainly hoped for (hmm prayed for by Science?) but never demonstrated.

If you actually know about the real evolutionary theory (and not your strawman version you have so far presented), you should be able to answer these questions.

Yes, I know examining logical endpoints of theories often point out "gaps". A chance for time and randomness to 'design' you, for example.

BTW, thanks for an attempt at participation other than via insults...

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by JAK

Stuart Kauffman is postulating a drive toward higher complexity as virtually a natural law. Essentially, "evolutionary potential" is a field running from simple to complex. "Simple" is easier to attain and has been handsomely filled by evolution to date. Complexity, however, is more difficult to achieve, and new progress in that direction seems more important - "pushing the envelope," so to speak.

Yes. Finding 'complex' designs more interesting than 'simple' ones, we may easily overlook the fact that complex organisms are outnumbered by simpler ones by orders of magnitude. Postulating that "a drive toward higher complexity as virtually a natural law" is an idea heavy with cultural baggage, a legacy of an era when Victorian notions about 'progress' were widely accepted at face value. We would do well to remember something Richard Dawkins, a master at demolishing out-dated ideas, said, quoting one of his colleagues: "to a first approximation, all animals are insects".

What is referred to as the r-K continuum is a factor in this as well. Under favorable enviromental conditions (plentiful resources, low predation, etc), the developmental cost of fancy equipment is likely to prove prohibitive in the race to reproduction against organisms with more streamlined designs.

Originally posted by hammegk

When have we settled on a genetic structure definition that actually works without those darn qualifiers?

Hammegk has a point here. The 'biological species model' is only one among a number of possible definitions for "species". The modern science of genetics is a powerful tool in settling disputes, but it cannot be universally applied to all disputes. There might be some paleontologists who would dispute the suggestion that geneticists are uniquely qualified to determine where a species boundary belongs. In some instances, it might not be entirely unreasonable to consider eliciting the services of a philosopher in making that call.

 

[JAK]

Yes. Finding 'complex' designs more interesting than 'simple' ones, we may easily overlook the fact that complex organisms are outnumbered by simpler ones by orders of magnitude.
...

Absolutely true.

Kauffman is merely noting that growth potential for new species is in the direction of complexity. This march is seen in the fossil record from single-celled microbes to multi-celled microbes to multi-featured simple creatures to chordates to reptilian brained creatures to mammilian brained (addition of the limbic system to the reptilian brain) creatures. Clearly, growth is occuring toward complexity over the eons. The single-celled creatures still exist and proliferate, but creatures of even greater complexity appear to be evolving. Further, even the simplest bacteria have complex DNA. Plus, viruses and bacteria or quickly evolving to compensate for human anti-biotics. So, even these relatively simple creatures appear to be growing in complexity.

...
What is referred to as the r-K continuum is a factor in this as well. Under favorable enviromental conditions (plentiful resources, low predation, etc), the developmental cost of fancy equipment is likely to prove prohibitive in the race to reproduction against organisms with more streamlined designs.

Again, absolutely true.

And even with high predation, another alternative is profuse and protected replication. Grass is a good example. As much as herds of ungulates "prey" on the hapless grass, their roots remain untouched in the soil. And they thrive as long as the climate is favorable (plentiful resources).

Yet, overall, the environment is variable - complete with ice ages, asteroid impacts, floods, droughts, continental drift, seasonal changes, and even trampling hooves. All of these add complexity to the environment, and to adapt requires greater complexity on the part of the organism. Thus, the "development cost for fancy equipment" should provide survival benefits within a complex environment. Yes, it is more expensive, but it improves adaptability.

The drive toward complexity can even be seen in our society today. From swimming to dugout boats to sails with stays to steam power and now nuclear power, water transportation as evolved toward complexity over the centuries. Digital processing was born with the Jaquard loom, went to the Hollerith machine for a turn of the century census, ballooned into the Eniac circa WWII, shrunk into the laptop computer of the 1990s, and now seems to be part of most fields of human endeavor. But I could pick just about any industry or field to show this steady progress toward complexity - sports equipment, musical instruments, mathematics, biology, government, accounting, you name it.

...
Hammegk has a point here. The 'biological species model' is only one among a number of possible definitions for "species". The modern science of genetics is a powerful tool in settling disputes, but it cannot be universally applied to all disputes. There might be some paleontologists who would dispute the suggestion that geneticists are uniquely qualified to determine where a species boundary belongs. In some instances, it might not be entirely unreasonable to consider eliciting the services of a philosopher in making that call.

The difficulty with paleontology could be underscored with the aloe plant (genus: aloe) versus the agave plant (genus: agave) which have similar characteristics. Only a chemical or DNA analysis can show the genus differences. With paleontology, the fossils of the two would appear similar and, perhaps, be considered variants of the same species or genus.

But this, too, highlights Hammegk's point. Do we classify based upon historical lineage? Or do we classify based upon evolved characteristics? If a dolphin lost its mammaries and grew scales, would it lose its status as mammal and become a fish with a "mammilian brain"?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by JAK

Kauffman is merely noting that growth potential for new species is in the direction of complexity

A closely related idea is Gould's "Left Wall hypothesis", described in his book "Full House". Basically, it is simply the observation that certain properties (Gould was primarily addressing size) have a minimum threshold below which no variation is possible, leaving only one direction in which the 'edge of the envelope' can move. Changes in the median or the mean may look impressive, but if the mode has remained essentially fixed, it's important to take that into consideration. You have to admire Gould's skill as an author just in managing to get a whole book out of it.

Yet, overall, the environment is variable - complete with ice ages, asteroid impacts, floods, droughts, continental drift, seasonal changes, and even trampling hooves. All of these add complexity to the environment, and to adapt requires greater complexity on the part of the organism. Thus, the "development cost for fancy equipment" should provide survival benefits within a complex environment. Yes, it is more expensive, but it improves adaptability.

This gets a little hairy, and I think we need to make careful choices of terms.

The word: adaptability is one that may carry some risk of confusion in this context. On the one hand, we appear to have organisms who, having paid the high cost of complexity, enjoy greater adaptability through the high degree of flexibility it confers. On the other, we have organisms like cheetas, who also paid this price, but got a high degree of specialization out of the deal instead. We still could say that they were better adapted than their ancestors, but at the same time, less adaptable; less able to cope with sudden environmental changes than more generalized organisms. (This of course leaves unexamined the possibility of considering humans just as specialized as cheetas, but specialized to a different type of task -- thinking, instead of chasing down ungulates, navigating the complexities of human society, whatever. That discussion might not belong in this thread).

As far as organisms are concerned, it might be tricky making a reliable connection between complexity and specialization. The Swiss army knife is more generalized than the surgeon's scalpel, but is it less complex? The same applies to environments. Catastrophic events such as those you mentioned would seem to reduce the complexity of an environment rather than increase it, but it might be said that the result would be to make life more complicated for the organisms that survived, thereby favoring greater specialization. Continental drift might be thought of as producing an increase in environmental complexity when it introduced previously isolated species by connecting landmasses, making life simpler for some organisms, and more complicated (if not impossible) for others. When it isolated them, it might be said to have produced long periods of stability. It's hard to make definitive statements like: "the environment, overall, is variable", because that... well, uh... that varies.

And as if that weren't bad enough, we also have to consider the very distribution of specialists to generalists as an important factor as well. The advantage, at any particular time, of becoming either a specialist or a generalist can vary depending on the pre-existing distribution.

 

[Renfield]

Stuart Kauffman is postulating a drive toward higher complexity as virtually a natural law. Essentially, "evolutionary potential" is a field running from simple to complex. "Simple" is easier to attain and has been handsomely filled by evolution to date. Complexity, however, is more difficult to achieve, and new progress in that direction seems more important - "pushing the envelope," so to speak.

Hey hammegk, it looks like they're ganging up on you. Maybe I can help (or at least help "stir the pot"). What side are we supporting - pro-evolution or pro-creationism?

Hard to classify Hamm's unique brand of nuttiness. When he's semi coherant i get the impression he is a believer in some religious explanation of how we got here.

 

[JAK]

Hard to classify Hamm's unique brand of nuttiness. When he's semi coherant i get the impression he is a believer in some religious explanation of how we got here.

I'm not sure ...

I find that the evolutionary zealots are disposed to errant thinking just as religious zealots. I believe Hamm's by-line quote starting with "'dogmatic genius'... " may relate to that.

I like to confront unbridled enthusiasm with some cautionary logic. All ideas are, at best, only theory (perhaps mathematics and formal logic excepted). To completely discount a religious tenent or a scientific fact would require omniscience. Until one is willing to claim omniscience, proclaiming any stance should be tempered.

Evolution vs Creation? I wouldn't give either side a "win," but I would lay "odds" infavor of the existence of evolution as 9:1 (or 99:1). Even so, in the end, the long-shot could be the winner. The evolutionists should acknowledge that meekly little 1, even if they find it distasteful.

It is also possible that both evolution and "God" exist. For one to nullify the other is not a requirement. This, too, seems to be ignored by both scientific and religious zealots. This would provide a "friendly" ground for both groups to work harmoniously. Why must we fight over this?

Given Hamm's quote, I see him, as perhaps, a kindred spirit who will needle anyone who gets on their "high horse," be it scientific or religious. He seemed a little out-numbered on this thread, and I thought I might join him.

But it looks like he may have left ...

 

[Ashles]

I'm not sure ...

I find that the evolutionary zealots are disposed to errant thinking just as religious zealots. I believe Hamm's by-line quote starting with "'dogmatic genius'... " may relate to that.

I like to confront unbridled enthusiasm with some cautionary logic. All ideas are, at best, only theory (perhaps mathematics and formal logic excepted). To completely discount a religious tenent or a scientific fact would require omniscience. Until one is willing to claim omniscience, proclaiming any stance should be tempered.

Evolution vs Creation? I wouldn't give either side a "win," but I would lay "odds" infavor of the existence of evolution as 9:1 (or 99:1). Even so, in the end, the long-shot could be the winner. The evolutionists should acknowledge that meekly little 1, even if they find it distasteful.

But for that to be the case we would have to give equal weight for every theory imaginable.
Pixies did it - a 1
Aliens created everything - a 1
Invisible Pink Unicorns - another 1
etc.
The fact is that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution but none for Creationism. So why should we give it any theoretical probability?
It's not the issue whether it is impossible, or even massively unlikely - it is that as a theory it cannot be falsified, and it cannot be used to predict anything. And it is theoretically indistinguishable in terms of likelihood from the silliest creation theories imaginable.
How would you distinguish between the probability of a Universe created 6,000 years ago by a God, and a universe created 6 minutes ago by leprechauns in which we have been given false memories?

It is also possible that both evolution and "God" exist. For one to nullify the other is not a requirement. This, too, seems to be ignored by both scientific and religious zealots. This would provide a "friendly" ground for both groups to work harmoniously. Why must we fight over this?

I would hope nobody has implied that evolution in any way provides evidence for the non-existence of a God. Of course it doesn't.
Many people who believe in evolution also believe in God. the previous Pope and Charles Darwin to name two.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by JAK

I like to confront unbridled enthusiasm with some cautionary logic.

And having taken that important step, what then?

When the evidence has been sifted over and over, at finer and finer resolution; when -- after every possible explanation we can imagine has been considered, and each subjected to every ruthless test we can think of -- only one competitor remains standing; when every new challenge has been met, and every old one met again and again and again...

...will the science of biology then be allowed to return to peaceful enjoyment of its grand unifying principle? Or must it maintain such caution as to preface every statement with: "Unless we are wrong about all of this, and it was the Pixies or something after all..."? Would it be enough to stipulate that some similar such disclaimer might be considered to be inferred, though it remained unspoken?

 

[JAK]

And having taken that important step, what then?

When the evidence has been sifted over and over, at finer and finer resolution; when -- after every possible explanation we can imagine has been considered, and each subjected to every ruthless test we can think of -- only one competitor remains standing; when every new challenge has been met, and every old one met again and again and again...

...will the science of biology then be allowed to return to peaceful enjoyment of its grand unifying principle? Or must it maintain such caution as to preface every statement with: "Unless we are wrong about all of this, and it was the Pixies or something after all..."? Would it be enough to stipulate that some similar such disclaimer might be considered to be inferred, though it remained unspoken?

I am reminded of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy. As deeply ingrained as it is, the only proof has been its invincibility in countless tests and observations. In other words, its proof is mere inference and a probabilty. I certainly would not care to bet against it, but it is still "a bet." It has been stable for, an assumed, 12 - 20 billion years. But will it always be stable? Was it part of the big bang? Is there any nemesis to it lurking in the universe?

Let's take a different tack. How many thoughts of other people are you privy to? Do you see through their eyes? Do you hear with their ears? Do you feel with their hearts? Have you ever thought how utterly alone you are? Perhaps you are the only thing that exists. Perhaps everything else is a figment of your imagination. Yes, reject it vehemently. Then ask yourself again. Do you see through the eyes of others? Do you feel through another's heart?

But there are other alternatives as well.

Denying the existence of alternatives is living with "blinders" on - a handicap for new growth. Though the blinders may serve you well with "evolution vs creationism," blinders become an insidious habit that may show up elsewhere. Just realize that you may be teaching your mind not to be careful, or worse, that it is okay to be closed.

I suggest that it is okay to be open.

 

[Ashles]

I am reminded of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy. As deeply ingrained as it is, the only proof has been its invincibility in countless tests and observations. In other words, its proof is mere inference and a probabilty. I certainly would not care to bet against it, but it is still "a bet." It has been stable for, an assumed, 12 - 20 billion years. But will it always be stable? Was it part of the big bang? Is there any nemesis to it lurking in the universe?

It is unclear what point you are making here.
You make a strong case for the second law of thermodynamics. Of course it is possible that it is incorrect but there is currently little reason to assume so.
Now if you are relating evolution to this second law then you have made the same mistake as many creationists:
This should clear up your misconceptions

Let's take a different tack. How many thoughts of other people are you privy to? Do you see through their eyes? Do you hear with their ears? Do you feel with their hearts? Have you ever thought how utterly alone you are? Perhaps you are the only thing that exists. Perhaps everything else is a figment of your imagination. Yes, reject it vehemently. Then ask yourself again. Do you see through the eyes of others? Do you feel through another's heart?

Again it's hard to tell what point you are trying to make here.
Do I live any aspect of my life as another person - no, obviously not.
Do you? Again no.
Do you see things through my eyes? No. So what is your point here?

But there are other alternatives as well.

Denying the existence of alternatives is living with "blinders" on - a handicap for new growth. Though the blinders may serve you well with "evolution vs creationism," blinders become an insidious habit that may show up elsewhere. Just realize that you may be teaching your mind not to be careful, or worse, that it is okay to be closed.

I suggest that it is okay to be open.

Doesn't really mean anything.
If I tell you to be open to the possibility that elves are replacing your shirts with identical but different ones, does that help you with your life or understanding of the universe?
No?
Maybe you aren't being open enough.

 

[cbish]

Ashles, you're being too nice.
JAK is talking nonsense. To be brief, he's saying "How do you know?" "You can't dismiss everything"! How fine do you want to split hairs? How many word games do you want to play? Dynamic pretty much summed it up. So did you, Ashles, in your second to last post.

JAK, go ahead and explain the second law of thermodynamics. I'm going to get a beer!

 

[hammegk]

How would you distinguish between the probability of a Universe created 6,000 years ago by a God, and a universe created 6 minutes ago by leprechauns in which we have been given false memories?

Or one that has been underway 14 billion years? Answer; you can't.

I would hope nobody has implied that evolution in any way provides evidence for the non-existence of a God.

Regarding the fuss various school boards get into over the issue, that is exactly what evolution teaches as they see it.

Would it be enough to stipulate that some similar such disclaimer might be considered to be inferred, though it remained unspoken?

At some level of sophistication, of course. The question school boards should ask is "Why not make the disclaimer explicit at the lowest levels of instruction?".

Evolution vs Creation? I wouldn't give either side a "win," but I would lay "odds" in favor of the existence of evolution as 9:1 (or 99:1). Even so, in the end, the long-shot could be the winner. The evolutionists should acknowledge that meekly little 1, even if they find it distasteful.

If they actually consider the position they are taking with anything less than the 100:0 stance, they are illogical and they accept some form of interactive dualism as a possibility.

It is also possible that both evolution and "God" exist. For one to nullify the other is not a requirement.

Yes, but empirical data and logic do not allow as 'physical matter' and paranormal god (dualism again, see?).

anyone who gets on their "high horse," be it scientific or religious.

I'd like to think so, anyway ....

He seemed a little out-numbered on this thread, and I thought I might join him.

Yeah, I've noticed sceptics become unwelcome once they start goring someone else's ox (science, say). And thanks....

But it looks like he may have left ...

To the dismay of some, noooo.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

The question school boards should ask is "Why not make the disclaimer explicit at the lowest levels of instruction?".

And the question school boards who plan to do that should be asked is: "Why should evolution be singled out for such treatment, when other disciplines such as chemistry, physics, and geology also suffer from the same flaw of less-than-100%-certainty at the level of axioms?"

 

[Ashles]

Or one that has been underway 14 billion years? Answer; you can't.

As I explained above we have actual evidence that supports the earth being in the region of 4 billion years old. That is why it seems sensible to accept that as a valid theory. It also has formed predictions which can and have been tested.
We have no evidence for the other theories I mentioned so they are indistinguishable from each other in terms of probability and usefullness.
I can't believe you really don't understand the distinction.

But at least you appear to agree that YE creationism is indistinguishable from Leprechaun creationism in terms of evidence and likelihood.

Regarding the fuss various school boards get into over the issue, that is exactly what evolution teaches as they see it.

I meant anyone here. Obviously anyone who is implying that evolution argues against the existence of God is incorrect.

 

[hammegk]

And the question school boards who plan to do that should be asked is: "Why should evolution be singled out for such treatment, when other disciplines such as chemistry, physics, and geology also suffer from the same flaw of less-than-100%-certainty at the level of axioms?"

Evolution is the only scientific theory that purports to answer Aristotle's final question "Why?", e.g. the reason for, purpose of, or intention of.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

Evolution is the only scientific theory that purports to answer Aristotle's final question "Why?", e.g. the reason for, purpose of, or intention of.

If that's really the issue, then the problem stems from a simple misunderstanding, since TOE decidedly does not purport to do any such thing -- certainly no more than do any of the aforementioned explanatory constructs.