To clarify.
If you take the element of chance out of ToE then it alters the whole dynamics.
There would be no need for the controls of adaptability or success (fittest) because the changes are made deliberately. You could still have a sort of Zero to humanity (common ancestry), but it would be the result of design and not chance.
Richard
That isn’t true. The ToE states that there is no scientific evidence of an intelligence. It does not state that an intelligence is not allowed. If there were scientific evidence for intelligence it would be incorporated into the theory. In fact, Darwin included intelligence from the beginning of the theory by citing artificial selection.
Why don’t you apply the same requirements to all of the other scientific theories you accept?
Then why can’t you understand how there can be a scientific theory that does not include God and a faith based belief that God is still a part of it? Why can’t someone describe the theory in a scientific manner and also still hold those faith based beliefs?
What??? Why not? Lotteries are the product of chance, and yet they produce specific results all of the time. We can see chance mutations producing antibiotic resistance in bacteria. We can see chance mutations in the human genome that gave rise to lactase persistence. Given a few hundred million births these mutations are all but guaranteed in the same way that selling hundreds of millions of lottery tickets all but guarantees someone will win.
We have gone a few rounds on that topic, so I don’t think we need to repeat it here. I do appreciate you clarifying your position.
I think you could also appreciate that there are many Christians who find the processes we observe in nature to be sufficient for the evolution of species. They also believe that God is still a part of this process, even if it isn’t a part of the scientific theory.
Added in edit:
Thought I would flesh out the mutation concept a bit more. There are 6 billion bases in the diploid human genome, and 3 potential substitution mutations at each of those bases. Therefore, there are 18 billion possible mutations. With a mutation rate of 50 per person, that’s 360 million births if the mutations are spread equally. In reality, it would take more births than this because not all mutations have the same probability, so let’s just round up and call it 1 billion births to get all possible mutations.
With a world population of around 8 billion, I think it is safe to say that you can find someone with an A, T, C, or G at every position in the human genome as long as that mutation is not instantly lethal. IOW, all possible non-lethal substitution mutations exist right now in the living human population, and all that is needed is chance.
That is TE, not ToE, and, as my clarification explained, it means you cannot argue “survival of the fittest” or “adapting to the environment” as controls. IOW it changes the theory too much to be called ToE.
I do not wish to engage further in discussions about probability and chance. Suffice it to say, your conclusions will depend on how you “spin” the data.
Likewise statistics. I fall back on the saying
There are tree types of lies
Lies
dmaned lies (Deliberate misspelling to avoid automatic deletion)
and Statistics
Richard
You are saying that God is part of nature, so do you reject the scientific description of weather and instead believe in theistic meteorology?
That’s fine. Suffice it to say that there are many Christians who accept the scientific findings that the observed mutation rate is capable of producing the genetic differences seen between species. They also believe that God is a part of this process.
Inaccurate: ToE cannot measure/detect any intelligence in development. But like all sciences, the possibility that something else is at work is held open.
But then the question is why you are claiming more for a scientific theory than that theory caims for itself?
That’s a straw man, it isn’t evolutionary theory. In the theory, everything relies on order! it’s just that random chance is pressed into serving order.
Logic actually says you can – casinos and macro-level physics both depend on that.
Logic says you can’t produce a specific result from chance in a particular instance of chance in action; over large sample sizes it’s not just possible but is often expected.
I just got it: you’re talking metaphysics just like Mike does, while T is talking about science.
Why can evolution not be the result of design? After all, it was seeing design in the processes of evolution that brought atheists and agnostics to conclude there must be a Designer.
To the point, why not recognize that there is more chaos in weather than in evolution?
Why not? God works through chance in volcanology, in glaciology, in coastal geology, in meteorology, and elsewhere, but the observed patterns sill work; why can God suddenly not use chance in evolution?
Or theistic volcanology, or theistic oceanography?
Given that I believe in God and accept biology, I would consider myself a theistic biologist. Evolution is just biology over time.
“Randomness” has several complications.
Multiple definitions: Are we using a strict mathematical definition, as something that is best described (as far as we can tell) by a probabilistic function? E.g., radioactive decay, will a particular mutation happen, casting lots. Are we using a looser definition to apply to anything not humanly predictable? This would include mathematically chaotic processes (there’s an exact math formula, but it’s too sensitive to the exact input to be accurately predictable in detail - things like long-term weather) as well as things for which there is no mathematical formula (such as the course of human, biological, or earth history). There’s also use of the word to mean “purposeless” or “unguided.” But what lacks guidance at one level may have it at another, like the random bowshot that killed Ahab. All of these categories have examples affirmed to be under God’s control in the Bible - they do not remove God from the picture but merely describe patterns as they appear to us. (Of course, understanding of God’s sovereignty over such processes interacts with one’s understanding of determinism and free will, but I don’t think we’re predestined to work out a global agreement on that here. Besides, for the present topic it does not matter whether one thinks that God is determining an exact outcome or a range of possibilities.)
Given a particular definition of random, something fitting it may not produce the outcome that we intuitively think randomness should. For example, random trends interacting with fixed limits lead to directionality. A study looking at muricid gastropods sought to determine whether they had gotten significantly more spiny over time, likely as an anti-predator defense. The first ones did not have spines and many of the ones today have a lot of spines. Definitely an increase. But if they just randomly sometimes grow spines, over time there will tend to be an increase in the average number of spines, because you can’t have less than zero spines. The analysis has to be more statistically sophisticated in its null model.
Evolution has significantly non-random components and random components in the first mathematical sense. Laws of physics and chemistry constrain what might be functional options for living things. Further constraints result from the interactions with other life (competition, predation, cooperation, etc.) Natural selection is very directional. However, will a particular mutation happen? There’s a probability for that. Mutations generate a range of organisms; natural selection determines which of those options work well enough to survive and reproduce.
Assessing how random evolution is also is partially a matter of one’s perspective (and philosophical biases). Steve Gould claimed the Cambrian radiation was highly random; Simon Conway Morris assesses it as very directional. But in part that reflects definition. If you could restart the Cambrian on another planet, would it come out exactly identical? Assuming that there were any differences between the two situations, probably not. That’s what Gould emphasized. But would they turn out fairly similar? That depends on what you consider fairly similar. Conway Morris would emphasize that fast swimming animals would still need to have a streamlined shape, fast land animals would need legs, etc. So what if the big land animals on planet 2 ended up being mollusks instead of vertebrates - they still have similar ecological roles of herbivores, carnivores, and scavengers. But Gould would emphasize that planet 2’s big land animals had radulas rather than bony teeth.
Reminds me of a sci-fi story where scientists had a breakthrough that enabled peeking into parallel universes – one of the first groups to get funding to use that tech was evolutionary biologists so they could compare the evolutionary chains on other versions of Earth to what they already knew. In the novel, while they found immense variations in a wide variety of life, in every universe they could reach there was a small shrew-like mammal whose decendants eventually became humans – humans dominated Earth in nearly every alternate, and in the rest humans died out during an ice age.
Near the end one researcher was opining that were it not for the worlds where humans died out he would conjecture that the universe somehow is organized around humans.
I think legs are inevitable as specialized limbs, which are inevitable because however small the animal, one with appendages that enable it to walk, swim, and grasp is a winner.
It’s already been done on a minimal level – it’s not hard when you know what to build. The difficult part is getting it to happen without fancy tools. I don’t know if it still applies, but as I recall thirty years ago scientists could get a cell wall to form from basics, and the could get DNA to form, but unless they physically lifted DNA and put it inside a cell wall the processes were apparently mutually exclusive.
Please read more carefully – I stated the “intelligence” involved and why it is the same as in evolution.
Let’s see, shall I believe Richard over the PhD evolutionary biologist who suggested that “an upright bipedal warm-blooded creature with sensory organs near the top and with bilateral symmetry and two limbs with manipulative appendages at the ends was the inevitable form for intelligence” (though I think “tool-using” belongs in there)?
I’ll go with “evolutionary biologist” (for $200, Alex!).
Would it be fair to say the same for mutations?
The evidence doesn’t prove that life on earth evolved according to the neo-Darwinian model, although lots of people like to believe it does and some even go so far as to claim their belief is a fact.
Furthermore, you forgot to mention the evidence against the theory of evolution.
You have hit the point i have been failing to assert.
The final result here is specified by scripture, but Evolutionary theory (ToE) could not guarantee that result.
Richard
Sigh,
I guess if you have to ask then you can’t see the problem. Then again, you seem to have a rather rose coloured view of chance. and an even dimmer view of God.
You seem to have got yourself down a one track raod with a specific understanding that doesn’t match mine.
Meteorology is ared herring, as would be vulcanology, Astronomy, Thermodynamics and any other branch of science that you care to latch onto. It is thinking like this that cause the Science v God divide.
All science is not the same. The rules you apply to thermodynamics will not necessarily help you with ecology… But, then again, you don’t seem to rate ecology as being important or relevant to Evolution.
I am not going to keep responding to your accusations about science and God.
Either talk ToE or keep your peace.
Richard
I’ve not read every post above - but just a few in the exchange T is having with some of you, so forgive me if my question is ignorant of something already shared in this thread.
But it appears to me that @T_aquaticus just wants to know why or how you think ToE is somehow a special science to be cordoned off from all the other sciences … with a different set of rules than they have? I’m with him in this in wondering what makes ToE set apart for you. Yeah - obviously it’s a different branch of science focusing on its own subject matter: biology, while other branches have their own distinct areas of focus. But … are the general scientific methodologies different for different branches of science? If so, how?
Not speaking for @RichardG but it is my observation that many oppose the TOE because it directly calls into question the teachings of Genesis. It is an attack on a fundamental, and highly important, dogma so of course it must be rejected. Dogma determines interpretation and not the other way around.
Why doesn’t that evidence prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?
Apparently you did too.
That’s consistent with what I see too.
It does seem to have the (perhaps unintended?) effect of privileging Genesis over nearly everything else in the Bible, such as the Psalms or Proverbs or prophetic writings (to say nothing about the gospels or various epistles.) Because I haven’t seen anybody explain why Genesis should be singled out as the only book that must be required [interpreted] to match modern scientific truth, but all the other books are exempted from this even if they speak of things like earth, rain, or sun or even prenatal development.
I’m guessing it’s just because evolution (unlike all those other branches) has historically been the one almost exclusively used as an anti-religious tool by so many polemic figures (only some of them scientists). So as of these last couple centuries, it’s probably been culturally ‘baked-in’ for us that this is ‘the one flashpoint’ that matters.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.