What can we prove about evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
21

We are entering into a odd area - I began by stating a distinction between formal mathematical proofs, and matters that can be proven by science. I then added the need for a philosophy of science to examine theories and general treatments in the sciences, and it is in this area that we may have meaningful discussions regarding the nature and robust development of general theories of science.

To now use facts as opposed to proofs is an odd addition to this argument. A fact may be the length of say, a C-H bond; a proof is the clear and unambiguous identification of chemical bonds per se. The theory of chemical bonding has taken a long time to be fully developed, but at no time was the nature of the chemical bond been controversial (unless you go before atoms and molecules were understood) - that is chemical bonds involve electrons shared between atoms to form the various chemical bonds in molecules.

It is nonsense to then consider evolution in the same way. Even proponents of (I would say Darwinian evolution, but even here terms become vague and slippery) evolution admit to its failures and many changes. If you want to use the analogy of chemical bonds for an odd argument for evolution, you would need to show that the idea of electrons forming bonds is vague and often shown to be incorrect. This has never happened. Thus we can accept the nature of chemical bonds to be proven by science. The theoretical treatment of chemical bonds may occur at relatively simple levels, and progress to ab initio QM treatments. These theories are robust and with increasing computing power, have been applied to ever more difficult areas. The maths that is an integral part of these treatments is subject to the same treatment as any other robust theory in science.

So again I add my general comment in this exchange - we have an odd and naĂŻve discussion of proofs in science, and it appears to me, motivated by a need to bolster the semantics of evolution. This smacks of defending an ideology and in the process making science appear murky.

22

Can you define ‘evolution’ here. Are you talking about adaptation, i.e. small changes in existing traits, or creation of completely new traits, i.e. changing from one type of organism into a completely different one with brand new traits for that organism?

Matt

23

Rom 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
[TRANSLATION: God does not love everyone.]

Rom 9:14
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
[TRANSLATION: You are forbidden from criticizing God for not loving everyone.]

Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
[TRANSLATION: He tells Moses that he doesn’t love everyone.]

Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
[TRANSLATION: It is not up to man’s efforts, but God’s grace that some our loved.]

Rom 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
[TRANSLATION: God arranges that some people are doomed to show God’s power.]

Rom 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[TRANSLATION: God will destroy some humans who cannot resist him.]

Rom 9:19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[TRANSLATION: Since no one resists God’s will, why does God blame us?]

Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[TRANSLATION: Just because it is logical to “reply” against God … you don’t have the right to.]

Rom 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
[TRANSLATION A Potter makes what he needs with clay.]

Rom 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[TRANSLATION God is like a potter.]

MORAL OF THE STORY: Romans 9 says God deliberately creates people (completely vulnerable to God’s volition) that suffer harm from how they are created.

From the viewpoint of Theodicy . . . God is the author of human suffering. And you don’t have the right to complain

1 Like
24

Both. For the first instance, it is well established that Dawinian natural selection works for making “small changes in existing traits” or what is called micro evolution. In fact it is so well established (at a level of 100% among scientists) that even young earth creationists agree that this is true. I dont know of anyone who doesnt. As for the second instance, the innovation of new trraits, (which does not involve changing from one type of organism into another one. That is a creationist mythical strawman. Nobody ever said that happens), the general theory of evolution in its neo Darwinian form may not (I happen to think it does not, but the consensus is not yet complete) fully explain such transitions, or even their timing.

But, natural selection is still part of the picture, the problem is understanding the mechanism of variation creation, which cannot be simply slow accumulation of random point mutations in structural genes. (neo Darwinism). As I said there is currently a split in evolutionary biology between the neo Darwinians and those who think a far more complex set of mechanisms are involved in innovation. But whatever the final consensus turns out to be, it will still be evolution.

1 Like
25

@GJDS

I agree that chemical bonds are not a good analogy for evolution, but you brought it up. And it isnt the fact of the chemical bond that is analogous to the theory of evolution. The fact of the chemical bond, which as you say has long been known, is analogous to the fact of species variation, the fact or inheritance of phenotype from parent to offspring, and the fact that artificial selection works to bring about change in a population of organisms. From these facts Darwin posed his theory, which is indeed analogous to the theory of chemical bonding that sought to explain the fact of the chemical bond.

A major problem in biology is the inability to formulate mathematical laws as can be done in physics and chemistry, so while orbital theories can be proven mathematically, there is very little in biology that can be. This is why there are so few biologiical laws. Hopefully this might change some day.

26

Tying together your question, @MattC, with the original question “What can we prove about Evolution?”, is this KEY idea:

We know that different individuals of the same population can experience is DIFFERING ABILITIES to conceive. A woman could spend years trying to have a child by her companion with no success. But if the two separate, BOTH could be successful in having children just by finding new mates!

This is PROVEN.

And from this we can make the related conclusion that, ON AVERAGE, the more individuals or a collection of individuals genetically varies from the main population, or some sub-set of that population, the higher the probability that the individual or collection of individuals can be the common ancestor of a new species.

George

27

Lots of cherry picking and dubious translation going on here. I suppose that Jesus went about healing people that God had afflicted? Isn’t it ironic that Bill Gates, a non-believer, has dedicated much of his fortune to fighting malaria, designed by God? What’s wrong with this picture?

28

Dear @Beaglelady:

The point of the quote is not so much to disprove your views.

It’s to point out that LITERALISTS are not paying attention to what THEY should believe !!!

If you are not a literalist, Romans 9 is rather irrelevant!

29

OK, I see now…

1 Like
30

right. but in this case we can also claim that a watch or a car arent evidence for design. but its an absurd logic. the main evolutionists objection to this is the claim that a watcg isnt self replicating like a living thing. but again- even if we will find a watch with a self replicating system and even a dna- it will be a proof of design.

32

@Eddie, … and here I was thinking you found your heart.

@beaglelady is in a PERFECT position to complain about the hard-heartedness of Paul.

Beaglelady is not a Literalist. And because of that, she and all of the rest of us who are not literalist, can make allowances for the fuzziness of Biblical writings.

Evolutionists have no special responsibility to the problem of Theodicy. We are the ones who can best allow for the problems of Theodicy. Literalists only offer apologia.

George

33

So yeah, I’m not a fundamentalist. That is true.

There is a big difference between allowing bad things to happen and directly causing bad things to happen.

Besides, bad things usually disproportionately affect the poor, the weak, the very old and the very young. I guess God doesn’t care about these groups.

34

Unitarian Universalists generally agree that the Bible doesn’t have things quite right about God.

George

36

I think you are bringing the conversation down to word spinning. If any branch of science cannot be subjected to a rigorous treatment (which inevitably means mathematical formulation and quantification of all of these facts you seek to invoke), than that branch of science promulgates an inadequate theoretical framework. This is particularly so for evolution, as it now seems to have lost it ‘foundation’ as a theory and is proposed by some to mean a loose “change with time” generalisation. This is the very contradiction of your claim that it is “100% true”, but waiting for a few details to be filled in.

My remarks are not meant to question things such as inheritance, artificial breeding, variation of within species, as many of these have been observed over a long period, well before Darwin. But it is light years from the grounding and rigorous treatment of theories such as chemical bonding (and btw, I brought it up to show the stark contrast to evolution, not as an analogy - you decided to change the conversation by insisting it may be similar in relation to facts of science - and I am showing your analogy is misplaced).

So I will end this discussion with the matters that I regard as important, and that is, the insistence by many on this site, of making an inadequate outlook of evolution, as a way God has created. I strongly disagree with such an evolutionary creationist notion. God has created in profound and elegant ways, and the proposed evolutionary outlook is light years removed from such Godly ways.

37

And yet you never stop quoting from the Bible and discussing God. When were you handed Apostolic authority by Christ? :scream:

38

Care to elaborate on how God has created? Also please include the evidence and solid theoretical/mathematical foundation for how God actually created that you contend is lacking for evolutionary creationism.

40

I cannot use the quotes facility for some reason, but Sy, your own admission should suffice for this conversation - look up what you wrote - "a major problem …

On elaborating on how God created - I have stated that some branches of science show the elegance and profound aspects of the creation. I am disagreeing with your notion that is openly stated on this site - that evolution is how God created. It is for you to defend such a statement, not for me. If you can provide a solid mathematical foundation for what you mean by evolution is how God created, I will be happy to go through it with you. But I repeat, you and BioLogos are making such a proclamation, so it is up to you to provide such proofs.