But chance results in patterns, as the ball & peg demonstration shows, when there is some form of constraint – which in the case of evolution is what doesn’t inhibit reproduction too much.
Nope – neither the ball & peg demo nor the sound patterns are guided by intelligence, they merely demonstrate patterns that occur. The only point at which intelligence could be found would be in the establishment of the natural laws that make them happen – the very same thing that evolution rests on.
Incorrect: natural selection is the guidance – nothing else is observed, nor required.
But there is no evidence of any guidance beyond natural selection.
Because many fine minds have been directed towards finding things that qualify as irreducible, and have never (not yet) succeeded.
Nope – you’re imposing circular reasoning where it doesn’t exist. It has nothing to do with what “ToE [could] build”, it has to do with what is observed.
Huh, then I guess the entire biology faculty where I attended university was wrong, because they all taught that evolution does not result in random construction but in fact prohibits it.
Natural laws constitute guidance. Natural selection is a result of natural laws.
Several of us have done so, you just scream that you don’t have to pay attention to science.
“Chance” does not equal “fluke”; since there are natural laws, chance results in patterns, whether those patterns are heritable traits or upthrust mountains or bell curves or cumulus clouds.
Dal Prete, Ivano. 2022. On the Edge of Eternity. Oxford. P. xi-xii, Note on Terminology, points out that a number of key terms as used by the early church and medieval writers had a range of meanings different from what one would guess assuming a false dichotomy of modern creation science versus modern science, misleading when looking for comments related to the age of the earth. “Flood/deluge” could refer to a regional or global event; either might have been envisioned as cyclical or one-time. “Earth” as one of the four elements versus the world is often not very clear, similarly the “world” might be Earth or the universe. “Ancient” could mean eternal versus “new” meaning created, not necessarily very recently.
Richard’s objections might be addressed somewhat by clarifying the need to distinguish between what can be observed scientifically versus the larger picture that incorporates theology. Will this particular radioactive atom decay in the next day? Maybe; our best scientific answer is a probability. It is random in that sense. But the result is directional; the atom is changed. Does God know if it will decay? Does He control the decay, or perhaps control things at a somewhat coarser scale? Those are theological questions, but they must be asked rather than assuming what someone thinks based on what they say about what science can tell. No amount of study of atoms would tell that I am using the decay of a radioactive atom to provide light on a watch. (Let’s hope that’s tritium, not radium.) Likewise, saying that evolution alone does not give direction does not say that God does not have His purposes; it is a limit of what the science can tell us. But the science does a fine job of physically describing the observed patterns of change in organisms; evolution seems to be a quite good description of God’s ordinary method of creating new kinds of organisms.
The classification (figure 1) is misleading in that you don’t need to move away from the Bible to move towards science. Science is the gained of knowledge of the world around us through the study and testing of it. The world is God’s creation and the Bible directs us to understand and appreciate it.
So what do I classify as? I could say all of the above. The earth (ground) is flat from the perception of our geocenter where God indwells. The Creation is young (6 days in God’s timing) and was completed through Christ (the express image of His person) a mere 2,000 years ago. The earth is old in that it was created 4.5 billion years ago. There is certainly a gap between the beginning (13.8 bya) and Day 1 (4.5 bya). A day to God is an age (A long period of time, like a thousand years) and creation progressed over that time guided by an intelligent designer (God) who partnered with us (Let us make man) using an evolutionary process (both natural selection and procreation) detailed out in the common decent genealogical record in Genesis (not opposed to theology) using the materials (dust, mankind, Adam) that He made and upholds.
I don’t think there is anything irreducible but God. With the example of flight perhaps you mean irreducible while maintaining that flight function? Each step provides new function.
Before we flew (Day 7) we walked (Day 6).
Before we walked we swam (Day 5).
Before we swam we floated (Day 4).
Before we floated we were planted (Day 3).
Before we were planted we were placed (Day 2).
Before we were placed we were formed (Day 1).
Before we were formed we were held in the hand of God.
Natural selection is filtering existing variation. In that sense, both viewpoints are to some extent true - natural selection changes the prevailing composition and thereby ‘guides’ it towards some direction but it does not create the variation.
Mutations produce novel variation within the population and sexual reproduction can mix what is existing. Without natural (or artificial) selection mutations would probably not lead to directions that increase fitness. So, it is the combination that matters: mutations + natural selection, with reproduction acting between/together with these.
That’s not the kind of flight I’m talking about, but our spiritual flight (1 Th 4:17). In any case, the order is the same (…swim, walk, fly) for those who did not have their flight delayed… those like Enoch who was there ready to walk with the Lord in the cool of the day instead of hiding behind some fig leaves. He was caught up, while we were sent out.
I see ‘walking’ as a representation of works and ‘flying’ as a representation of grace. Some may even be able to skip walking. Ever seen a stingray fly?
If you knew what science is you wouldn’t have said this:
“If you need to observe before it can be scientific then you have no grounds for accepting any of ToE. It is not observed in real time. it is not observed in any time.”
Your own words demonstrate you don’t understand how science works.
Flat Earthism is also a concept, and NASA scientists are immune from Flat Earthism for the same reason biologists are immune from irreducibility. There’s nothing about irreducibility that prevents these systems from evolving.
This division was well understood 140 years ago, as evidenced by George Romanes’ essay from 1882 that I often quote.
Like we have said many, many times, the theory of evolution is no different than any other scientific theory when it comes to its interaction with theology and philosophy. This was true when Darwin first proposed his theory, and it is still true today.
No, they demonstrate what I read of your view of science.
No one can get the qualifications i have without knowing what science is or the scientific methodology.
You just can’t admit that Toe is only based on corroborative data, not observed data. Every thing is supposition and extrapolation. You can prove the basic method of change but you cannot prove o demonstrate that is has the capacity to do what ToE demands of it.
And that proves nothing!
You can throw any illustration you like. it changes nothing!
you just refuse to believe that any biological system is irreducible. it is a belief. There is no proof either way. I cannot demonstrate it any more than you can demonstrate it isn’t. it is a belief. Like or lump it.
For ToE to work there cannot be any irreducible system. Do you know how many systems there are?
And you have ignored the comments about bones, probably because it wasn’t aimed directly at you, (But I can bet you saw it).
Show me a partially made bone, or even an unadapted one. Let alone a limb without supplementary muscles, ligaments , nerves, blood vessels. And that is ignoring bone marrow and cartilage that is necessary for some of them. A bone unconnected, would be an impassible burden. A cylindrical bone with no developed ends would be unusable. How do you justify the perfection of a human leg? Bit by bit? Convenient the way the ball at the end fits the socket of the hip!
Yeah, you can just imagine a slow development of such things. But ToE does not do details. it is an overall development that time can achieve regardless of the details.
And you get it wrong right off the bat. Corroborative data is observed data.
Everything is supported hypotheses, as required by the scientific method.
I believe that many systems are irreducible. Apparently, you haven’t read my posts.
That I don’t believe because there is no evidence supporting the claim, and plenty of evidence demonstrating just the opposite, such as the fossil record of the mammalian middle ear. Scientists reject the belief of Flat Earth for the same type of reasons. No evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it.
I don’t see what any of this has to do with irreducible systems. The step by step evolution of the irreducible mammalian middle ear didn’t require any of that. All of the bones were functional throughout. What changed is the function they served. Two of those bones used to function as lower jaw bones in ancestral reptiles. During evolution, those two bones took on functions as both middle ear bones and jaw bones. Finally, they lost their function as jaw bones but kept their function as middle ear bones.
I’ll only believe babies turn into adults if you can show me an inconsistently aged person. Show me an arm with a baby’s radius beside an elderly ulna, poorly connected to a teenager’s humerus. Because that kind of maladapted monster is obviously what we would expect to find if biological processes turn babies into adults.
You are not observing evolutionary development, ro a fish turning into land crature, or this fictional basic land creature who spawned evrythiing else.
what you “observe” are fossils which are static, and DNA patterns which are mathematical.
And?
No you do not.
Because you do not understand what irreducible means.
But you ignored that as well.
In fat you do not really answer me, you just answer or assert what you think i am talking about.
We are observing fossils. The mixture of features in fossils is used to test the hypotheses formed from the theory, and they are observations.
Yes, observations we use to test the hypotheses we form from the theory. This is called science.
Yes, I do. The mammalian middle ear is irreducible because removing one of the bones causes the system to lose function.
Irreducible means the system has multiple parts where the removal of any one part causes the system to lose function.
If you can not demonstrate that irreducible systems can not evolve then irreducible systems are not a problem for evolution. It’s that simple. Beliefs that lack evidence do not falsify scientific theories.
Natural selection, being a filter, guides in the same way that a wall does. There are several ways that I could get to the door but unless I build up speed difficult to achieve in a small room or open the window, there are no other ways to get out. The wall does not guide in the way a person could. If I consumed a bunch of Harvey Wallbangers before trying to get out of the room, the wall would not guide me to take it rather than trying to go through the wall, but it does limit the possibilities for a successful exit. (Of course, in reality I only use ethanol for preserving mollusk DNA.)
We can see evolution happening. Of course we can’t watch what already did happen, but experiments in both lab and natural settings can follow its course. We can see if the patterns that we observe on DNA and fossils match evolutionary expectations or not. That does not change the fact that God is sovereign over the process; it is merely describing the physical pattern.
