Topic: Evolution (Read 8709 times)

pete · « **on:** January 17, 2006, 03:18:37 PM »

I found this forum while trying to figure out what intelligent design is all about. I have to say that it does not make much sense. This is the first place that i have found that intelligent people are on both sides of the debate. My problem is that IDer's believe that evolution is a random event. Species evolve because what they change works, and they die off if it doesn't. As far as not being observable, how many of you get a flu shot every year? Or is that God desining a new way to kill people. I have many other questions about this subject, but I think this is enough for now.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2006, 03:41:24 PM »

Well I appreciate your comment and your compliment. I think members of both sides of the debate here will wonder how you came to such conclusions about the OTHER side. :)

Allow me to say that there are some unique perspectives floating around here. Even though I have argued in defense of ID here, ID is only a tangent for me. I'm more of an anti-evolutionist. In other words, you can take ID and Creationism (and whatever else) off the table, leaving only evolution, and I'd still throw it out. I'd rather declare myself agnostic then accept evolution.

With that in mind, let me put forward my own conception of ID, which will be different in some respects from other's. Its certainly different then how my view is perceived by my opponents on this forum. Simply put, it goes like this:

I believe that most life forms on this planet exhibit prima facie distinguishing elements of intelligent design.

Note, I am NOT saying (as so often heard on TV about IDers), "Intelligent Design Proponents believe that life is too complex to have been formed by evolution."

That is not my argument at all. I don't need to reference evolution in my defense of ID. My belief that ID is the truer state of things is derived simply by taking these prima facie elements of design as really being prima facie elements of design. Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" says that this is only the APPEARANCE of design, and suggests evolution as a mechanism by which something that looks to be designed, really isn't.

Obviously, saying that something only appears to be designed is admitting that it really appears to be designed!

Furthermore, I do not believe that it is reasonable to create crazy schemes and mechanisms to rescue me from the implications of 'apparent design.' I do not believe that science requires us to demand completely materialistic explanations for all phenomena. Without this burden, I am able to take the apparent design of life on this planet, on its face, as actually designed.

So, that is my view about ID, and as you can see, it is basically derived from just two basic facts- 1. Life really appears to be designed. 2. I do not have any philosophical prejudices requiring me to explain away apparent design.

Now, turning to evolution as a separate subject, you said "My problem is that IDer's believe that evolution is a random event." To some extent, this is true. Just because natural selection is not completely arbitrary, though, does not change the fact that every facet of evolution is nonetheless the result of at least one basic chance event: ie, the mutation of the genome. And I could say more.

But let me put forward my primary objection to evolution, which may not be what you think it will be. My problem with evolution is its adamant claim to be 'science,' while at the same time 'science' has been elevated to be the primier way of gaining truth in our society today. Evolutionists cannot tell us definitively how any aspect, big or small, of human life or practically any other life, evolved, in a way that is repeatable or observable.

For example, I had an evolutionist inform me once that there are some 800 intermediate steps between the 'light sensitive spot' and the human eye. He said this as though it were not that many. I asked him to take any three of those steps and reproduce them under controlled conditions. He told me that was being unreasonable. We can't 'expect' that. He thought it sufficient to lay out a mechanism (natural selection) that COULD HAVE, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME produced this sequence (and all sequences).

My own view is that 'COULD HAVE, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME' does not rise to anything worthy of a designation with the word 'science' in it. In other words, it may very well be true that we COULD have evolved. But I'm not interested in 'Could haves.' Especially when something comes with the label 'science,' I expect 'DID HAPPENs.' And I expect it to be demonstrable according to the classical scientific method.

There are my own views in a nutshell, sure to raise additional questions, which you are welcome to ask.

pete · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2006, 05:00:04 PM »

I used the example of the flu virus in my first post to illustrate my point about evolution being observable. Every year there is new vaccine because the virus had mutated from last years strain. I also found this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050528141615.htm

I do not fully understand how evolution works, which is why I decided to join this site. I am trying to find as many views as possible to make my decision. Thanks for your reply.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2006, 05:34:04 PM »

The type of evolution you mention here is not the kind of evolution that is disputed. For example, when we had our children, I did not expect them to be clones of myself. I knew they were going to look differently- that is, that they would be 'evolved.' There is nothing controversial about this, or your flu virus thing.

What is controversial is the notion that given enough time, we can see major morphological changes (to name one type of change), via these 'micro' changes. However, we observe that there is a limit to the amount of variability. It is certainly possible for a couple to have a child with two heads. Its also probable that because of this mutation, that child will die and will not reproduce. In other words, there is variation (evolution, change, micro-evolution), but there are limits to how much an organism can handle before it simply 'breaks.'

Your flu virus example is actually not a good argument for macro-evolution (big changes, macro-changes). The human species reproduces pretty slowly, so it is easy enough to wonder if in 1,000 generations a human might look differently in a meaningful way. However, you can get generations upon generations of virii- not a 1,000 of them, but 10,000 or even 100,000 within the span of a human life-span for observation. And after all these generations, what do you have? A truly 'new' thing?

No, you still have the influenza virus.

No one disputes micro-evolution. The dispute is over 'macro-evolution.' When we talk about evolving and evolutionists, we mean people who believe in 'macro-evolution.' The problem is that the evidence put forward for that is 'micro.' In fact, evolutionists believe that the macro-changes are only the result and accumulation of the micro-changes.

As I said, there are limits to the amount of micro or macro changes that an organism can handle, and this presents an observed barrier to evolution. (Macro).

Keep on your toes for equivocation, saying the same word but meaning different things by it each time. When I used the word 'evolution' I mean the controversial 'macro' understanding.

Yankee · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:44:58 AM »

Quote from: pete

I found this forum while trying to figure out what intelligent design is all about. I have to say that it does not make much sense. This is the first place that i have found that intelligent people are on both sides of the debate. My problem is that IDer's believe that evolution is a random event. Species evolve because what they change works, and they die off if it doesn't. (quote)

This will be opening up a controversy, but let me tell you my theory. I accept creation, but only for the people who have become the Jews and the Arabs. In other words, God created Adam and Eve, but he did not create the Gentiles. We evolved.

God gave Satan this solar system as his kingdom. He knew, however, that Satan had ambitions that went outside God's law, so there was a condition. He kept a small part of this world as His own called Eden. In it he created Adam and Eve. Most Christians believe that they were meant to be there forever, but not so. Otherwise He would not have created them male and female and he wouldn't have put the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge in there with them as a temptation. The real temptation was not for them, it was for Satan. If Satan had not tempted them, they wouldn't have been sent out, Christ would not have been born, and Satan would not have inadvertently planted the seeds of his own destruction.

Satan wanted to be greater than God, and he wanted his own worshippers, so he started the evolutionary process to get them. For millions of years he played around with dinosaurs and other creatures, but he eventually got around to his real agenda. The evolution of homo sapiens did not start in just the Olduvai Gorge, it also started in China and other areas. That shows intelligent design in itself. When these people had reached the point where they were indistinguishable from Adam and Eve, God allowed them to to succumb to Satan's temptation and eat the fruit. Satan did not offer them the fruit from the Tree of Life, only that from the Tree of Knowledge. He wanted them to die so that what was God's would be gone from the earth. They were not sent from Eden because they sinned, and they did not bring sin out of Eden. Sin was already in the world, but not recognized as such. What they brought was God's Law, which made sin recognized and condemned. They and all their descendants were a sacrifice, right up to Jesus.

Evolution was as much an intelligent design as creation, because we Gentiles were its end product. It was not intended to go beyond humans. We had evolved until we were in God's image, like Adam and Eve, and there was nothing more to be gained. Because he could not create life, Satan had to bring about his worshippers through sex. God could create all the people He wanted without them going through the sexual process, but he created Adam and Eve as sexual beings so that they would not be different from the evolved people when they left Eden. They were in Eden for millions of years without knowing that they were able to have children until they left there.

pete · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:04:14 AM »

Yankee-
Your theory is certainly interesting, I read the full version in your other post. I have a hard time accepting that theory, but then again that is is the first time I have heard something like that.

Sntjohnny-
Like I said I am still learning about these theories. Thank you for clarifying that there are two types of evolution. However, the story about the fish that I linked to makes me believe that macro-evolution is possible. Sure, the fish are still basically the same, but one mutation changed the entire armor of the fish. And it was repeatable. I believe, and I know that you hate this statement, given enough time these fish could become a different species. For example, out of the 3.1 billion genes in the human genome, only about 19000 are different for dogs. I know 19000 is alot, but taken over millions of years it seems possible to me.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:13:24 AM »

"Like I said I am still learning about these theories. Thank you for clarifying that there are two types of evolution."

At your service.

"However, the story about the fish that I linked to makes me believe that macro-evolution is possible."

I have no problem assuming it is possible. 'Possible,' in my world, does not constitute a scientific fact. Or, as Yankee put it somewhere else and Ragnar affirmed, 'an incontrovertible' scientific fact.

"I believe, and I know that you hate this statement, given enough time these fish could become a different species."

No, I absolutely loved that statement. It was perfect. EXACTLY. The key word was 'believe.'

That is more or less all there is to evolution. To move beyond 'believe' you have to demonstrate that these processes we observe today not only happened in the past, but actually DID produce the huge macro-scopic changes that must have occurred to account for the observed life forms we see today. This is obviously impossible for a number of reasons. There is the obvious time constraint- we won't be around long enough. These changes are all supposed to have come along initially by genetic mutation (you can say that the selection is non-random, if you like, but the mutation is random), which by virtue of their randomness could have been practically anything. So there are big, more or less insurmountable pragmatic reasons for having no hope from moving from 'COULD HAVE' happened and 'DID HAPPEN.'

To bridge that gap, evolutionists turn to the fossil record. This brings us to a whole new realm of 'could have happeneds.'

"For example, out of the 3.1 billion genes in the human genome, only about 19000 are different for dogs. I know 19000 is alot, but taken over millions of years it seems possible to me."

Ford trucks and Ford cars use different pieces and parts. But they use a lot of the same ones, too. Cheaper, for one. Efficient use of their designers, too. What you raise as an argument for evolution, or 'common ancestry' could be raised as an argument for ID, or 'common designer.' This is one of the arguments that evolutionists often raise in support of their theory that they don't realize, or don't care to admit, can just as easily (if not more easily) be explained in an ID framework.

Since the argument works in both theories, it cannot be used by either to show superiority over the other.

pete · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:34:49 AM »

Your points make alot of sense to me. However, I cannot bring myself to believe in a creator. It seems to be an easy answer to a complex question. A question that will most likely never be answered by humans.
So what is wrong with the fossil record? And please don't say carbon dating. You have said yourself that it is only accurate for 10k-50k years. I believe that others have pointed out that there are other ways of proving age. And if carbon dating is only accurate for a minimum of 10k years, what is the point if the earth is 8k years old anyway?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:34:58 AM »

"Your points make alot of sense to me."

A passing fad, I'm sure. :)

"However, I cannot bring myself to believe in a creator."

So don't. In Carl Sagan's book "Contact" they came across a very intelligent race that wasn't God, right? Some suggest even that super-intelligent aliens planted us on the earth. Check out this recent news article about a religion that thinks exactly that:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1549971.htm

I'm sure that sounds nuts to you, but no less then one of the co-discoverers of DNA (Francis Crick) wondered the same thing for a long time (google 'Directed Panspermia.')

I would urge you not to accept evolution just because you can't find an alternative that tastes better in your mouth. That's a lousy reason to accept evolution. Accept evolution because you think its true, or not at all.

"It seems to be an easy answer to a complex question. A question that will most likely never be answered by humans."

There is nothing easy about positing a designer. It does not 'end' a quest for knowledge, just because you think the evidence points to a designer. That's like looking at a Frank Lloyd Wright construction, saying, "Wow, this is simply powerful and extremely well designed!" and then giving up studying engineering or any of his other works. In fact, the people best able to appreciate FLW's designs are those who are familiar with the problems solved by him in his designs. However, as the Raelians illustrate, there may come a point when humans have quite a bit of knowledge about the human genome, and are out 'seeding' other planets. Why not?

Of course, that sort of thing only shows that tremendous complexity points to a designer, as it would take a tremendous design and implementation capability to pull that off. So, even if one day we know enough to design life from scratch, all that will do is show that it takes a lot of intelligence to design life from scratch. It won't help us understand how it 'could have' happened without any intelligent interference.

"So what is wrong with the fossil record? And please don't say carbon dating. You have said yourself that it is only accurate for 10k-50k years."

Pete! You read! I commend you for reading the forum before signing up and commenting. That saves a lot of time.

I wouldn't dare say that 'carbon dating' is what is wrong with the fossil record, exactly for the reason you said.

I think you missed my point. I made it with more clarity in my post to Ragnar in Yankee's 'Creation/Evolution' thread. For the purpose of the point that I'm making, you can very well assume that the earth is billions of years old. I don't care. You can even assume that fossils were created by deposits over that time. However, you cannot actually observationally demonstrate or reproduce that any particular fossilized creature turned into another creature, fossilized later.

As I said there, and I'll say now, it may very well be a good inference that fossil species 'x' turned into fossilized species 'y' (x -> y), but that would be an inference. You might think it a good one. I think it a bad one. There is no real scientific way to decide between the two inferences.

You can decide, too, that apparent micro-changes are sufficient to justify that inference, and reproduce examples of those micro-changes all day long, and that won't change the fact that I acknowledge the existence of those micro-changes but do not agree that they serve to justify the infernce above. In otherwords, I do not believe it is reasonable to take an extrapolation in one case (micro accumulations=macro evolution) to justify an inference in another.

The whole thing smacks of assuming macro-evolution right from the beginning. And obviously, if you assume the very thing you are going to prove, you don't have a very strong argument.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:52:44 AM »

I would like to hasten to add that I do not believe you should be considering the question as an 'either/or' proposition. You should take evolution, ID, Creationism, whatever else, on their own merits, and on their own merits alone. I recognize that in some cases, things are mutually exclusive. Still, don't accept evolution because you cannot stand ID. Don't accept ID because you can't stand evolution.

If you look at all the options available and think they are all crappy, my recommendation is simply to remain agnostic. That seems to me to be the right tact, and the brave tact, and the one that is intellectually honest. If it were me, that's what I would do.

pete · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2006, 12:43:49 PM »

Alright, so let's throw evolution out for a second. Obviously you are anti-evolution. I am not sure what your view is, though. Sometimes you argue against ID, sometimes not. i am curious to hear what you think about how we got to where we are.
As far as a creator is concerned I should probably start another thread. Perhaps my inability to fathom such concepts as infinity, omnipotent, eternity, etc. prevents me from accepting a creator. The questions that I have are similar to the ones that atheists use against IDers.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** January 18, 2006, 01:10:52 PM »

"Alright, so let's throw evolution out for a second. Obviously you are anti-evolution. I am not sure what your view is, though. Sometimes you argue against ID, sometimes not."

Well, my apparent wishy-washiness on ID probably comes from my position that we ought to evaluate each on its own terms. I think, as I said, that life on this planet bears evidence, on its face (prima facie) of design. I do not need the rigors of scientific methodology to tell me that the human anatomy is designed. Even evolutionists admit that it 'appears to be designed.'

However, I do not think ID is incompatible with a scientific methodology, either. I get involved in that issue in large part because of the snobbery I perceive in the scientific establishment and the consquences I expect to follow in our society if this establishment continues to be a law unto itself.

"i am curious to hear what you think about how we got to where we are."

Also probably another thread.

Suffice it to say that I do not limit myself only to 'scientific inquiry.' I think that science is a very robust way to learn about reality, but it is not the exclusive way. I do not even think it is the most reliable way. I think it is powerful within its sphere, but outside it very strained. For example, the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of global flood myths all dating back from about the same time indicates to me that there very really was a flood of tremendous magnatude sometime within human recollection. This is a fact that I believe requires examination and explanation, but can't be addressed in a strictly scientific way. It requires a historical methodology. Isn't evolution really a historical theory, too?

Anyway, I employ a variety of methodologies to the question, giving proper weight to each. So, in direct answer to your question, I accept that the earth is young, and the universe is young, and that it was created by God, and that Genesis is an authoritative- though not exhaustive-description of that event.

But like you said, this all is probably another thread. But its your thread! Do with it as you please. :)

pete · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2006, 01:45:15 PM »

Some of the questions that I want to ask such as, Why is it OK for to kill as many plants and animals as I see fit to nourish myself, yet I cannot kill a human? Why did God design the world this way? Why did he Thou shalt not kill, and then make a system that it becomes completely neccessary to do so? Or, if he meant that to mean Thou shalt not kill humans, what is the reasoning for this? Aren't all living things God's creation? So are we more important to him than than other living things?, can't be answered because it would require that I understand his intentions.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:06:18 PM »

In order to answer those questions- and they are good questions- we have to decide what POV we are coming from. If you are asking me to approach the questions from the POV of Christianity, I can certainly do so. Keep in mind, asking a hard question is likely to get you a hard answer. You need to be prepared for that.

If you wanted just a generic answer, that would be different.

pete · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:11:54 PM »

Please give me the Christian POV.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:36:15 PM »

Ok. Let me take it by little steps then.

"Why is it OK for to kill as many plants and animals as I see fit to nourish myself, yet I cannot kill a human?"

Something that many people have trouble grasping, even Christians, is that God means it when it is said that 'God is a God of order.' So, there is a hierarchy of authority. To have authority over someone is not to say you are more valuable or what not, but it is a definite part of it.

So, look to Genesis 1:28-30 (do you have access to a Bible?) It says in this passage that the whole earth is given to Man. Only plants are given for food at this point. So, in one way, the answer to 'why is it ok' is because God said so. Why plants and not animals at this point? Gen 1:30 probably gives us a clue, when it says that humans and animals alike- "everything that has the breath of life in it" is given plants to eat. So, the plants do not have the breath of life in them. If they are 'alive,' it isn't in the same sense as animals and humans.

What changed to allow humans to eat animals? Sin changed. How that exactly explains it, I don't know. But after the flood- so more than a thousand years later- God gives man the authority to eat animals now. See Gen 9:3 "Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." I don't know exactly why the change, but I think it has something to do with in 9:2 when it says "The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, etc, etc."

In otherwords, there apparently was a different relationship between men and animals prior to this. Still, they had to carefully remove the blood- "For the life of a creature is in its blood." Which is an accurate statement, is it not?

"Why did he Thou shalt not kill, and then make a system that it becomes completely neccessary to do so?"

He didn't say 'thou shalt not kill.' Modern translations get it right. The word in the Hebrew is, and always was, 'murder.' The command is 'thou shalt not murder.' In otherwords, taking a life WITHOUT AUTHORITY is prohibited. As you can see, authority was given to man in regards to animals and plants in Genesis 9. At the same time, in the same chapter, God lays out the type of organizational authorities involved in killing a man. If a man murders, by man shall he be judged and put to death. (verse 6). Its a matter of layers of authority, as I said, and has to do with the fact that God is orderly.

"Aren't all living things God's creation?"

Sure, but so are the non-living ones. I don't suppose we aren't allowed to drink water, now, just because it was God's creation?

The fact that something is 'God's creation' is not much of a distinction. Genesis provides its own distinctions, one of which I've mentioned (breath of life) but another more famous one, 'made in God's image.'

"So are we more important to him than than other living things?, can't be answered because it would require that I understand his intentions."

It can be answered from the Christian POV. Jesus says that we are more valuable then the sparrows. I can get the reference if you need it. As Christians believe Jesus to be God, we have there the intentions of God.

pete · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:57:55 PM »

What about dinosaurs?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2006, 03:25:02 PM »

What about them?

pete · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2006, 03:48:58 PM »

Did God create them too? What about their age? Are they one of God's first attempts at life?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2006, 04:06:12 PM »

"Did God create them too?"

Why wouldn't he have?

"What about their age?"

Why is their age important?

"Are they one of God's first attempts at life?"

What makes you think they were first, last, middle, or anything?

Author Topic: Evolution (Read 8709 times)