RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Philip]

From Reasons to Believe:

The Myth of Abiogenesis: http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... biogenesis

The Myth of Macroevolution: http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... oevolution

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... conclusion

And a lot more to consider, also from Hugh Ross/Reasons to Believe: http://www.reasons.org/explore/topic/fossil-record

[Audie]

From Reasons to Believe:

The Myth of Abiogenesis: http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... biogenesis

The Myth of Macroevolution: http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... oevolution

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... conclusion

And a lot more to consider, also from Hugh Ross/Reasons to Believe: http://www.reasons.org/explore/topic/fossil-record

Preachin' to the choir with a gish?

Tsk.

[Philip]

Preachin' to the choir with a gish?

Tsk.

That's the easy response, Audie! Try instead, what is far more difficult, to address the specific issues the links bring up - particularly the astronomical mathematical improbabilities - not based upon speculation, but upon KNOWN science, innumerable studies, and observable way processes have always consistently worked. ESPECIALLY key to address for anyone who believes that a non-intelligence and merely random, eternally existing things produced even the CONDITIONS that could make evolution possible - much less the actualities and processes.

Of course, those who would insist in THEISTIC evolution have challenges in Scripture - particularly IF they insist Adam and Eve were the results of evolutionary processes. And if they do, at LEAST they also insist upon God making what would otherwise be impossible, possible - that the serious, otherwise impossible gaps were glued together by His power and super intelligence.

Perhaps Audie should also read parts one and two, to "Evolution as Mythology":

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... -is-a-myth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... fic-theory

Here's a little softball issue outtake from the article:

"As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of ~10-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of ~10-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.

How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!"

And this beauty of a quote - in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Was Crick just some isolated loonie with a correspondence course PhD? Nooooo! He was a British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, Nobel Prize winner, and most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953."

So, to believe that EITHER exhaustive number of the necessary conditions and available chemistries, etc. would even have existed, certainly when one realizes the immense improbabilities of life springing forth unassisted, blindly/randomly - really, this takes either great faith in something so unreasonable to believe, and/or a complete denial of the improbabilities. Really, it's a faith in speculation that goes beyond reason. But that is where all non-theists find themselves, whether they admit it or not.

[Audie]

Preachin' to the choir with a gish?

Tsk.

That's the easy response, Audie! Try instead, what is far more difficult, to address the specific issues the links bring up - particularly the astronomical mathematical improbabilities - not based upon speculation, but upon KNOWN science, innumerable studies, and observable way processes have always consistently worked. ESPECIALLY key to address for anyone who believes that a non-intelligence and merely random, eternally existing things produced even the CONDITIONS that could make evolution possible - much less the actualities and processes.

Of course, those who would insist in THEISTIC evolution have challenges in Scripture - particularly IF they insist Adam and Eve were the results of evolutionary processes. And if they do, at LEAST they also insist upon God making what would otherwise be impossible, possible - that the serious, otherwise impossible gaps were glued together by His power and super intelligence.

Perhaps Audie should also read parts one and two, to "Evolution as Mythology":

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... -is-a-myth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... fic-theory

Here's a little softball issue outtake from the article:

"As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of ~10-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of ~10-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.

How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!"

And this beauty of a quote - in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Was Crick just some isolated loonie with a correspondence course PhD? Nooooo! He was a British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, Nobel Prize winner, and most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953."

So, to believe that EITHER exhaustive number of the necessary conditions and available chemistries, etc. would even have existed, certainly when one realizes the immense improbabilities of life springing forth unassisted, blindly/randomly - really, this takes either great faith in something so unreasonable to believe, and/or a complete denial of the improbabilities. Really, it's a faith in speculation that goes beyond reason. But that is where all non-theists find themselves, whether they admit it or not.

Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

[Philip]

Audie: Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I posted many factual things for you to address. All you have to do is READ them. Of course, making cute comments is far easier, because you KNOW what I posted presents extremely formidable problems with it, and which makes it statistically/immensely impossible.

But no problem for your magic, lifeless, undirected, random "prebiotic soup," eh? You refuse to address something so improbable, while just repeatedly referencing evolution as a proven fact. Using the words in a sentence is easy, but laughing off the immense improbabilities shows me that you will believe in evolution despite odds so overwhelming against it. But how inconvenient, eh, to go on and on how something is supposed proven fact, when you have Nobel winners and people like Hoyl that cite its off the charts improbabilities, while they also call the development of life "miraculous." And that doesn't even address the necessary PRE-conditions, elements and chemistries, all of which must be so incredibly precise, and yet, pure, blind, dumb randomness just HAPPENED to produce precisely the things needed, AND capitalized upon them. Wow! So much faith one must have to believe this, because you do so 1) knowing the statistically enormous improbability of it, 2) without a shred of proof it is possible, 3) without anyone ever observing such. I'd say people also believe this immense improbability, because they intuitively know that the ONLY other alternative is that an Intelligence designed and created the impossible. Because there are only TWO choices? Blind, dumb randomness designed and created an astounding universe, OR some God or god-like intelligence of untold power did so.

Audie, please just address the astounding improbability of this: "cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment." AND, "life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome." But I'll let you explain just the cytochrome development, considering the odds are not only huge against it, but that the odds of the rest are even greater.

Do you believe in things that statisticians say are have odds so great as to make them considered an impossibility???!!!

WHY?

[Audie]

Xxxxx

[Audie]

Audie: Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

i posted many factual things for you to address

Did you, now.

You presented quite the string of made-up "facts" about me. Id like you to
retract them; you invented them so you should be able to recognize them
for removal.

But yes, you did post "many" things under the heading of "facts". A Gish.

All sourced from a creationist site, dedicated to doing the opposite of science.

As for your advice to read, I' ve seen the probability thing. Its new like the thermodynamics one is new.

Have you gone to other sources besides preachin' ones? Read them ? I have.
They say quite different things than your site.

If you cannot present one fact contrary to ToE its ok to say so.

If you want to gish the choir, do that, I wont distrub you further.

[Philip]

Audie: Did you, now.

You presented quite the string of made-up "facts" about me. Id like you to
retract them; you invented them so you should be able to recognize them
for removal.

No, Audie, I merely stated what people who are qualified to know say about what you believe is dependent upon. Evolution had to have a mechanism for life.

Audie: But yes, you did post "many" things under the heading of "facts". A Gish.

All sourced from a creationist site, dedicated to doing the opposite of science.

A MASSIVE distortion of fact! First, Reasons.org prolifically uses source materials and references to many NON-Christian sources - which you would realize if you pay attention to whom the quote and the footnotes.

Audie: As for your advice to read, I' ve seen the probability thing. Its new like the thermodynamics one is new.

Have you gone to other sources besides preachin' ones? Read them ? I have.
They say quite different things than your site.

If you cannot present one fact contrary to ToE its ok to say so.

Audie, please refute the material I quoted. The probabilities of what is necessary are off the charts impossible! The math and the variables used to assess those probabilities are not made up - they are factual and assessed by people well-qualifieded to quantify them. Morovitz, whom I quoted on the probabilities, was no Christian! A very influential physicist, he spent most of his career at Yale University, where he was professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry, and a consultant for NASA, and was a militant evolutionist (just died this year)! Hubert Yockey (just died, at 99), whom I also quoted on cytochrome was also an evolutionist.

It matters not WHO asserts information. What matters FAR more that they are well qualified, and that they are stating factual information that has justification for any assertions made. Refute the ASSERTED probabilities, and don't use the "oh, but this came from a Creationist site!" A whole lot of people I don't agree with on a wide variety of assertions, nonetheless are experts in their fields and I respect their expertise where reasonable to do so.

But Audie, please explain where I misstated what you believe - because I don't have to know the minutia of what you believe about the universe, because I know that your non-theist beliefs related to evolution are all dependent upon certain absolutes. Whether the mythical/never discovered pre-biotic soup or some other highly improbable/theoretical mechanism, the chance of life coming about without an intelligent cause is zilch! And, to be redundant, NOTHING comes from nothing! So when the Big Bang began, all that subsequently existed came into being, instantly, with incredible power, order and precision, and obeying laws of the universe. Random, blind things don't A) create themselves, B) organize themselves, C) consolidate and manipulate unfathomable power, D) recognize possibilities (much less pursue them), or E) set up governing laws that control things.

Audie, I would think you must realize that SOMETHING had be eternal, unfathomably powerful and intelligent, for what instantly came into existence to have the design, function and incredible precision that it instantly did. Really, given enough time, rocks don't create and eventually utilize calculus! But rocks doing such marvels is nothing compared to whatever a non-theist must consider possible for our universe to even exist, much less to have such marvelous design and function without an intelligence of great power behind it.

And, Audie, every time we have this discussion, you fail to assert what you actually DO believe is possible - as evolutionary arguments are a sideshow to what you really should wonder about. So, don't just say I am saying untruths about what you must believe, if you are a non-theist. As whatever a non-theist believes about the ultimate causes of things, they are all items in but one category (of non-intelligent causes and blind, random chance). If there is some other category that make your beliefs about this different, please relate it.

[Philip]

Just to add, I well know that many of my Christian brothers and sisters believe God used evolution as His Creation process. While I think that has serious theological issues, the point of my highlighting some of the immense problems with evolution is simply to show that IF evolution was the mechanism for all life that SUBSEQUENTLY came to exist, that it is FAR more important to be able to: 1) explain the ORIGIN of all the elements of ALL things, as well as the highly specific and necessary things and conditions that would have made its functioning even possible; and 2) to realize the probabilities are so astronomically improbable for all that would be necessary (BEFORE evolution, as well as the supposed evolutionary processes themselves), without there being a Super Intelligence of Immense power behind it all. So, that's it: A) Where did it all come from to begin with (WAY before there existed any life to evolve)?, and B) What would have made possible the highly improbable designs, functions, and necessary mechanisms that blind chance and immense time simply cannot come close to explaining, IF evolution occurred?

[neo-x]

I feel sorry, for all these problems that RTB or AiG or other anti-evolution institutes keep finding, they never challenge or submit it against ToE as evidence of why it is wrong. Just keeps giving Christians more reasons not to look into ToE. A couple of years back I think I made that evolution thread with so many peer reviewed papers and studies, and guess what? no one actually read the papers, just kept mentioning links of why evolution has problems.

Really, you can actually refute ToE, all you need is evidence. There is none, for now, at least.

[Byblos]

Audie, Neo, as you may know I am a theistic evolution sympathizer so I have no ax to grind with either of you. I was asked once what it would take to falsify evolution and I dismissed the question as a mere distraction. Then I thought about it some more and to be honest I could not for the life of me come up with a reasonable answer. So that is my challenge to both of you, what kind of evidence would you consider to be a serious blow to evolution?

[neo-x]

Audie, Neo, as you may know I am a theistic evolution sympathizer so I have no ax to grind with either of you. I was asked once what it would take to falsify evolution and I dismissed the question as a mere distraction. Then I thought about it some more and to be honest I could not for the life of me come up with a reasonable answer. So that is my challenge to both of you, what kind of evidence would you consider to be a serious blow to evolution?

I think I have given these before in some threads but from the top of my head:

1. A consistent number of fossils found in the wrong places or timelines. (I use the word consistent because one fossil can be found in the wrong place for many different reasons, so we have to be sure about it that the predicted fossil record is wrong repeatedly). Just like in evolution we see a pattern of predicted fossils in the right places, repeatedly
2. Problems in the genome of creatures, let's say we find that dogs are more related to Ponies than wolves or that sharks' genome is more related to crocodiles than fish.
3. Lack of step by step evolution of organs throughout the history of life, for example, the various types of eyes found on earth from the ones that can barely differentiate between light and dark to human vision and more complex eyes such as the mantis shrimp.
4. That mutations only eliminated traits but didn't form new features or traits.

If any of this is observed and observed more than once then yes ToE would be in deep trouble. And we'll have to rethink.

[Jac3510]

Y'all just need to accept that fact that RTB is a perjured witness, like every creationist site out there. Don't even waste your time looking at them if they don't promote ToE.

Sort of reminds me of this.

[Philip]

Again, my highlighting the serious issues with evolution has mostly to do with making people realize it would be impossible UNLESS it were a God-driven process - which my Christian theist brothers believe it was. So my disagreement with them is far more theological, because if one asserts the immense improbabilities of what they say happened was simply overcome by a God of unlimited ability - well, then the improbabilities of evolution were no obstacle. One can't argue with that logic, SCIENTIFICALLY, because there would be no scientific limits to how things were accomplished, IF GOD had driven such a process.

Really, whether via evolution or some other mechanism, what exists and marvelously functions would be impossible if God had not created, driven and sustained it, and THAT is my point! I'd like people to realize all of what would improbably have been FIRST necessary for evolution, or ANY other blind, random mechanism of pure chance, to even first had JUST the RIGHT raw materials, energy, chemistries, and material substances come into existence is a staggering thing to contemplate possible. AND THEN, these things had to organize themselves into things of immensely sophisticated design, functionality, interaction, and precision. And subsequent to these many, tremendously unlikely things, and only AFTER AROUND 10 BILLION YEARS post the Big Bang, could evolution - entirely dependent upon what inexplicably came first, and only AFTER non-life somehow became life - have taken off. But none of what evolution would have been entirely dependent upon, nor what kick-started it, nor what guided it, could ever be explained away by any blind, random, Godless sequence of what can only be called miraculous things. And THAT's my point! It is simply not rational to believe a physical universe just "popped" into existence and then these many incredible things happened without an Intelligence of great Power making them a reality and guiding them. And I think my Christian Theistic Evolution brothers would well agree with me on this.

Whether God used evolution or not, and no matter the mechanisms and processes, and no matter whatever time lengths, He still NECESSARILY spoke things into existence and guided them by building into them functionality to become the universe He wanted it to become - culminating in man. It is ALL miraculous, WHATEVER the mechanisms. God always had a highly specific plan, and He could ALWAYS have seen the precise outcome of what He would create, as if it were all in today's newspaper. He cannot be surprised or lack knowledge of ANY future things.

So my point is not to get in an evolution debate, but to show the huge improbabilities of all it would have FIRST been dependent upon, and of the many tremendously improbable obstacles for it happening unguided, and ONLY by chance and time. And, NOTHING is an obstacle for God! So, ultimately, the mechanism He chose, worked perfectly, WHATEVER it was and WHATEVER it entailed. But it ALL would have been impossible without Him!

[Jac3510]

Phil, I hope you see that the point you are making just isn't very persuasive. It's very much a preaching to the choir kind of thing. Your point implicitly accepts the scientific possibility and even plausibility of the basic mechanisms driving ToE. But your attempt to insert God into the process by talking about probabilities comes across really flat. It's only reasonable to someone who already accepts the notion that we didn't get here without God's intervention, either directly through special creation or indirectly by guiding an evolutionary process. But for those who reject that idea, be they atheists or theistic evolutionists, the Toe is not at all unreasonable, even in light of the probabilities you cite.

You're position is simpler then you are making it out to be. You either assert that God directly created this world (generally or certain parts), or else you assert that God guided a process. If the former, then you either have no evidence and you do so by faith alone based on God's word or else you do have evidence, not in terms of probabilities but in terms of defeaters (such as neo suggested). If the latter, then you should make the argument that we ought not expect God to have to intervene in this or that critical moment of the process but rather say that God is such a good designer that creation unfolds according to His plan, which is to say, that there is no guidance of the ToE. The problem with arguing that God intervened to solve probability problems not only preaches to the choir as noted above but also mixes messages. You have a God who chooses to let nature unfold according to a fairly natural design, but then you argue that design isn't natural after all because it couldn't really happen at critical points. It's all just muddled and reeks of a god-of-the-gaps type approach.

I know you don't think of it that way. I'm asking you to start thinking about it that way, because if the goal is to give a reasonable and persuasive answer for your faith, the approach you are taking just doesn't work.