Page 4 of 5

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:53 am
by DannyM
ManOfScience wrote:DannyM (if I were as pathetic as you, I should probably call you FannyM, or something),

I see no point in continuing this "discussion" with you, as you seem incapable of responding intelligently, resorting instead to cheap insults ("Boy of Science") and other meaningless garbage. Besides, you seem to be repeating yourself, and your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

I am quite happy to continue the discussion with other, mature, respondents (ref. Canuckster1127, as an example of how to hold a civilized conversation). :)
Ah the old "I refuse to continue the discussion with you because..." The thing is, Boy of science, that you have nothing by way of response so you pretend I am unintelligent, immature et cetera, when really you are bereft of substance to counter me; I've answered your point on Dawkins' CMI and you are running away...Answer my points about this comic book and the comic book here: Dawkins...?? Come on Boy of science, what you afraid of...? If I'm that easily dismissed then do it; make me look a fool...Bring it on, Boy of science…Don't take offence at a parody of your ludicrous self-designated name when you fail to live up to this pious self-description… Come on, show me the science…!!

You mentioned the aforementioned book, not having the wherewithal to think that maybe I already have the book…I'll debunk any passage you like in this book…Go for it big guy; you have the book, right?

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:57 am
by DannyM
zoegirl wrote:So here's some food for thought.

So everyone here is against chance (and I'm certainly for a Creator). And yet, how much of our thinking is based on this idea of probability and chance? We trust probability

We do multiple statistical analysis on coin tossing, card games, gambling and all on the basis that the natural world works in a predictable fashion. We understand the roll of dice, the flip of a card, to the point of risking money because we understand predictions and chance.

And yet even withing this idea of chance, we know that events happen based on all possibilities. 1/6 for the roll of a die. 1/ for the coin...etc...

The issue. then, is not whether chance is such an evil thing, for God has certainly created this world of order and predictability. The issue is whether the chance events can produce the variations needed for selection to work. We certainly see selection working within populations on the small scale. The issue becomes whether mutations and genetic drift are sufficient to provide the variety we require for selection to work.

Now if we can say that God works within His world and if we can attribute events that seem quite unlikely to Him (what are the chances of that!") then why can't we attribute chance in biological history to Him? As annoying as Ernest Mayr is, he certainly does not speak for a necessity of evolutionary philosophy. *He* may think it leads to rejecting God, but it certainly doesn't have to. Evolution may provide the fuel for them rejecting God but that is their perogative

From a philosophical and theological point of view, God could definitely work within a process whereby variations are made. The issue is whether this actually happened.


The ad hominem attacks are taking place from Danny M first, so yes, let's please avoid the personal attacks.
So what has any of your post to do with creation? I see more bluster and usage of the word of the age...ad hominem...blah blah blah. If youi nposit a creator then why the time-wasting with talk of coin tossing? I'm confused: have you actually got anything to say?

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:17 am
by DannyM
zoegirl wrote:
Gman wrote:
ManOfScience wrote:
Gman wrote:Watch the ad hominem's please.... Or you are out of here.
Are you picking on me because I disagree with your beliefs? :cry: Read the thread again: it was DannyM who insulted me. Anyway, don't worry, there'll be no more from me. :)
Picking on you??? When I see an attack I'll call it... Please stop playing the victim.
dannyM wrote:("Boy of Science")
There has certainly been name calling
How is me calling "Man of science" Boy of science name-calling...? I challenge you right here, right now to show me how this constitutes name-calling...? And "FannyM" IS actually a sleight-of-hand name-call, whereas I was purely parodying a ludicrous self-imposed status...FACT. But don't take it as a complaint, because I'm not so precious as to be botherred in the slightest. I would like either an explanation or an apology please...

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:03 pm
by Gman
zoegirl wrote:There has certainly been name calling
Ok I missed that....

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:12 pm
by Gman
ManOfScience wrote:You're almost right. But we need to separate two things:
  1. Evolution
  2. The origin of life
As already explained, evolution, whilst based around random genetic mutations, is directed via the process of natural selection.

The origin of life, on the other hand, could have come about by a chance event -- even if the event in question were highly improbable. Why? Because it's a one-off event. It may sound counter-intuitive, but improbable one-off events happen all the time.
This is simply an incorrect statement... They cannot be separated, you need one to get to the other. Also origin of life events have never been witnessed by chance.. Please name your source..

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:20 pm
by ManOfScience
Gman wrote:They cannot be separated, you need one to get to the other.
Obviously, you need to have created life in order to get to evolution/diversification. Natural selection explains (very cleanly!) the diversification part. However...
Gman wrote:Also origin of life events have never been witnessed by chance.. Please name your source..
You're right: they haven't. There's a lot of research ongoing in this area. Scientists are trying to reproduce the conditions that were present at the origin. Personally, I believe there's a reasonable chance that we will be able to show that the spontaneous eruption of life is possible, and I find this a pretty interesting area of modern science. :egeek:

In terms of probability/chance, the two concepts (the origin of life, and evolution/diversification) can certainly be considered separately. (One is an improbable (but entirely possible) event; the other is virtually guaranteed.)

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:52 pm
by zoegirl
DannyM wrote:
zoegirl wrote:So here's some food for thought.

So everyone here is against chance (and I'm certainly for a Creator). And yet, how much of our thinking is based on this idea of probability and chance? We trust probability

We do multiple statistical analysis on coin tossing, card games, gambling and all on the basis that the natural world works in a predictable fashion. We understand the roll of dice, the flip of a card, to the point of risking money because we understand predictions and chance.

And yet even withing this idea of chance, we know that events happen based on all possibilities. 1/6 for the roll of a die. 1/ for the coin...etc...

The issue. then, is not whether chance is such an evil thing, for God has certainly created this world of order and predictability. The issue is whether the chance events can produce the variations needed for selection to work. We certainly see selection working within populations on the small scale. The issue becomes whether mutations and genetic drift are sufficient to provide the variety we require for selection to work.

Now if we can say that God works within His world and if we can attribute events that seem quite unlikely to Him (what are the chances of that!") then why can't we attribute chance in biological history to Him? As annoying as Ernest Mayr is, he certainly does not speak for a necessity of evolutionary philosophy. *He* may think it leads to rejecting God, but it certainly doesn't have to. Evolution may provide the fuel for them rejecting God but that is their perogative

From a philosophical and theological point of view, God could definitely work within a process whereby variations are made. The issue is whether this actually happened.


The ad hominem attacks are taking place from Danny M first, so yes, let's please avoid the personal attacks.
So what has any of your post to do with creation? I see more bluster and usage of the word of the age...ad hominem...blah blah blah. If youi nposit a creator then why the time-wasting with talk of coin tossing? I'm confused: have you actually got anything to say?

Yes, amazingly enough, there were things to see there if you actually took the time to read and cared enough to ask more specific questions. But it seems that you are only interested in puffing up your own feathers. It's not hard to see why some scientists are frustrated in discussing this. I am a firm believer and I am frustrated by your schoolyard tactics.

There is no apology that I need to say to you.

To change someone's username (other than an abbreviation) from man to boy is an obvious slam on the person. Together with the fingers-in-the-ear strategy of just declaring the other person wrong and not saying anything, you have shown that you aren't really interested in the other person's thoughts.


The points that I am trying to make are the following:

1. Chance is a concept that we as Christians are quite comfortable with and we can reconcile with a Sovereign Creator in other parts of our life. For example, we play cards, roll the dice, flip coins, with the understanding that these events follow predictable patterns. We have no issue with the idea that with these events, God, while still a sovereign God, has established a set of rules for random events. In other words, we reconcile the idea of chance, of random events, with that of a Sovereign God.

2. And yet somehow, with the process of evolution, we get hung up over this concept of random events. Now it seems that if God were the God governing chance and random events, then we as Christians can't be that worried about a process requiring chance events.

3. The issue, then, is whether these events are sufficient to provide the variation, not with the philosophy. Certainly God can work through random events.

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:05 pm
by Gman
ManOfScience wrote:Obviously, you need to have created life in order to get to evolution/diversification. Natural selection explains (very cleanly!) the diversification part. However...
Natural selection and random mutation simply do not have the creative power to produce the irreducibly complex systems found in many cells. Perhaps you might have a case for micro-evolution (adaptive traits) but certainly not macro-evolution...
ManOfScience wrote:You're right: they haven't. There's a lot of research ongoing in this area. Scientists are trying to reproduce the conditions that were present at the origin. Personally, I believe there's a reasonable chance that we will be able to show that the spontaneous eruption of life is possible, and I find this a pretty interesting area of modern science. :egeek:
They have been saying that for years... We just need more time. Case the rabbit down the hole.. Nothing new here. My belief is that in about a decade the evolutionary theory will crumble.
ManOfScience wrote:In terms of probability/chance, the two concepts (the origin of life, and evolution/diversification) can certainly be considered separately. (One is an improbable (but entirely possible) event; the other is virtually guaranteed.)
Not really.. Under the evolutionary umbrella everything comes down to the moment at the earliest instance of the big bang when only the particles and the theory that governs their interactions existed. At that point at the earliest moment in the history of the universe when everything was compressed into a single point nothing existed except particles, forces and the theory that governs them and the vast explosion of energy that followed. Why didn't anything else exist? Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is a materialist philosophy. Which is a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance. And even if you want to say that natural selection is devoid of chance... It's still chance sorting.

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:48 pm
by Gman
ManOfScience wrote: Thank you for actually recognizing that! I was starting to wonder if certain members here were able to comprehend that I don't believe in chance as our creator. ;)
The significance of Darwin's theory was that it eliminated design from nature, leaving only chance and necessity (what might happen and what must happen). In other words, organisms just happened (chance), and those that were best adapted to a given environment survived (necessity). There need not be a design or a designer.

Natural selection, if it worked at all, could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition it could not work on non-living chemicals. Natural selection has never been seen to create anything new.. Perhaps create new adaptive traits, but no new species.

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:28 am
by DannyM
zoegirl wrote:Yes, amazingly enough, there were things to see there if you actually took the time to read and cared enough to ask more specific questions. But it seems that you are only interested in puffing up your own feathers. It's not hard to see why some scientists are frustrated in discussing this. I am a firm believer and I am frustrated by your schoolyard tactics.
Hmm, so I'll look below as you appear to make another attempt. Fingers crossed eh…Oh by the way, you do not know me and you know nothing of my motivations so be advised and refrain from personalising your posts; after all, you are in a position to know better, right?

zoegirl wrote:There is no apology that I need to say to you.

To change someone's username (other than an abbreviation) from man to boy is an obvious slam on the person. Together with the fingers-in-the-ear strategy of just declaring the other person wrong and not saying anything, you have shown that you aren't really interested in the other person's thoughts.

Yes I was 'outing' the person; damn right! You accused me of name-calling, of which it was nothing of the sort. And if you'd paid attention you'd have noticed that TWICE I asked for the person's thoughts on TWO different issues: 1) Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and 2) the person's astonishing LACK of actual thought in his posts. Called out twice + twice failing to respond + ignoring further repeated requests to respond = being VERY interested in the person's thoughts. Please re-read if you doubt me…

zoegirl wrote:The points that I am trying to make are the following:

1. Chance is a concept that we as Christians are quite comfortable with and we can reconcile with a Sovereign Creator in other parts of our life. For example, we play cards, roll the dice, flip coins, with the understanding that these events follow predictable patterns. We have no issue with the idea that with these events, God, while still a sovereign God, has established a set of rules for random events. In other words, we reconcile the idea of chance, of random events, with that of a Sovereign God.

2. And yet somehow, with the process of evolution, we get hung up over this concept of random events. Now it seems that if God were the God governing chance and random events, then we as Christians can't be that worried about a process requiring chance events.

3. The issue, then, is whether these events are sufficient to provide the variation, not with the philosophy. Certainly God can work through random events.
1.I totally agree and have never derided chance per se; classic case of not reading me. So to cut to the chase: please explain how evolution is random…? Are you saying God put into place a whole process of random evolution…? I really would like clarity before I respond… please.

2.I'm not in the least worried; I'm just waiting for substance to your words. I see the words “random” and “chance” but I see NOTHING by way of substance. I'm not even saying I disagree with part of what you say; but please, provide more than just empty words…

3.Ahh, bingo! This is indeed THE issue. I'd like to refer you to Perry Marshall's “Information Theory” to see that such events would not provide the variation required.

“Random mutation is noise. Noise is information entropy which is the irreversible destruction of information. Therefore random mutations by definition cannot be the source of new information in evolution. There has to be a different explanation for evolution.

(People constantly say to me: “But once in awhile noise could introduce a beneficial mutation.” To that I say, “Try it. Prove it.” People who've actually done this with any real-life information system know better. Communication engineers definitely know better.)”

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... de-simple/

So let us try to pick ourselves up, share a big kiss and cuddle and move on...

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:11 am
by Gman
DannyM wrote:Yes I was 'outing' the person; damn right! You accused me of name-calling, of which it was nothing of the sort.
Danny... Let's call it for what it is. It's name calling. We don't accept that here at this forum... Let's just cool it here for a bit please.

Thank you.

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:26 am
by DannyM
Gman wrote:
DannyM wrote:Yes I was 'outing' the person; damn right! You accused me of name-calling, of which it was nothing of the sort.
Danny... Let's call it for what it is. It's name calling. We don't accept that here at this forum... Let's just cool it here for a bit please.

Thank you.
Gman if you think this then great! I don't, so will not be going along with something against my will. I'm a Christian, a lover of Christ and hence a free spirit. My opinions are my own and will not be tampered with or manipulated by you or anyone else. Now, I'm happy to drop it, but will not stand idle while being coerced into agreement with you. I was born in the land of our post-Norman Mother Tongue and I know what name-calling is when I see it or indulge in it.

God bless you and be thankful for your spiritual freeness…I know I am.

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:31 am
by August
Just to ask this question...do those who propose chance as a cause for anything care to elaborate on the ontology of chance?

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:54 am
by zoegirl
DannyM wrote:
zoegirl wrote:Yes, amazingly enough, there were things to see there if you actually took the time to read and cared enough to ask more specific questions. But it seems that you are only interested in puffing up your own feathers. It's not hard to see why some scientists are frustrated in discussing this. I am a firm believer and I am frustrated by your schoolyard tactics.
Hmm, so I'll look below as you appear to make another attempt. Fingers crossed eh…Oh by the way, you do not know me and you know nothing of my motivations so be advised and refrain from personalising your posts; after all, you are in a position to know better, right?
I know your posts and they are simply rude. Whatever your motivations are, I don't know certainly. That would be why I included the "seems" in my post.
zoegirl wrote:There is no apology that I need to say to you.

To change someone's username (other than an abbreviation) from man to boy is an obvious slam on the person. Together with the fingers-in-the-ear strategy of just declaring the other person wrong and not saying anything, you have shown that you aren't really interested in the other person's thoughts.

Yes I was 'outing' the person; damn right! You accused me of name-calling, of which it was nothing of the sort. And if you'd paid attention you'd have noticed that TWICE I asked for the person's thoughts on TWO different issues: 1) Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and 2) the person's astonishing LACK of actual thought in his posts. Called out twice + twice failing to respond + ignoring further repeated requests to respond = being VERY interested in the person's thoughts. Please re-read if you doubt me…
There are better and more mature ways to reveal the lack in someone's argument.
zoegirl wrote:The points that I am trying to make are the following:

1. Chance is a concept that we as Christians are quite comfortable with and we can reconcile with a Sovereign Creator in other parts of our life. For example, we play cards, roll the dice, flip coins, with the understanding that these events follow predictable patterns. We have no issue with the idea that with these events, God, while still a sovereign God, has established a set of rules for random events. In other words, we reconcile the idea of chance, of random events, with that of a Sovereign God.

2. And yet somehow, with the process of evolution, we get hung up over this concept of random events. Now it seems that if God were the God governing chance and random events, then we as Christians can't be that worried about a process requiring chance events.

3. The issue, then, is whether these events are sufficient to provide the variation, not with the philosophy. Certainly God can work through random events.
1.I totally agree and have never derided chance per se; classic case of not reading me.
I have not tried to "read" you. In my first post I said "here's some food for thought". Amazingly enough, that means that I was looking for thoughts from people.
So to cut to the chase: please explain how evolution is random…? Are you saying God put into place a whole process of random evolution…? I really would like clarity before I respond… please.
Would you agree that flipping a coin is random? Drawing a card from a deck is random? Did God not put into place a process and mechanism for random processes? Is He not sovereign over these random events?

If so, He can certainly work through a mechanism that includes random processes such as gene mutations, chromosomal mutations, and genetic drift.

The question is whether that process is sufficient. Now right now, I have not been persuaded by the evidence that it is, merely that to build the argument around chance and random events as being sufficient to reject evolution is not a plausible argument. There must be more evidence from long-term experiments that help show whether mutations and chromosomal mutations can accumulate enough. We certainly know that they can produce some speciation events, but whether they can produce long-term change is still speculative. (you will say, of course not, but it still remains speculative)
2.I'm not in the least worried; I'm just waiting for substance to your words. I see the words “random” and “chance” but I see NOTHING by way of substance. I'm not even saying I disagree with part of what you say; but please, provide more than just empty words…
They are not hard to understand, DannyM. I have explained twice. Why don't you, instead of simply saying that there is not substance, pose some more questions about them. There is obviously substance in them. Perhaps you disagree, in which case a good discussion can take place. But you simply saying there is nothing to them is not productive.

3.Ahh, bingo! This is indeed THE issue. I'd like to refer you to Perry Marshall's “Information Theory” to see that such events would not provide the variation required.
I agree. Again, my posts were to provide food fro discussion, "thus the food for thought". They were also meant to help clarify the issue. Evolution is such a broad-sweeping term, encompassing both philosophy and science that it is always good to elaborate on the issue.
“Random mutation is noise. Noise is information entropy which is the irreversible destruction of information. Therefore random mutations by definition cannot be the source of new information in evolution. There has to be a different explanation for evolution.

(People constantly say to me: “But once in awhile noise could introduce a beneficial mutation.” To that I say, “Try it. Prove it.” People who've actually done this with any real-life information system know better. Communication engineers definitely know better.)”

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... de-simple/

So let us try to pick ourselves up, share a big kiss and cuddle and move on...
I am perfectly fine and have no need to make up, thank you, despite your condescending tone. It's you that needs to move on. Let's actually discuss this instead of repeating over and over that there is no substance.

Mutations bring about changes in the informational code. It is plausible that they can bring about either neutral or beneficial changes. Changing one nucleotide can certainly (and in most cases does) cause major damage. It can be a neutral mutation, whereby the amino acid doesn't change at all (there is wobble and redundancy in the genetic code, which allows for some mutations to remain silent in their affect).

Changes in the hemoglobin gene that causes sickle cell anemia, for instance, will be beneficial in the areas with malaria. It affects oxygen carrying ability but persons that are heterozygote for sickle cell anemia will actually survive better in areas in the world stricken with malaria than those without a sickle cell gene. In this case, a change in the protein (resulting from one single base-pair change) will cause the shape of the red blood cell to be different enough to thwart the malaria protozoan from transmitting the disease. In this case, in that environment, this is a beneficial change. Does it affect oxygen transport? Sure....does it mean that you will survive longer? yes.

Are mutations statistically more damaging...absolutely! But it doesn't rule out the possibility.

Re: Evolution Question.

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:58 am
by zoegirl
August wrote:Just to ask this question...do those who propose chance as a cause for anything care to elaborate on the ontology of chance?
That's a great question, August.

As a Christian, I would say it is part of the order that God established in His creation.

I'm sure this is woefully inadequate. Could you elaborate on your question to help me flesh out this idea further?