Evolution Question.

[DannyM]

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.

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.

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.

Sorry but you are by far too much of a sensitive little soul for me to indulge. You cannot even muster the humility to admit that I gave a thorough example of Richard Dawkins' rhetoric by scholarly examining just one pg of his CMI. No humility + over-sensitivity = Not for me, thanks. If you show any form of humility then I'll indulge you; otherwise forget it. And you call ME rude? Some self-awareness may be in order too hun.

[DannyM]

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.[/quote]


But I was not being condescending. This is how wrapped up in paranoia you must be. I was genuinely asking for a kiss and cuddle so we could move on. And what do I get? I get some feministic paranoid stuff about being condescending towards you. And you still insist I am the rude one, yeah? I love this complete lack of self-awareness I see in some people.

[zoegirl]

It's simply not appropriate to ask for such. I don't appreciate it, bottom line.

If that makes me a feminist, then so be it. If that makes me sensitive, then ok, you should realize that some don't want that.

You need to respect those around you enough when they say to stop.

[zoegirl]

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.

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.

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.

Sorry but you are by far too much of a sensitive little soul for me to indulge. You cannot even muster the humility to admit that I gave a thorough example of Richard Dawkins' rhetoric by scholarly examining just one pg of his CMI. No humility + over-sensitivity = Not for me, thanks. If you show any form of humility then I'll indulge you; otherwise forget it. And you call ME rude? Some self-awareness may be in order too hun.

I addressed the issue of beneficial mutations and mutations in general

How about tackling my posts....

ok, hun, how about addressing the issues

[Swimmy]

Man of Science,

Steinberg (whos not religious) says that evolution doesn't add up. He used the whale as a great example.. It took 9 million years to evolve but totally contradicts the neo Darwin belief. Therese no way it could evolve in such a short time and form the complex parts needed for the whale to be what it is today. Somewhere around 144 million years was more likely needed. Steinberg didn't want to say "ID" but ultimately in end its the only viable option that some kind of intelligence was directing.

[August]

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?

Do we distinguish between randomness and chance? Is chance the absence of a cause, or is it simply an unknown cause?

But I want to know how those that rely on chance or randomness as a cause deal with the ontology of chance or randomness.

From my perspective, it cannot be part of God's order, since it would then amount to a kind of open theism.

[zoegirl]

I certainly am not meaing to take away from His sovereignty (I am Presbyterian ), but let''s face it, within that Sovereignty, there is are systems that appear (and maybe that is the crucial word) to be chance.

I keep coming back to the idea of probability and those cards and coins.

At the most basic statistical problem, the "chance" of pulling a jack of diamonds from a deck of cards is 1/52. And we can test this randomness over and over. Same with a coin. We approach this event by using that word. And we would surprise and wonder, for instance, if we pulled the jack of diamonds over and over again. We would be suspicious about it.

Perhaps too I am remembering the chapter in Lewis's "God in the Dock" entitiled Religion and Science, where Lewis details an analogy about a pool table. Unless the person interferes with the path of the billiard table (which he describes in the analogy as a miracle), the billiard table will follow a predictable path based on momentum, collision, etc. Yet we would also say that God maintains and sustains the creation. Again, we can reconcile these two seemingly contrary notions.
http://books.google.com/books?id=I6xWiV ... q=&f=false

So if we can reconcile the probability and chance and randomness (seeming randomness) with these systems, is it so hard to reconcile mutations? What if these seemingly random events are just as the card and coin? (and we haven't figured out or understood the possible outcomes)

Now obviously measuring the probability is much more complex with genomes, but certainly not with God.

All I'm saying is that using chance as a means to reject a mechanism seems to be paradoxical when we examine the same events. Now we can examine those chance events and see that they aren't capable of generating the variation, but what (just postulating) what if they were? It certainly wouldn't exclude the existence of God, for He could be behind the push.

This has always bugged my for the last couple of years. I know, august, you have more philosophy behind you and I would like your thoughts. It's why I dance between theistic evolution and progressive creationism.

[Gman]

From my perspective, it cannot be part of God's order, since it would then amount to a kind of open theism.

Yes, I'll agree with August on this... And how it's portrayed publicly.

I believe that micro-evolution could be viewed occurring (chance) in that respect. But not via macro...

[zoegirl]

Believe me, I'm not wanting to take anything away from God's sovereignty.

How would you reconcile the randomness of the coin or cards then? Do you not call them chance?

[Canuckster1127]

Believe me, I'm not wanting to take anything away from God's sovereignty.

How would you reconcile the randomness of the coin or cards then? Do you not call them chance?

It seems to me to be a somewhat unknowable question as we as humans are not able to know from God's perspective what is predestined and what is plausible chance by God's allowance.

[zoegirl]

that's very similar to the answer one of our Bible teacher's gave me today. It seems to be where I am at as well.

[ManOfScience]

Steinberg (whos not religious) says that evolution doesn't add up. He used the whale as a great example.. It took 9 million years to evolve but totally contradicts the neo Darwin belief. Therese no way it could evolve in such a short time and form the complex parts needed for the whale to be what it is today. Somewhere around 144 million years was more likely needed. Steinberg didn't want to say "ID" but ultimately in end its the only viable option that some kind of intelligence was directing.

Hi Swimmy,

I'm no expert on this exact topic, but I've read before that whale evolution (at least, the initial transition to aquatic life) occurred fairly rapidly. I'd never heard of the person you mentioned, but I did a quick search. I think you meant Sternberg (not Steinberg)?

From what I can tell, he's trying to claim that whale evolution was "too fast". However, I'm pretty sure that it's never been shown that whale evolution was faster than what's allowed by "traditional" evolution. In effect, he's pretty much making up his objection based on a subjective opinion.

I don't think we have a clear idea of how many "selected mutations" were required in the transition from land creature to aquatic creature. Indeed, it may have been fewer than we might think; it's been shown that some relatively minor genetic mutations can have led to some relatively major morphological changes. (In the whale's case, the loss of the hindlimbs is one example of this.)

Also, it seems to me that Sternberg is trying to apply the "nine million years" to the evolution of the baleen whale. In fact, the nine million years applies to the evolution of the first fully aquatic whale; the first baleen whale evolved long after this. (The timeframe covering Sternberg's argument is actually much longer than 9MY.)

These are the obvious arguments against Sternberg's argument. There are certainly plenty of good arguments for the inverse of his argument, too. (Such as why modern whales have vestigial hind limbs.)

Apologies in advance if I don't get to respond to this thread for a while; I'll be on a customer site the whole of next week, so probably no chance for reading forums!

[DannyM]

Zoegirl wrote:

<<<<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?>>>>

No. I would say that God has nothing to do with the production of a pack of cards. Of course we would agree that the pack of cards exists because God exists, and is thus dependent upon God's existence for IT'S existence, but a pack of cards is irrelevant and not on God's radar in terms of importance and feeling the touch of God's hand.

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

But when you speak of random it means nothing to me; it's just a noise. By random do you mean completely blind? Pot luck?

<<<<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)>>>>

For the record I do not reject evolution at all. I reject Darwinian evolution. I accept adaptive change but do not accept that this is called evolution…in the sense that I have been taught to understand it. I'm always up for being corrected so please correct me where applicable.

<<<<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).>>>>

But how can changes be beneficial if not caused by a causer? Random mutation is “noise” and noise destroys information. I'm thinking that evolution has to be the complete flip side of random for it to produce any beneficial changes…

<<<<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.>>>>

I'm a little lost here. Are you talking about randomness occurring inside us on an everyday basis?

Sorry about the unorthodox quoting .

[zoegirl]

If pulling a card out of a deck is random (you don't know the outcome, you only know the possible outcomes) then it is also noise, right? (Is God not Sovereign over these?)

Flipping a coin would be noise.

Drawing a lottery ticket would be noise.

Now it seems we only have two options here. To rule these as blind luck (as some would say to picking out that crucial Poker card or the flip of the coin to start the Supoerbowl)would be one option. Would all of these events be considered just noise because they are random? You said in your post that God would not have anything to do with these.

No. I would say that God has nothing to do with the production of a pack of cards. Of course we would agree that the pack of cards exists because God exists, and is thus dependent upon God's existence for IT'S existence, but a pack of cards is irrelevant and not on God's radar in terms of importance and feeling the touch of God's hand.

Whether or not they are in His radar in terms of caring about them is not the issue I am concerned with, this is a matter of explaining a relationship of control. (Indeed it seems hard to believe that the hairs on our head are in His radar!!)

So just to make sure we are on the same page, you *would* view these events as pure chance and random?

But how can changes be beneficial if not caused by a causer?

for the record, I'm not saying they can. I completely believe that God would be behind these process (I would say that they are indeed in His radar). My entire point is that somehow we can reconcile the idea of random event with a Sovereign being. That would be the other option.

However, if I understand you correctly, you have just established that you live in the world as a Christian living with events that *are* random and just noise.

So why the difference? Why does the idea of random mutations (I already gave you an example earlier of sicle cell anemia having a beneficial effect in areas of malaria) give such cause for alarm when you live with random events?

At first I thought we were just dealing with semantics, but now I am thinking we aren't. for you have said that God is not concerning Himself with the coin tossing. So in some areas of your life, you do consider blind luck to play a role?

[DannyM]

If pulling a card out of a deck is random (you don't know the outcome, you only know the possible outcomes) then it is also noise, right? (Is God not Sovereign over these?) Flipping a coin would be noise. Drawing a lottery ticket would be noise. ?

Random Mutation in DNA is *exactly* the same as “Noise” in an electrical communication system. As far as I know coin-tossing is not an electrical communication system. Noise in this respect cannot improve a code. Random mutation destroys DNA; it does not build it. If you keep tossing a coin of course you'll get lucky after lots of failures. This has nothing to do with any communication system of codes.

Now it seems we only have two options here. To rule these as blind luck (as some would say to picking out that crucial Poker card or the flip of the coin to start the Supoerbowl)would be one option. Would all of these events be considered just noise because they are random? You said in your post that God would not have anything to do with these. ?

Again, yes, this is just random. The noise factor here is irrelevant. The point I'm making (and largely taking from Perry Marshall) is that random mutation in evolution is *not possible* as it would destroy the genetic code.

Whether or not they are in His radar in terms of caring about them is not the issue I am concerned with, this is a matter of explaining a relationship of control. (Indeed it seems hard to believe that the hairs on our head are in His radar!!) So just to make sure we are on the same page, you *would* view these events as pure chance and random? ?

Yeah, sure. And of course there is no problem with this.

However, if I understand you correctly, you have just established that you live in the world as a Christian living with events that *are* random and just noise. So why the difference? Why does the idea of random mutations (I already gave you an example earlier of sicle cell anemia having a beneficial effect in areas of malaria) give such cause for alarm when you live with random events? At first I thought we were just dealing with semantics, but now I am thinking we aren't. for you have said that God is not concerning Himself with the coin tossing. So in some areas of your life, you do consider blind luck to play a role?

Nothing alarms me at all. I'm saying it is not possible for a communication system (DNA) to improve and survive by way of random mutation. It's simply unknown for this to ever happen with a communication system of codes.