Evidence for God from Science

I have seen reviews on one book (above) about human devolution and I have seen text about human devolution VERY briefly, apparently it is an alternative to Darwinian evolution. From what I know, I think human devolution talks about that we used to be higher intelligent humans that were more spiritual and gradually became where we are today as modern humans. Makes sense to me since people lived for hundreds of years in the Old Testament but now we only live to a maximum of just over 120 years old. What is this whole thing about really? I'm confused .

Thinker wrote: What is this whole thing about really?

Another place you could look is the website http://www.mcremo.com/fa.htm and get more information about this book and some of the author's other output.
sandy
Personally ? I don't think the topic fits "God and Science" but I am not a big believer in UFO's either, so it all depends on your personal outlook.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Thinker wrote: What is this whole thing about really?

Another place you could look is the website http://www.mcremo.com/fa.htm and get more information about this book and some of the author's other output.
sandy
Personally ? I don't think the topic fits "God and Science" but I am not a big believer in UFO's either, so it all depends on your personal outlook.

Hmm, his website is interesting. He claims evolution, he has been to the Darwin museum in Moscow, but he claims we are of the divine, death is not the end. Apparently modern day humans have been living along side other species "like us" and they died out. The whole evolution thing by Darwin's terms are that we evolved from a prior species, we just became more enhanced over time, hence why it appears we evolved, there were other species of variation "like us". The book of Genesis doesn't offer a factual length of any time. Another place in the Bible states Gods' time is not of our time, BIG difference. I like his theory, he doesn't mention God a lot, just that we are divine, we are only a spirit within a "shell".

Two things occur to me.

Firstly I'm rather confused as to what the distinction between evolution and devolution actually is. Evolution is neither progress nor regress - merely change. In natural history the increase in size of brain in human ancestors is called evolution; yet the loss of flight in modern birds such as emus is also evolution - it's not called devolution.

Secondly the idea that human beings are "devolving" would seem to go against the idea of irreducible complexity. If humans once had, say, perfect vision but now many need glasses, then the eye's gene-pool has reduced and is not irreducible afterall.

Thoughts?

Blob wrote:Two things occur to me.

Firstly I'm rather confused as to what the distinction between evolution and devolution actually is. Evolution is neither progress nor regress - merely change. In natural history the increase in size of brain in human ancestors is called evolution; yet the loss of flight in modern birds such as emus is also evolution - it's not called devolution.

Secondly the idea that human beings are "devolving" would seem to go against the idea of irreducible complexity. If humans once had, say, perfect vision but now many need glasses, then the eye's gene-pool has reduced and is not irreducible afterall.

Thoughts?

Devolution is the handing down of power from one level to a lower level I always thought... And, blobby, your second statement shows you do not understand irreducible complexity-basically, in the most simple terms (since this is coming from a simple man)-irreducible complexity says that machines that suffer from that malady could not have been put together piece by piece through evolution...because natural selection is only able (assuming it works in the first place) to keep working and beneficial machines and qualities in existence..but the machines must exist in their entirety for them to work! What you are saying is that because a machine is aging and losing its abilities... (assuming also that that is the case with the human eye) you can somehow get it evolving naturally from that finding...which is non sequitor. If I show you that my car can run as one system falls apart after the other, it doesn't mean my car could have evolved from sheets of metal and frayed wires on a sandy beach (personal experience on the car by the way).

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Devolution is the handing down of power from one level to a lower level I always thought...

Yes, devolution is a political term to my ears too. Scotland is devolving from England, for example. It makes no sense to use it in biology.

And, blobby, your second statement shows you do not understand irreducible complexity-basically, in the most simple terms (since this is coming from a simple man)-irreducible complexity says that machines that suffer from that malady could not have been put together piece by piece through evolution...

Oh I see. I thought irreducible complexity was a biological term. It seems I had overestimated it - the statement that many machines did not evolve is rather obvious. Of course their design may have evolved - or at least become refined through a design process - but a given, physical machine itself has not evolved.

because natural selection is only able (assuming it works in the first place) to keep working and beneficial machines and qualities in existence..but the machines must exist in their entirety for them to work!

Again the statement that machines are not products of biological natural selection is rather obvious. And I disagree that natural selection has anything to do with machines at all - I don't see why you are saying the ecological process of natural selection keeps machines, which are products of man, working.

Also not all machines must be in their entirety to work. My car lost a hub-cap the other day and still runs fine. If irreducible complexity says "those parts of the machine that are essential to it's operation cannot be removed or it won't work" it seems like circular reasoning to me. It's a statement so obvious that it is redundant: "the essential parts are essential".

What you are saying is that because a machine is aging and losing its abilities... (assuming also that that is the case with the human eye) you can somehow get it evolving naturally from that finding

Well that's is not what I said at all. Firstly I was talking about eyes, not machines, and secondly I was disagreeing that eyes have become worse over the generations. I disagree with your assumption and so am not pretending it proves anything.

If I show you that my car can run as one system falls apart after the other, it doesn't mean my car could have evolved from sheets of metal and frayed wires on a sandy beach (personal experience on the car by the way).

I agree now that I was wrong to suggest the author's strange notion of "devolution" counters irreducible complexity. You have explained why clearly, thank you.

But at the same time we were discussing human beings. Using the word machine seems to make unwarranted assumptions, as though you are plugging your conclusion - the need for an engineer - into your premise.

That seems erroneous to me because all human beings were once a single cell and they grow. I'm not like a machine in the literal sense of the word, such as a radio, where the bits are made separately then put together. It's not like my parents took some ears and some bones and some teeth and so on and stuck them together in the manner of Dr. Frankenstein.

I agree that living things seem like machines in many ways but, like all analogies, if one takes the likeness literally, it just doesn't add up.

Blob, didn't read all of what you said, but I was referring to biological machines of incredible complexity that make the most advanced machine of man pale in comparison....not literal gears and grease machines such as an engine...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Blob, didn't read all of what you said, but I was referring to biological machines of incredible complexity that make the most advanced machine of man pale in comparison....not literal gears and grease machines such as an engine...

With all due respect perhaps you might be kind enough to take the trouble to do so before replying?

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Blob, didn't read all of what you said, but I was referring to biological machines of incredible complexity that make the most advanced machine of man pale in comparison....not literal gears and grease machines such as an engine...

With all due respect perhaps you might be kind enough to take the trouble to do so before replying?

Perhaps I can enlighten you Blob

Irreducible complexity is the idea that all the parts of an organ work in such concert, that if one were to remove one part, that the entire organ would cease to function. So in such a system how does the entire organ come into existance gradually? There must be a driving force, something intelligent which alows it to form.

If I am wrong anyone please correct me.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Perhaps I can enlighten you Blob

Irreducible complexity is the idea that all the parts of an organ work in such concert, that if one were to remove one part, that the entire organ would cease to function. So in such a system how does the entire organ come into existance gradually? There must be a driving force, something intelligent which alows it to form.

If I am wrong anyone please correct me.

Thanks BGood.

I assume then that an irreducible complexionist (made up term! ) would claim that I, Blob, an adult human being, am irreducibly complex, or that at least certain organs of mine are irreducibly compex. Yet I was once a zygote - a single cell. So me and all of my organs have "come into existance gradually".

In other words I would tentatively postulate that basic ontogeny 'corrects' you.

Thoughts

Blob wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Perhaps I can enlighten you Blob

Irreducible complexity is the idea that all the parts of an organ work in such concert, that if one were to remove one part, that the entire organ would cease to function. So in such a system how does the entire organ come into existance gradually? There must be a driving force, something intelligent which alows it to form.

If I am wrong anyone please correct me.

Thanks BGood.

I assume then that an irreducible complexionist (made up term! ) would claim that I, Blob, an adult human being, am irreducibly complex, or that at least certain organs of mine are irreducibly compex. Yet I was once a zygote - a single cell. So me and all of my organs have "come into existance gradually".

In other words I would tentatively postulate that basic ontogeny 'corrects' you.

Thoughts

In a sense, you are right-on a macroscopic level-but even on this level, if it were not for your mother supplying you with nutrition and your other needs, you would not have lasted long as a zygote-so, without help, this increase in macroscopic complexity wouldn't be possible. But, Behe is talking about the machinery at a microscopic level-if you're on the level of gross anatomy, all these complexities vanish at the level of what we can see with the naked eye. Also, you must remember that the biological machinery I refer to was present in the zygote...either in the form of blueprints in DNA for later developments, such as vision, or in physical manifestations of the blueprints (ribosome for example)-before you were much more than a cell, the blueprints to all the irreducibly complex machines were present...so your argument has nothing to do with the issue, because what Behe argues is that these irreducibly complex machines could not have evolved....but in your argument, all the irreducibly complex machinery already exists.

Behe argues that no mechanism could have evolved any of these machines-for they have to be fully functioning for natural selection to keep them, but they also need natural selection to help out by making smaller leaps possible between no machine and fully constructed machine..which it can't do, for the machine must be fully constructed to work!

Hi again AttentionKMartShoppers. (I know K mart is a shop in america so I guess your screename is an overly familiar phrase to your ears. lol - I like that.)

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:In a sense, you are right-if it were not for your mother supplying you with nutrition and your other needs, you would not have lasted long as a zygote.

Well quite, but then any living thing must be in an environment conducive to its survival in order to survive so it's has no bearing on this particular dicussion IMO.

But, you must remember that the biological machinery I refer to was present in the zygote...

I disagree. The genotype ('recipe') was present but not the phenotype ('machinery' to use your analogy which I still maintain presupposes your desired conclusion that there must be an engineer).

the information for all of the machinery your cells would create was present in your DNA-before you were more than a cell, the blueprints to all the irreducibly complex machines were present...so your argument holds no merit, because what Behe argues is that these irreducibly complex machines could not have evolved....

I don't follow you. This was my point in the second paragraph in my first post in this thread. Irreducible complexity cannot refer to genes or genotypes because as we all know mutations can sometimes impair ('reduce') a genotype and yet life can continue despite these impairments ('reductions'). Therefore irreducible complexity does not hold for genes, it seems to me.

Ok, you added a bit as I composed my reply.

but in your argument, all the irreducibly complex machinery already exists.

? Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps I have addressed this in the reply I just made(?)

Behe argues that no mechanism could have evolved any of these machines-for they have to be fully functioning for natural selection to keep them, but they also need natural selection to help out by making smaller leaps possible between no machine and fully constructed machine..which it can't do, for the machine must be fully constructed to work!

I see that is different to BGood's interpretation then. He/She refered only to how a complex biological system could not gradually develop and made no reference to it being "constructed to work" (again your use of a construction analogy seems like presupposition of your desired conclusion that there must have been a construtor). This is why I feel I should stand by my argument that ontogeny counters BGood's interpretation (though not yours, I now see. Thank you for the clarity.)

Could you please give a specific example of a a biological system - let's say an organ rather than an organism for clear focus - that you consider irreducibly complex so that we can take this enlightening discussion forward in a productive manner?

But, you must remember that the biological machinery I refer to was present in the zygote...

I disagree. The genotype ('recipe') was present but not the phenotype ('machinery' to use your analogy which I still maintain presupposes your desired conclusion that there must be an engineer).

the information for all of the machinery your cells would create was present in your DNA-before you were more than a cell, the blueprints to all the irreducibly complex machines were present...so your argument holds no merit, because what Behe argues is that these irreducibly complex machines could not have evolved....

I don't follow you. This was my point in the second paragraph in my first post in this thread. Irreducible complexity cannot refer to genes or genotypes because as we all know mutations can sometimes impair ('reduce') a genotype and yet life can continue despite these impairments ('reductions'). Therefore irreducible complexity does not hold for genes, it seems to me.

[/quote]

Uh, it should be common knowledge that the information to engineer the machines was in the DNA of your zygote...or are you saying that God makes these biological machines brand new for every new living creature?

Irreducible complexity and genes...I'm not quite sure, I'll warn you first-but it kinda has to deal with genes...for the DNA is what will have the cell make the machine-because even if a biological machine were to be magically and accidentally made in a cell...unless it's in the DNA-it won't happen the next time around with the offspring of the cell.

Blob wrote: Could you please give a specific example of a a biological system - let's say an organ rather than an organism for clear focus - that you consider irreducibly complex so that we can take this enlightening discussion forward in a productive manner?

How about a Flagellum (sp?)