Evidence for God from Science

How can evolution know what chemicals to mix to get a certain reaction? Scientist spend years in school learning things like that and a random unguided processed just so happens to know every one of them? How can evolution know that I need more teeth or an extra finger or less hair?

Swimmy wrote:How can evolution know what chemicals to mix to get a certain reaction? Scientist spend years in school learning things like that and a random unguided processed just so happens to know every one of them? How can evolution know that I need more teeth or an extra finger or less hair?

One word... Faith.

Yeah I always thought that was contradictory - evolutionists always talk about this "blind process", yet they integrate "natural selection", "survival of the fittest", or "adaptation" in that process. Nature seems to follow established laws - why? Why would a species retain a beneficial mutation? More importantly, who decides whether a mutation is beneficial?

According to the model....it certainly doesn't know....random mutations would produce multiple proteins, therefore multiple structures, some of which fit better with the environment than others. It doesn't know....one appropriate analogy would be poker hands. IT's not that evolution knows which hands to deal, simply that among the hand that are dealt, the highest hand wins. Simple as that.

It's blind in the sense that mutations would be random and non-directed. It is NON-random in that those phenotypes that contribute to the fitness of the organism mean that those organisms live longer and/or reproduce more, therefore it FITS the environment and therefore not random. A species retains a benficial mutation simply because those organisms that have that beneficial mutation are around more and contribute more genes to the next generation.

Certainly mutations exist... but evolution itself is fishy to me. The more i try to comprehend it, the more i come up with unsanswered questions.

zoegirl wrote:According to the model....it certainly doesn't know....random mutations would produce multiple proteins, therefore multiple structures, some of which fit better with the environment than others. It doesn't know....one appropriate analogy would be poker hands. IT's not that evolution knows which hands to deal, simply that among the hand that are dealt, the highest hand wins. Simple as that.

It's blind in the sense that mutations would be random and non-directed. It is NON-random in that those phenotypes that contribute to the fitness of the organism mean that those organisms live longer and/or reproduce more, therefore it FITS the environment and therefore not random. A species retains a benficial mutation simply because those organisms that have that beneficial mutation are around more and contribute more genes to the next generation.

Wow, that's an interesting way of presenting that Zoegirl. In a sense for the moment, evolution really makes sense to me. (because I just got done looking at Seraph's evidence for why he believes in theistic evolution and when I combine his evidence with your analogy it really explains things) And for me right now, I'm not just talking about theistic evolution but pure naturalistic evolution with no god needed. Your analogy really does help explain why everything then appears to be designed as well as why there are such a wide variety of creatures. Now since you don't currently hold to naturalism and to evolution in a naturalistic sense, at this point, why are you not a naturalist? I guess I just had one of those "bright idea" moments where everything comes together and I really hope that my judgment is premature, because after all, I personally don't like the implications of naturalism. Please help me here if you can.

DRDS wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Your analogy really does help explain why everything then appears to be designed as well as why there are such a wide variety of creatures. Now since you don't currently hold to naturalism and to evolution in a naturalistic sense, at this point, why are you not a naturalist? I guess I just had one of those "bright idea" moments where everything comes together and I really hope that my judgment is premature, because after all, I personally don't like the implications of naturalism.

Everything appears to be designed because it probably is designed. Information can only come from a mind. We can infer this from our every day lives. Biological information, we can therefore infer, has come from a mind. The evolution and adaptation of species is beyond doubt. But orthodox Darwinian evolution is a complete failure. Why it has not been ushered out of the classroom is one of those things we can only be baffled by.

A programme on BBC4 in Britain recently showed the complexity of DNA. The narrator briefly alluded to the 'prebiotic soup' fairytale. Extrordinary considering there is no tangible evidence for such a life-friendly broth. The narrator quickly moved on from this allusion and by-passed the complex question of how the information arrived in the cell; he literally started us off with the first cell! And so naturalism was assumed without so much as a fuss. This really is the state of play we find ourselves in today.

DannyM wrote:Information can only come from a mind. We can infer this from our every day lives.

A series of chemical reactions in the brain definitely couldn't make accurate observations about the world.

DRDS wrote:I guess I just had one of those "bright idea" moments where everything comes together and I really hope that my judgment is premature, because after all, I personally don't like the implications of naturalism. Please help me here if you can.

This reminded me of an ancient philosopher (I forgot his name, of course ) who stated that humans reincarnate, and every time before they set off to a new life, they would drink something like a 'glass of oblivion', to forget their previous lives. An opponent at a debate then asked him, "If what you're saying is true, then how do you know that?"

To apply this analogy to naturalism - if naturalism were true, we wouldn't be able to know that. C. S. Lewis puts it better than I do:
http://creation.com/cs-lewis-on-materialistic-thoughts

DannyM wrote:

DRDS wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Your analogy really does help explain why everything then appears to be designed as well as why there are such a wide variety of creatures. Now since you don't currently hold to naturalism and to evolution in a naturalistic sense, at this point, why are you not a naturalist? I guess I just had one of those "bright idea" moments where everything comes together and I really hope that my judgment is premature, because after all, I personally don't like the implications of naturalism.

Everything appears to be designed because it probably is designed. Information can only come from a mind. We can infer this from our every day lives. Biological information, we can therefore infer, has come from a mind. The evolution and adaptation of species is beyond doubt. But orthodox Darwinian evolution is a complete failure. Why it has not been ushered out of the classroom is one of those things we can only be baffled by.

A programme on BBC4 in Britain recently showed the complexity of DNA. The narrator briefly alluded to the 'prebiotic soup' fairytale. Extraodinary considering there is no tangible evidence for such a life-friendly broth. The narrator quickly moved on from this allusion and by-passed the complex question of how the information arrived in the cell; he literally started us off with the first cell! And so naturalism was assumed without so much as a fuss. This really is the state of play we find ourselves in today.

I hope you are right Danny. I had one of those moments where I thought "well I finally see what evolutionists are so convinced of evolution", but I am wondering about the argument of information (much like the one that Stephen Meyer talks about in his book Signature in the Cell). I assume most evolutionists come back and say the reason why everything looks so awesomely designed is "that over time the earth's environment got rid of all of the ugly creatures that out of mutations, grew eight eyes, extra un needed limbs and other unneeded things and has also allowed for very complicated defense mechanisms to stick around and thrive in current creatures that still exist today. Thus showing that is why everything looks so designed.

Ok from that ID proponents or other people who hold to the idea that information cannot be answered from the acts of mutation and natural selection? Thanks for your time.

DRDS wrote:I hope you are right Danny. I had one of those moments where I thought "well I finally see what evolutionists are so convinced of evolution", but I am wondering about the argument of information (much like the one that Stephen Meyer talks about in his book Signature in the Cell). I assume most evolutionists come back and say the reason why everything looks so awesomely designed is "that over time the earth's environment got rid of all of the ugly creatures that out of mutations, grew eight eyes, extra un needed limbs and other unneeded things and has also allowed for very complicated defense mechanisms to stick around and thrive in current creatures that still exist today. Thus showing that is why everything looks so designed.

Ok from that ID proponents or other people who hold to the idea that information cannot be answered from the acts of mutation and natural selection? Thanks for your time.

Yes, you'll hear a lot of anti-empirical nonsense from Darwinists. They actually believe that "given enough time, and given the right environment..." then complex biological systems could emerge. It is pure fantasy. You can do a lot worse than read Meyer - he's got the guns and ammo to destroy Darwinian orthodoxy. Particularly read his views on the Cambrian explosion - which he calls the "biological big-bang", and irreducible complexity.

Can someone clearly establish for me the difference between mutations and evolution? Are these terms interchangeable? If so, in what context?

Evolution involves mutations in part but not all mutations contribute to evolution. Evolution sees natural selection as the means by which changes are preserved in some instances and not in others. Mutations in the vast majority of cases are negative, meaning that they do not contribute to the survival of the mutatee or are neutral at best. Occassional mutations, the classic example would be a moth that is black that survives during the industrial revolution because trees are coated in soot and as opposed to lighter colored moths that previously blended better into tree bark. Natural selection favors one over the other and so over time, because the light moths are eaten by birds, the darker ones, come to dominate the gene pool.

I see, thank you very much for the info,