Evolution versus Creationism

[Birdjaguar]

But the flip-side of that is to insist that we be satisfied to remain in ignorance. How can satisfaction with ignorance be better than dissatisfaction with ignorance, and then replacing it with knowledge?

Humanity has lived in ignorance for many thousands of years and done quite well. Ignorant people today can live very happy and contented lives. Knowledge just allows us to make stuff more easily and do things we couldn't do before. Any value placed on knowledge is rooted in the underlying assumptions and values one already has and not on the knowledge itself.

 

[Aramazd]

I'm not quite sure how giving infinite amount of time would even allow for something to come from nothing. I still find it hard to believe that atoms randomly come together and act together without some sort of stimulus to initiate that life

It's not entirely random though.

that is part of the hypothetical.... he never lies

So you set up a hypothetical scenario where your view is already correct?

but the thing is.... science can't explain a lot of things... at least knowledge humans have today.

Give it time. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we never will.

that's true... but evolution can be explained without having to reference Lamarckism, and if I mentioned Lamarckism, you wouldn't immediately think of "fact that explains evolution"

No, because no one take Lamarckism seriously, but it is an explanation as to why evolution occurs. It was tested and found lacking. What I am trying to say is that no idea should be above testing even if another accepted idea is explained by it being true.

so you tell me what's going to happen next, what will evolve next if it isn't random

Everything is constantly evolving. For example bacteria are evolving antibiotic resistance.

guessing numvers is quite a bit simpler than forming life, I'm afraid.... and saying that life started trillions of times seperately seems rather absurd to me

It's just probability. It is impossible to know how many time life started.

but the same goes for RNA.... what makes that combination of molecules replicate... they're just atoms

Atoms link up for a reason. A complex molecule is a very rare occurance, but if you give it enough time it will happen eventually.

 

[Perfection]

Humanity has lived in ignorance for many thousands of years and done quite well. Ignorant people today can live very happy and contented lives. Knowledge just allows us to make stuff more easily and do things we couldn't do before. Any value placed on knowledge is rooted in the underlying assumptions and values one already has and not on the knowledge itself.

I disagree, I find knowledge to be inherently worthwhile regardless of its use to me.

 

[Simple Simon]

so you tell me what's going to happen next, what will evolve next if it isn't random

hm, seems an introductory level course to statistics is in order...... Evolution is not random, therefore it is indeed theoretically possible to predict what traits will evolve in a given species. Or which species will split into two or more, and due to what changes. However, there is that small problem of percentage of required data known, i.e. for any given situation we can probably not even know 0.01% of the data. We'd need to know the exact DNA sequence and epigenetics of each and every member of the species, the exact nature of interaction between radiation, biochemical reactions within all germ cell and all other (often random) factors influencing mutations in all of the animals, all (indeed partly random) outside influences (who gets hit by a car? Caught by a predator?) etc.

Now, I say 'random' all the time - why is evolution NOT random?

That's because variation is caused by mostly random processes, but selection to a large part is not random. And evolution is (I'll us ea simple definition here) 'change in a population over time through variation and selection'.

Selection is (mostly) not random!

So we can not (due to practical, not principal) reasons predict individual mutations (same reason weather forecasts for more than 12h are so bad).

get it?

guessing numvers is quite a bit simpler than forming life, I'm afraid.... and saying that life started trillions of times seperately seems rather absurd to me

Why?

Think it through..... earth is huge, so there is an awful lot of room. We can hypothesize that the conditions required to 'start life' are extremely special, but that is baseless speculation. Much more probably life came into existence (btw, how do you define life in the first place? perhaps we are talking about different things here.....) in conditions that were potentially very special on a global scale, but not on a local scale. Let's assume that it i mid-ocean ridge volcanism (hot smokers) that plays a role. These conditions can only be found on active mid-ocean ridges, and thus are extremely rare on earth - the surface that we see, that is. But if you check a map of the ocean floor you will see that there are quite a lot of square limes of mid-ocean ridges. Same is true for all the past when there were oceans. And one single cell is tiny, tiny, tiny. So if conditions were right on them, then they were right in an HUGE area. Why should life only come into existence once? (and even if, that's all we need ).

Same goes for freshwater puddles, or whatever other scenario you take.

It seems to me that you are befuddled by some things that are indeed at first glance 'weird'. So am I - simply because 90% of all our experience of how things (and life) work(s) are WRONG when talking about abiogenesis. 'harsh conditions'? Not so - life obviously developed where the conditions were (locally) NOT harsh! 'A LOT of unlikely circumstances'? Not so - at least not the conclusion you draw from them. We tend to think in terms of 1 draw, ten draws, a million draws when thinking about lottery chances. Can you really grasp the concept of 'one in a Million'? I can't! And for abiogenesis to 'work', the odds are really really tiny, but the 'draws' are, well, trillions of trillions! Just think of all that TIME thatw as available, all that SPACE! It needs only work once - and BINGO, there's life! Who's going to kill it? There's nothing there to kill it.... once life is present, it will spread out like crazy. THEN evolution starts, and quite quickly conditions become brutal. The 'second' life faces stiff competition from the already existing 'first' life, and so on. But No. 1 was home free.

Another thing you repeatedly do: 'something comes from nothing' (paraphrasing here). You use a concept of 'life' that is based on life as we encounter it every day. An inherent argument from irreducible complexity. A 'something', you imply, is so much more complex from a 'nothing' that you can't get there from here. But 'first life' is just marginally different from its source! It is not like life suddenly erupted as a full blown Volvox from sea water and lightning. That's why I am asking for your definition of 'life'.

 

[El_Machinae]

but the same goes for RNA.... what makes that combination of molecules replicate... they're just atoms

It's just simple chemistry at that point. One may as well get upset that water will freeze according to certain patterns. A self-replicating RNA is just following the easily-understood laws of thermodynamics, no more exciting than observing that water will flow downhill.

 

[GoodGame]

While Miller-Urey certainly is a very important experiment that sheds light on the development of life it certainly is not a knockdown argument for believing life had naturalistic origins! It's only a baby step in the development of complex life.

It is a knock-down against arguements that Taras is stating---things like atoms can't self-assemble or some similiar fundie nonsense.

 

[Belisar]

I'm abstaining from this poll on the grounds that it shouldn't be posted in the Science forum.

Well spoken.
Science to the scientists, the theologians should stick to theology. 2 entirely different things.

 

[Perfection]

It is a knock-down against arguements that Taras is stating---things like atoms can't self-assemble or some similiar fundie nonsense.

Look, I'm not saying it isn't relevant and isn't counterfactual to some of Taras' claims but take it as definitive proof of the ability of life as we know it to arrive from inorganic chemicals (which is about what I would think it would take to constitute a "knockdown argument") it is not.

I should also say that has only a vague link to your number 4 with no explicit connection.

Lastly, I see no reason to use the pejorative "fundie" against Taras. Not believing life had naturalistic origins is a belief held by plenty of non-fundamentalists

Well spoken.

I dunno, we certainly are discussing science here! So I don't see how it can't be here.

Science to the scientists, the theologians should stick to theology. 2 entirely different things.

I find this whole notion of trying to separate the two and end the conversation is rather silly. Science isn't religion and religion isn't science but the two interact quite a bit.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How can satisfaction with ignorance be better than dissatisfaction with ignorance, and then replacing it with knowledge?

Humanity has lived in ignorance for many thousands of years and done quite well. Ignorant people today can live very happy and contented lives. Knowledge just allows us to make stuff more easily and do things we couldn't do before. Any value placed on knowledge is rooted in the underlying assumptions and values one already has and not on the knowledge itself.

I disagree, I find knowledge to be inherently worthwhile regardless of its use to me.

Well from what you said, you seem to agree. "I find knowledge..." implies that you assign value to knowledge regardless of its application and I said that people assign value to knowledge (or anything else) based on their personal assumptions. The fact that you think knowledge is valuable is rooted in who you are and your assumptions about life etc. Change those assumptions and your view on knowledge may well change too.

Had you said, "Knowledge is intrinsically valuable independent of any human thoughts on the topic." Then you would be disagreeing with me.

 

[GoodGame]

I should also say that has only a vague link to your number 4 with no explicit connection.

I view my #4 as the error that creationists make in my opinion, regardless of the evidence supporting competing hypotheses (e.g. RNA world). I still stand by my "no zero sum in science" stance. Process of elimination only works on multiple choice tests, which life isn't. Not pointing this at you, just creationism.

I brought out Miller's experiment, since you didn't like my #4. No implication intended between my #4 and Miller. I agree Miller is only the start to trying to prove an RNA world or something similiar.

I find this whole notion of trying to separate the two and end the conversation is rather silly. Science isn't religion and religion isn't science but the two interact quite a bit.
__________________

They're apples and oranges. They interact only in the sense that they are ideals, and both can apply concepts of logic. Religion, is not based on fact though. It's based on faith and doctrine. Science is a different process entirely.

 

[Aramazd]

They're apples and oranges. They interact only in the sense that they are ideals, and both can apply concepts of logic. Religion, is not based on fact though. It's based on faith and doctrine. Science is a different process entirely.

That doesn't mean they don't intersect though, and when they do I think debate between the two sides is useful.

 

[GoodGame]

That doesn't mean they don't intersect though, and when they do I think debate between the two sides is useful.

Their only intersection is in the philosophical, useful in a study of philosophy.

The science of religion is still a science, not a theology.

Religious views on topics covered by science are strictly theological, and are not appropriate criticisms of scientific method.

I'm not stating that scientists can't have religious beliefs, nor that they can't have ethical systems based on religious.

 

[Aramazd]

Their only intersection is in the philosophical, useful in a study of philosophy.

The science of religion is still a science, not a theology.

Religious views on topics covered by science are strictly theological, and are not appropriate criticisms of scientific method.

I'm not stating that scientists can't have religious beliefs, nor that they can't have ethical systems based on religious.

I think philosophy has practical uses. But even when religious belief conflicts with scientific fact, discussion is useful. No one is going to be change their views if you avoid the conversation.

 

[Belisar]

But even when religious belief conflicts with scientific fact, discussion is useful.

Religious beliefs conflicting with scientific facts is a sign that one group has "lost track".
A serious scientist would never try to prove the existence of god or form a theory how many angles are possible.
On the other side, a serious theologian won't postulate that Earth is the center of the universe or that it was actually "created" in six days.

A "religious" explanation for earth, humans and everything else is not necessary.
Earth is (nearly) round and travels around the sun, the species evolved from simpler predecessors and the sky is blue because different wavelengths are scattered different, whether I belief it or not.
Of course scientific theories are also just approximations to reality, but that's cause the complexity is just imense.
I can tell you that from the field of molecular simulation where we have to use a lot of approximations to actually calculate binding enegies for pharmaceuticals.
Nonetheless, our pharmaceuticals are damne'd effective, our spacecraft make it to Mars (sometimes at least ) and our mobiles let me call my gf 1000 miles away.
- because we use a scientific explanation of things.

 

[suiraclaw]

I'd like to verify a claim that somebody else made on another forum; here goes:

I'm confident that I could walk down the hall and find someone graduating from a top-tier engineering program in three months who believes in ID.

(I believe he's American, I'm not)

 

[Aramazd]

I'd like to verify a claim that somebody else made on another forum; here goes:



(I believe he's American, I'm not)

From what I've heard, engineers are more conservative than people in other scientific majors.

 

[Perfection]

Well from what you said, you seem to agree. "I find knowledge..." implies that you assign value to knowledge regardless of its application and I said that people assign value to knowledge (or anything else) based on their personal assumptions. The fact that you think knowledge is valuable is rooted in who you are and your assumptions about life etc. Change those assumptions and your view on knowledge may well change too.

Had you said, "Knowledge is intrinsically valuable independent of any human thoughts on the topic." Then you would be disagreeing with me.

I said "I find" rather than "I assign", because this strikes me as immediately true and is not some conscious decision. This might just be a quibble, but I want to put that out there.

My main point here is not that knowledge isn't a subjective value dependent on my or humanity's nature (it could very well be true that all values are subjective) or something like that rather that knowledge isn't dependent on other values (like happiness) for its value. It's not simply because knowledge makes our lives better that it has worth.

I should also note that if there are things that have objective worth, then I see no reason why knowledge can't be one of them and again not in a way that makes it dependent on it helping out some other value.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd like to verify a claim that somebody else made on another forum; here goes:



(I believe he's American, I'm not)

Yeah, I've found many engineers who don't think of evolution or natural history as a naturalistic process. I think part of the issue is that they often are designers, and thus are prone to seeing design. As well, I think that it's the scientists who care more about theory.

 

[Perfection]

I view my #4 as the error that creationists make in my opinion, regardless of the evidence supporting competing hypotheses (e.g. RNA world). I still stand by my "no zero sum in science" stance. Process of elimination only works on multiple choice tests, which life isn't. Not pointing this at you, just creationism.

Well, I don't think the Creationist criticizing evolution is particularly fallacious. After all, for Creationism to be true, evolution needs to be false. If they can't show evolution is false, they have a problem! If that is the sole extant of their argument that Creationism is correct, then yes it is a problem, but that's not often the case.

A second issue I have is that there isn't, "the error that creationists make". There are plenty of ways to make a false argument. Creationism isn't false because of a specific misstep in thinking, there are plenty of missteps that lead to it.

Lastly, what does this have to do with Taras?

They're apples and oranges. They interact only in the sense that they are ideals, and both can apply concepts of logic. Religion, is not based on fact though. It's based on faith and doctrine. Science is a different process entirely.

That doesn't mean they don't intersect though, and when they do I think debate between the two sides is useful.

Their only intersection is in the philosophical, useful in a study of philosophy.

The science of religion is still a science, not a theology.

Religious views on topics covered by science are strictly theological, and are not appropriate criticisms of scientific method.

I'm not stating that scientists can't have religious beliefs, nor that they can't have ethical systems based on religious.

Well, my point here is not to equate the two, but to recognize that neither live in a vacuum and both significantly impact each other. We can't pull the two apart, and expect them to behave.

Yeah, I've found many engineers who don't think of evolution or natural history as a naturalistic process. I think part of the issue is that they often are designers, and thus are prone to seeing design. As well, I think that it's the scientists who care more about theory.

Well, the big thing is that a lot of engineers simply aren't scientists.

 

[El_Machinae]

Now if a religion were true, it would have scientific applications. Mainly because there would be a really smart dude you could ask questions to.