Is evolution enough to explain he diversity of life?

[Siege]

@Biffy the Elephant Shrew

That’s what they’d like you to believe.

(Yes, it’s a cheezburger page; don’t click if you don’t want that much cute and cuddly.)

Shoot! I’d meant to delete that post! Thanks for the laugh, though. For the final example of cute and cuddly mutations, I was going to use Scottish fold cats.

I also don’t see why a creator couldn’t have created the world in its present state by using mechanisms we’re aware of such as evolution, plate tectonics, etc. Being a theistic evolutionist, I wouldn’t rule out a little tweaking, just as man has tweaked the gene pool of various plants and animals over the years. I don’t believe God waved his magick wand and created humans or even complex structures such as eyes. That’s a little too simplistic for my taste and it takes the fun out of figuring out how things came about.

[vison]

@Siege

Shoot! I’d meant to delete that post! Thanks for the laugh, though. For the final example of cute and cuddly mutations, I was going to use Scottish fold cats.

I also don’t see why a creator couldn’t have created the world in its present state by using mechanisms we’re aware of such as evolution, plate tectonics, etc. Being a theistic evolutionist, I wouldn’t rule out a little tweaking, just as man has tweaked the gene pool of various plants and animals over the years. I don’t believe God waved his magick wand and created humans or even complex structures such as eyes. That’s a little too simplistic for my taste and it takes the fun out of figuring out how things came about.

In Great Debates, am I allowed to say that posts like this make my head feel like it’s going to explode?

“tweaking”? :smack:

I don’t see why people who make statements like these don’t understand that what they are saying makes Science completely irrelevant. What use could Science be in such a universe? Scientists might as well go boil their heads or just mosey over to, I don’t know, working at A & W or something.

[Voyager]

@hotflungwok

Actually, the smug looks are are reaction to the flailing demands that science disprove god, when science is in fact still waiting for a reason to even bother looking at the whole issue in the first place. Until some evidence of god’s existence is presented, science has nothing to do with the matter, and the ‘existence of god’ is kept up on the shelf with ‘the existence of santa claus’ and ‘the existence of invisible unicorns’ until it is needed. The ball is, and always has been, in your court.

Not smug looks, more :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: about someone without any good evidence for god bringing up the “but but but … you can’t disprove God” non-argument yet again.

[CurtC]

@Siege

I also don’t see why a creator couldn’t have created the world in its present state by using mechanisms we’re aware of such as evolution, plate tectonics, etc.

Well sure, you can propose a God who created the world using a method that’s indistinguishable from one that doesn’t require his intervention at all, but that’s awfully close to the trickster God who plants fossils of creatures who never existed just to fool us into thinking they did, to test our faith.

The latter conception of God is routinely dismissed out-of-hand by all thinking people, why shouldn’t the former be as well?

[Jragon]

@Pochacco

Are you suggesting that different life forms on Earth do not share a common ancestor?

I have to say, I don’t. Not because I’m a creationist, but because I simply don’t believe it was one little trooper bacterium/organic molecule/whatever that relates you, me, Brad Pitt, my old neighbor’s pet dog, socks the cat, a velociraptor and everything else that can be described as “living.” I think there was multiple reactions of whatever occured to create that first piece that tumbled into a cell that divided etc etc. I’m not saying I can’t be related to a sea slug I’m just saying I think there’s the chance I’m NOT related to it.

I’m not sure how far this different origin thing would go, maybe there are two humans where if you somehow could magically trace them back to that first thing in their “family tree” (so to speak) describable as “organic” you would find they actually are decended from two sligtly different points in time with the same end result, or maybe it just turns out cats and worms aren’t as related to us as we thought we were, though the x amount of entry points have all probably interbred at some point in time.

Of course, anyone can feel free to tell me why this can’t happen or isn’t likely in the least bit (not that you needed an invitation).

Edit: Maybe I didn’t read Pochacco’s post right the first time, were you just saying that many different lifeforms shared a common ancestor rather than ALL lifeforms shared one?

[Boyo_Jim]

@vison

In Great Debates, am I allowed to say that posts like this make my head feel like it’s going to explode?

“tweaking”? :smack:

I don’t see why people who make statements like these don’t understand that what they are saying makes Science completely irrelevant. What use could Science be in such a universe? Scientists might as well go boil their heads or just mosey over to, I don’t know, working at A & W or something.

I’m an atheist and I think science is largely useless. I grant you that it’s an interesting hobby to pursue until you take the dirt sleep. I think believing that science and human endeavor is contributing to some greater human destiny or meaningful future is nearly as delusional as religious faith.

We have no purpose, there is no point, there is no goal to achieve. Some people have a real problem with this idea – I find it rather comforting.

[kaylasdad99]

If I’m not mistaken, the only “tweaking” being suggested by Siege is represented by the bestowal upon human beings of an immortal soul. Purely a metaphysical concept, and one that empirical observation and other scientific tools have no need to consider.

Well, until human cloning is perfected, and the metaphysicists need to figure out whether a soul inhabits the new person or not, and, if so, where it came from. But human cloning is not exactly something that results from purely naturalistic processes anyway, is it?

And, of course, if I am mistaken, I’m sure that she will be happy to come in and offer clarification. She’s a pretty classy lady that way.

[kaylasdad99]

@Boyo Jim

We have no purpose, there is no point, there is no goal to achieve. Some people have a real problem with this idea – I find it rather comforting.

Sure takes some of the pressure off.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Jragon

I’m not saying I can’t be related to a sea slug I’m just saying I think there’s the chance I’m NOT related to it.

You pretty much have to be. Both humans and sea slugs pass on their genes through DNA. If we are both descended from two independent acts of biogensis, it’s exceedingly unlikely that we would both use the same molecule for genetic coding.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@kaylasdad99

If I’m not mistaken, the only “tweaking” being suggested by Siege is represented by the bestowal upon human beings of an immortal soul. Purely a metaphysical concept, and one that empirical observation and other scientific tools have no need to consider.

Well, until human cloning is perfected, and the metaphysicists need to figure out whether a soul inhabits the new person or not, and, if so, where it came from. But human cloning is not exactly something that results from purely naturalistic processes anyway, is it?

And, of course, if I am mistaken, I’m sure that she will be happy to come in and offer clarification. She’s a pretty classy lady that way.

Sometimes theistic evolutionists will say they can believe a little divine tweaking might come into play with specific mutations. I’m not talking about ID – not new organs or flagellum, just that maybe God bends a genetic twig the tiniest bit in the right direction now and then – perhaps the merest little rotation of a thumb or a little extra skin under an armpit – basically normal random mutations that perhaps aren’t quite so random. . This is still freely admitted to be a faith-based, non-scientific scenario of course. The process would be empirically indistinguishable from non-theistic evolution and is unfalsifiable but it at least doesn’t contradict any of the scientific evidence and is, I think, somewhat satisfying to some people to contemplate the idea that God is still driving the evolution bus in a totally hidden way. Wherever you have randonimity, you have room for God.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Pochacco

You pretty much have to be. Both humans and sea slugs pass on their genes through DNA. If we are both descended from two independent acts of biogensis, it’s exceedingly unlikely that we would both use the same molecule for genetic coding.

And even if we did, that there would be any statistically significant degree of correspondence between the DNA of humans and sea slugs; and yet, we share a substantial amount of common genes. There is virtually no question that all extant forms of life share a common ancestry; both the degree of similitude and the amount of unlikely coincidence in the genome argue against any other conclusion.

Stranger

[MEBuckner]

@Dertulm

The atheist argument…

Arguments about evolution are not about atheism vs. theism. They are either about science vs. pseudoscience, or about good science vs. bad science (theories which have been supported by the evidence vs. theories which have been shown not to be correct).

[Mosier]

@Siege

Shoot! I’d meant to delete that post! Thanks for the laugh, though. For the final example of cute and cuddly mutations, I was going to use Scottish fold cats.

I also don’t see why a creator couldn’t have created the world in its present state by using mechanisms we’re aware of such as evolution, plate tectonics, etc. Being a theistic evolutionist, I wouldn’t rule out a little tweaking, just as man has tweaked the gene pool of various plants and animals over the years. I don’t believe God waved his magick wand and created humans or even complex structures such as eyes. That’s a little too simplistic for my taste and it takes the fun out of figuring out how things came about.

There’s no way to prove that God doesn’t drive evolution in subtle ways that are indestinguishable from natural selection, but Occam taught us that we probably ought to avoid multiplying entities when we’re trying to explain how stuff works.

I’m not really willing to entertain the idea that God fiddles with evolution until I see a reason to consider it. The theory works so far without an intelligent designer, so trying to cram a designer into the explanation for evolution doesn’t really have any argumentative value.

[Siege]

@vison

In Great Debates, am I allowed to say that posts like this make my head feel like it’s going to explode?

Please accept my apologies. I’ll clean up the mess.

Diogenes put things better than I can these days and I thank him for it. (“Randominity”, though? )

[John_Mace]

@Jragon

I have to say, I don’t. Not because I’m a creationist, but because I simply don’t believe it was one little trooper bacterium/organic molecule/whatever that relates you, me, Brad Pitt, my old neighbor’s pet dog, socks the cat, a velociraptor and everything else that can be described as “living.” I think there was multiple reactions of whatever occured to create that first piece that tumbled into a cell that divided etc etc. I’m not saying I can’t be related to a sea slug I’m just saying I think there’s the chance I’m NOT related to it.

I’m not sure how far this different origin thing would go, maybe there are two humans where if you somehow could magically trace them back to that first thing in their “family tree” (so to speak) describable as “organic” you would find they actually are decended from two sligtly different points in time with the same end result, or maybe it just turns out cats and worms aren’t as related to us as we thought we were, though the x amount of entry points have all probably interbred at some point in time.

How would two organism that trace themselves back to different “entry points” be able to interbreed? Impossible. All extant forms of live that we know of share a common ancestor. If there are extant forms of life that don’t, then we haven’t found them yet. If we do find them, they almost certainly won’t look like worms or cats or people.

[nd_n8]

@vison

In Great Debates, am I allowed to say that posts like this make my head feel like it’s going to explode?

“tweaking”? :smack:

I don’t see why people who make statements like these don’t understand that what they are saying makes Science completely irrelevant. What use could Science be in such a universe? Scientists might as well go boil their heads or just mosey over to, I don’t know, working at A & W or something.

I don’t think science is completely irrelevant. Quite the contrary, science is essential. It offers the mechanisms to explain the “What’s” and “How’s”. I’ve often expressed my opinion that the scientific mechanisms so feverently debated are simply tools in God’s hands. It comforts me to think of God as a craftsman more than some magical genie who waves His hand. It’s the mysteries of His craft that I’m interested in.

The “Why’s” are best either left out or left to the philosophers and theologists (and those who steam the dogs at A&W )

[nd_n8]

@Boyo Jim

I’m an atheist and I think science is largely useless. I grant you that it’s an interesting hobby to pursue until you take the dirt sleep. I think believing that science and human endeavor is contributing to some greater human destiny or meaningful future is nearly as delusional as religious faith.

We have no purpose, there is no point, there is no goal to achieve. Some people have a real problem with this idea – I find it rather comforting.

Is it courage or folly to realize that we have no purpose, no point and no ultimate goal yet to live and seek not only to prosper, but to lift our fellows up so they may prosper as well, as if we do?

[Dertulm]

@John Mace

Not with any degree of accuracy. We only know that it happened at least once (assuming we leave out supernatural explanations).

Yeah, I would agree with that assessment. Trying to assign a single probability to the event would be meaningless since it would be based on many unsubstantiated presumptions. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t show the extreme improbability of contingent factors of the advent of life, which is what I was trying to point out. I’ll break it down in more detail:

PA1. The simplest forms of life today are too complex (cell membranes, DNA with more than 400 genes and 50,000 base pairs, metabolism, etc.) to be formed directly from an unguided combination of available composite elements.
PA2. The simplest forms of life arose naturally.
CA. There must have been much simpler forms of life than today’s simplest organisms.

PB1. There must have been simpler forms of life.
PB2. Two intrinsic qualities that distinguish living organisms from non-living are growth through metabolism and reproduction.
CB. There must be a minimum set of coordinated chemical interactions necessary to cause an assemblage of bio-chemicals to have these qualities.

PC1. To evolve from simpler organisms into the more complex kind we observe today, there needs to be a method to achieve greater complexity.
PC2. According to evolutionary biology, this method is genetic mutation in combination with natural selection.
PC3. Mutation and natural selection rely on the presence and transmission of genetic information via DNA or RNA.
PC4. Even in its simplest form, the genetic system used to transmit information which directs biological functions is too complex to arise by an unguided combination of available composite elements.
CC. The current understanding of molecular biology does not explain how the complex organisms we observe today could evolve from proposed “simpler forms of life.”

PD1. The minimum number of genes needed to provide instructions for vital biological functions (growth, metabolism, reproduction) is estimated to be over 200.
PD2. Instructions for these biological functions are meaningless without supporting structures to utilize them (viruses are a good example of DNA without supporting structures; they are inherently dependent on the metabolic and reproductive functions of other organisms).
CD. It is highly improbable that both the system for transmitting instructions and the supporting structures which utilize them would arise from an unguided combination of available composite elements.

Putting it together …
PE1. Life arose naturally.
PE2. The first life forms must have been much simpler than today’s simplest organisms.
PE3. There is a minimum set of coordinated chemical interactions necessary to cause an assemblage of bio-chemicals to grow via metabolism and reproduce.
PE4. The current understanding of molecular biology does not explain how the complex organisms we observe today could evolve from proposed “simpler forms of life.”
PE5. It is highly improbable that both the system for transmitting instructions and the supporting structures which utilize them would arise from an unguided combination of available composite elements.
Conclusion: Current scientific knowledge does not provide an adequate explanation for how even the simplest conceivable living organisms could arise without guidance from an intelligent designer and then evolve into more complex life forms.

@Skald the Rhymer

Has no one brought up the odds of a creator arising existing without antecedent?

That’s what we’re discussing right now. Since evidence for an intelligent creator inevitably takes the form “this could not have happened otherwise,” we are now discussing that evidence. I believe there is a lot of other, non-physical evidence, but I realize that isn’t very convincing to the skeptic who doesn’t accept any supernatural explanations in the first place.

@MrDibble

Why not the eye? Or blood clotting? Or the bombadier beetle? Or anything else out of the Behe/ICR/Gish catalog of stuff that’s been dealt with before?

Because the bacterial flagellum is comparatively simple, and I already had in mind an idea for how to counter it. Unfortunately, I may be without the internet for a day or two. To be continued …

[Dertulm]

Wanted to address one more thing…

@John Mace

Frankly, though, I find the idea of postulated a creator (or intelligent agent who tinkers with genes) to be a cop out. That’s not how science is done.

You are correct. Since, by definition, this creator is supernatural , then it follows that science, which only deals with natural explanations, would not be able to explain it. There seems to be confusion between that which is explainable, and that which is explainable by science. Obviously, science could not explain such a creator, but the creator could explain himself. The atheist argument that “god did it” is not an explanation is only true from a completely naturalistic viewpoint. If there is in fact a supernatural creator, then “god did it” is the only conceivable explanation, and science would never lead you directly to it (although I believe it would steer you in that direction if you did not rule out the possibility from the outset).

[WhyNot]

Dertulm, I’m with you until PC4. Then you make a leap of unsupported assumption that I don’t quite follow.

PC4. Even in its simplest form, the genetic system used to transmit information which directs biological functions is too complex to arise by an unguided combination of available composite elements.

Why?