What would it take to make you believe in evolution?

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by andros *
**

the world could have been created with al the evidence for evolution already in place

This is also known, somewhat disparagingly, as “Last-Thursdayism.” For all we know, we, the Earth, and the Universe might have been created, in situ, last Thursday. We’d never know, as our memories of events prior to last Thursday would be suspect–it’s all stored in our wetware, which was after all created only last Thursday.

It’s an idea that IMO defies intelligent design. Why, oh why, would God create so much evidence and give us the brains to interpret it, except as a cosmic joke? Sorry, but my god doesn’t screw with people’s heads. **

Did you stop reading my post after you came to the sentence that you quoted?

This post seems to be in line with your first one.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Mauve Dog *
It seems to me that you were implying that evolutionists are trying to prove something, when, in general, they are not (there may well be some individuals who attempt to offer ‘proof’ that evolution is ‘true’, but in my opinion, such individuals are misguided)…No, science is not about proof. It is about providing the best explanation for how the universe works, based upon the information at hand. When more information comes to light, the explanation can, and does, change. There is no ‘truth’ in science, only in philosophy.

My comments are from the perspective of someone who has reason to believe that evolution is not true, and is comparing strength of evidence on either side. It is not important whether “science” is involved in proving evolution or not, but for the individual to satisfy himself that the evidence for Hypothesis A is overwhelming, by comparison to the evidence for Hypothesis B.

Also note that only alternative scientific scenarios need be addressed. If the alternative is neither testable nor verifiable, then it has no place in a scientific discussion. Creation is neither testable nor verifiable (being a matter of faith), so scientists are not obligated to give it any real consideration. At least not in a scientific context.

This is not surprising. But from the perspective of someone who would give credence to things which are not “science” this lessens the degree of significance that one might give to the scientific conclusion.

**Surely you cannot believe that the conclusions of every field of science are equally valid. There are some fields that lend themselves to verification more than others. **

I certainly do believe that. Why shouldn’t I? Just because some fields lend themselves more easily to verification does not make the conclusions reached by the other fields invalid. Scientists who study historical sciences have the disadvantage that they are unable to observe firsthand many of the phenomena they are studying. However, this still does not invalidate their conclusions. The scientific method still works; hypotheses can be created and tested, and theories created. How does this make their conclusions less valid than those of, say, physics?

I think we might be talking about two different concepts. You seem to be dwelling on the propriety (or correctness of approach) of scientists treating different fields. (This, in fact seems to underline much of your post). I am unconcerned about this. I am concerned solely with the likelihood of the scientific conclusion being right. If two scientists use the exact same methodology in fields which have different levels of testability, they may both be justified in using their conclusions as working hypotheses. But the level of certainty which can be assigned to their conclusions will differ.

[vanilla]

From Washington: When it comes to teaching evolution, Ohio hasn’t come very far, a national study charged.
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation gave Ohio and a dozen other states flunking grades on the basis of how well evolution is included in the states science education standards.

California, Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Rhode Island received the highest rank for teaching evolution.
Kansas, whose standards were desrcibed as disgraceful, got the lowest grade (what a surprise).

Linda Holloway, former chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education, said the report was very unfair. Clearly they have an axe to grind about evolution, she said.

[pepperlandgirl]

I have been following this thread which much interest, and I’m still unclear on the concept that some posters insist on keeping. That concept: Science is about proving something. What is to prove?
Let’s say I’m watching a piece of grass, over an extended amount of time. I don’t have to prove that the grass is growing. However, I would be eager to find out WHY the grass is growing. Scientists don’t have to prove evolution, they can see it occurring. They are simply trying to find out why and how it’s occurring.
Or I could be wrong. If so, please don’t flame me. This is just IMHO.

Also, Izzy, I was eager to see how you would reply to the questions somebody asked (Sorry, forgot who) about how you felt about geology and astronomy. If the world is only about 10,000 years old, why are they geological records that offer evidence the world is 4.5 billion years old? And how do you explain the millions/billions of years it takes for a light from the stars to reach us? Instead of answering these questions (Maybe you didn’t understand them?) you replied with this

It seems to me that most of the issues you raise presuppose that rocks were formed from some
process that takes eons, etc. If one assumes that they were created as rocks then the standard
methods of dating might not apply.

                     I think there was actually a guy by the name of Gosse who proposed, about a hundred years ago,
                     that the world could have been created with al the evidence for evolution already in place. This
                     was widely ridiculed - as others pointed out, the world could have been created last week by this
                     logic. So if the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, I would say this doesn't hold
                     water. But if it is more ambigous, than it is conceivable to apply a similar logic to geological
                     dating, and the like.

                     (BTW, how does the sun revolving around the earth come into play?) 

Not only do you completely disregard the evidence that it does take eons for rocks to grow, you bring up a “widely ridiculed” theory that has little bearing to this arguement. Not only that, you apply to science today. This is frustrating me, because instead of issuing forth logical responses to the questions, you come up with this drivel. I badly want to see you put up a good debate, and so far I have been disappointed.
But the “BTW, how does the sun revolving around the earth come into play?” really takes the cake. Sir, he was referring to the millions of stars in the galaxy and the universe that the Teeming Millions gaze upon with wonder, on a nightly basis. You do realize that it takes millions/billions of years for the light to reach the Earth? One could say that we are simply looking back in time when gazing at the stars. If the Earth is 10,000 years old, how do you explain that? A simple “Well, that’s the way God wants it”?

I am not a sceptic, and I do believe in God. However, evolution and God are not exclusive of each other (as other posters have pointed out). And as far as I know, though I will admit my knowledge on such matters is limited, God has issued forth no commandment that we musn’t learn about the world around us. God created a beautiful, stunning, complex Universe, with many mysteries and nuances. Not only that, He gave us a brain capable of asking questions and seeking answers. It is almost a sin to mock God by not using the brains He so thoughtfully provided us. Why would God give us the ability to question and understand the majestic, mysterious world around us, if He didn’t want us to?

[andros]

Did you stop reading my post after you came to the sentence that you quoted?

This post seems to be in line with your first one.

Sigh.

Izzy, I was expanding on one of your points. I was not addressing my post to you. My post on “Last Thursdayism” in no way denied, negated, or challenged your previous statements.

I’m sorry that you chose to think I was being an asshole. I believe that to have been an incorrect choice on your part. And as a result of that choice you have again ignored all substance in your dismissal of my words as insipid. It’s fairly clear to me that you have no desire to listen to what I have to say without taking offense. I’m over it.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by andros *
I was expanding on one of your points. I was not addressing my post to you. My post on “Last Thursdayism” in no way denied, negated, or challenged your previous statements.

I don’t mind if you deny, negate or challenge any statement that I make. But I brought up the identical point that you made, in the sentence immediately after the one that you quoted, and addressed the issue in the sentences that followed. When you chose to quote only one sentence and restate my other words as if I had not said them, you did not seem to be looking to add anything new.

I’m sorry that you chose to think I was being an asshole. I believe that to have been an incorrect choice on your part. And as a result of that choice you have again ignored all substance in your dismissal of my words as insipid. It’s fairly clear to me that you have no desire to listen to what I have to say without taking offense. I’m over it.

Well, I’m certainly sorry if my assumption was incorrect. But I did address the substance of your points earlier.

[Satan]

I would just like to say that the post by Rev. Mykeru on the second page of this thread was probably the best first post from anyone I’ve ever seen on this board or any other.

Please, do stick around for post number two, Rev. If not more…

---

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, two weeks, four days, 16 hours, 33 minutes and 27 seconds.
6867 cigarettes not smoked, saving $858.45.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 15 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **

[andros]

Kdapt on a pony, Izzy, get off it. I don’t give a rat’s arse about making you happy. I happen to like the idea of Last Thursdayism, I like talking about it. If you don’t think it’s a contribution to the discussion, simply ignore it. But don’t make the mistake of seeing insult where there is none.

[hardcore]

IzzyR said, while discussing the age of the earth:

**It seems to me that most of the issues you raise presuppose that rocks were formed from some process that takes eons, etc. If one assumes that they were created as rocks then the standard methods of dating might not apply. **

So it seems you do have problems with science outside of biology. But you make the common mistake of assuming your conclusion (i.e. rocks were created magically) to justify dismissing the evidence. I see you didn’t address the other items, so I’ll assume you consider them to have been created in place also. This means the light from distant stars must have been created in route, fossils from nonexistent dinosaurs were placed in the earth, and all evidence of a global flood was magically removed. What purpose would your deity have to be so deceitful?

(BTW, how does the sun revolving around the earth come into play?)

I am referencing previous religious objections to scientific findings that have since been resolved. Galileo met with resistance from the Church, which supposed that verses such as Joshua 10:12 indicated the sun orbited the earth. Other verses like Psalm 93:1, 96:10 and 104:5 have been used to support geocentrism. Obviously I am trying to draw a parallel between a previous reconciliation with science, which was of no detriment to the Church, and the issue of evolution.

Either evidence is persuasive or its not. It has nothing to do with whether you know what else would be persuasive.

But if (almost) every scientist agrees the evidence is persuasive, yet you lack the imagination to describe what you personally would find convincing, it is time to admit your objections have no scientific validity and are based purely on religious beliefs. If fact, you confessed as much later in your post, just as I suspected. That’s all well and good, and I have no wish to debate your religious beliefs (not now, anyway). But if you wish to discuss your position logically (re: evolution is an incorrect model), you must define what would falsify your stance.

I have never started a thread challenging anyone to convince me about evolution. All I’ve done is to bring up specific points about evolution, and in some cases (as in this one) responded to questions from others. I have dealt with all these issues in a straightforward manner. I did not just say “that’s weak” in response to specific points raised.

Now you are just rambling. Participating in a thread with a title such as this one, while taking a stand in direct opposition to the current scientific consensus on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance – that’s not a challenge?? What does the fact that you didn’t start the thread have to do with anything? And to the issue about your characterization of points as “weak”, what did you mean by this? (italics by me)

Originally posted by IzzyR
But there was also alot of evidence that struck me as circular reasoning, and led me to suspect that the evidence (in general) was weaker than people would have you believe.

I interpret that statement to mean you consider the evidence for evolution “weak”.

It seems to me that much of science that “proves” evolution is of the “if not for evolution why would God have done such and such?” variety. In most instances, it actually seems like the logical thing to do in any event. So I think these are accepted as “proof” of evolution because scientists have gotten so used to describing these phenomena in evolutionary terms that they take for granted that they are connected to evolution. In this regard they represent circular reasoning.

You are confusing arguments with evidence. The arguments you describe are usually presented in response to Creationist’s claims that the evidence was created in situ, thereby deceiving the scientists. Disregarding for the moment what this illustrates about said Creator, these arguments do not represent evidence for evolution. They simply indicate ridicule for the Creationist’s untenable position. Taken as an argument for the non-existence of God, then I might agree they represent circular reasoning.

The same would also apear to be true about claims that rejection of evolution results in the rejection of much of science. This is true from the perspective of an evolutionist, who believes that these other areas of science tie in to evolution. From the perpective of a non-evolutionist, it does not follow.

But it would appear you do reject much of science for the same reasons you reject evolution (re: it conflicts with your religious beliefs). Geology, astronomy, anthropology, archeology are each dismissed in the same manner. You even indicated that you reject geology because the evidence for evolution was ambiguous.

But I think my religious beliefs are correct. And if a religion requires belief in something that can be conclusively shown to be false, than that religion should be rejected.

I feel I am dancing on thin ice here, but I must take issue with this. Christianity once (sort of) required its adherents to believe the earth to be the center of the universe. Once this was proven false, should the religion have been rejected? Can’t dogma “evolve” over time to accommodate current scientific thinking?

[capacitor]

*Originally posted by Ben *
**
While you’re calculating, capacitor, let me ask you this:

suppose a frameshift mutation completely randomizes the sequence of a protein in a bacterium. What is the probability that the resulting protein will serve a useful function for the bacterium? Could one rationally expect such a useful mutation to occur within the lifetime of the universe?

-Ben **

No, because it is more likely that this mutation shift would be disruptive to the protein sequence, thus creating more likely mutations not conducive to the growth and number fo the bacterium. That famous fruit fly experiment successfully made mutants, but all of the mutated fruit flies were determined to be inferior to the original (bad eyes, deformed wings, etc.) That was an organized mutation process.

[capacitor]

BTW, thank you all for releasing me from the misconception of evolution based purely by chance.

[Palm_Cove]

Is there any hope of fighting deliberate ignorance?

Simply stating that evolution is too improbable to have occured is NOT evidence to support creationism. Not evidence, not proof, not even correct.

Creationists in this thread have still not provided any evidence to support their theory. Never have, never will.

[edwino]

That famous fruit fly experiment successfully made mutants, but all of the mutated fruit flies were determined to be inferior to the original (bad eyes, deformed wings, etc.) That was an organized mutation process. **

Which experiment are you referring to?

When you state that they were “inferior”, who was the judge of that?

You would have to strictly define a selection criterion in order to define “inferior” versus “superior”. I know of at least one experiment where flies have been bred to have longer lifespans. But a chance mutation induced by standard mutagenesis is unlikely to cause a “benefit” because we are not selecting for it.

It sounds like what you have described is a simple mutagenesis where people look for a visible phenotype, or a change in body shape. The people examining then are responsible for assigning “good” versus “bad.” Now, labs are geared up to work with wild-type fruit flies. So, by definition, in a lab, nothing will survive better than a wild-type fruit fly, because that is the reference we used to build the lab. Now, if you mutagenize, and move the flies into 29 deg C (flies are normally happiest at 25 C, and that’s usually the temperature of the lab) I bet you can isolate flies which live better than “wild-type” at 29 deg C.

When we mutagenize in the lab, we specifically look for “bad eyes”. In the broadest sense, we throw away all the flies with “good eyes” and keep the ones with “bad eyes”, therefore a mutation making a fly have “bad eyes” is beneficial for that fly. In the broadest sense, this is a “beneficial” mutation which causes a “superior” fly. Lots of quotes, because these terms have all got flexible definitions.

[edwino]

Oh, and another shot about those who claim that evolution, unlike other fields of biology, has not produced any significant gains in medical fields :

In the 1980s, people studying breast cancer in rats identified a growth factor released by the tumors. They characterized the growth factor, and found similar proteins in humans. They predicted that these existed due to you guessed it, evolution.

One of the proteins they discovered was platelet derived growth factor (PDGF). It has taken 20 years, but a recombinant human PDGF fragment is now available as a drug called Regranex (becaplermin), which is used to regrow skin around diabetic foot ulcers.

This is not an exception. The drugs of the future will mostly be made like this. In fact, Celera Genomics (the private company involved in partially leading the project to sequence the human genome) has started to make a profit on selling these same possible growth factors and growth factor receptors to drug companies. How do they know that some uncharacterized string of letters coming out of a sequencing machine is the DNA sequence for a growth factor receptor? You guessed it, evolution. They know sequences from mice and fruit flies (in which most of these molecules were discovered and characterized) and they predict the human sequence based on homology.

So, just like those opposed to animal research: my answer to them is, if you don’t like testing drugs on animals, then don’t use the drugs. To the creationists, if you don’t like the theories used to find the drugs (and believe that furthering these fields is against the word of God), then don’t use the drugs. The profits will just be used to do further R&D and more evolution research.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**
No, because it is more likely that this mutation shift would be disruptive to the protein sequence, thus creating more likely mutations not conducive to the growth and number fo the bacterium. **

Nonetheless, there is an observed case of a bacterium experiencing a mutation which created a totally random sequence of amino acids, and that random sequence enabled the bacterium to digest the vinyl molecules in its polluted pond. Natural selection then improved that enzyme until it became quite efficient.

Now do you understand why we keep telling you that your calculations are all wrong? No only do they proceed from a completely mistaken understanding of science, they arrive at conclusions that are completely at odds with reality.

-Ben

[Ben]

Capacitor, are you still there? For that matter, is IzzyR still these? I’d still like to see what you make of protein homology. For that matter, I’d like to see what capacitor makes of a known instance of a random protein evolving a useful function.

-Ben

[glee]

Sorry if I’ve missed anything earlier.

It seems to me that the answer to the thread title for religious creationists is ‘nothing’.

After all, if God created all the rocks to include ‘aging’ evidence, created all the light from the distant stars to simulate distance (and therefore time) etc, then no proof will ever be accepted.
Perhaps, as someone mentioned earlier, a personal appearance by God?

capacitor,

you posted ‘BTW, thank you all for releasing me from the misconception of evolution based purely by chance.’

Assume that life + evolution existed everywhere in the Universe. Assume it all proceeded by chance, and unsuccessful evolution caused life on that particular planet to die. We, of course, are the only successful one! Now your calculations of the chance of evolution must include the number of planets. This increases the probability of ‘evolution by chance’ considerably.

[jab1]

You heard me.

Some are skeptical that life could originate without Divine Intervention. (Yeah, I know that’s really abiogenesis. Work with me here.)

Some are skeptical that modern humans could evolve from primitive ones.

Some are skeptical that speciation has ever been observed, either in nature or in the laboratory.

Some are skeptical that DNA could develop in the time that the Earth has existed. (Subject of current thread over at Left Behind.com)

Some are skeptical that the Earth is 4.25 billion years old, give or take a wild weekend.

Some are skeptical that the Earth did not naturally find its way into its current orbit.

Worst of all, some are skeptical that any human being (or group of humans) is intelligent enough to figure out How It All Works. Why? If they can’t figure it out, no one else can. (Remember, all unexplained phenomena are The Works of God Almighty.)

I’ve debated creationists here and on Left Behind and In Real Life, and that is the only conclusion I can come to. THEY are the skeptical, stubborn, closed-minded ones, not evolutionists. But all too often we are the ones labeled “closed-minded.”

Sorry. It’s the other way around.

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
**THEY are the skeptical, stubborn, closed-minded ones, not evolutionists. But all too often we are the ones labeled “closed-minded.”

Sorry. It’s the other way around. **

While I agree with your sentiments jab1, I strongly disagree with anything that equates skepticism with close-mindedness.

[David_B]

I (obviously) need to chime in and agree with Pthalis.