Why Evolution is True

[Caroljeen]

That is not an argument about life, it is an argument about categories, in effect a meta-argument. If we are playing with categories, then I am the first life; the first in the "rossum-life" category.


Nevertheless it is contradictory. If God is a living God, then He did not create all life. He can only have created all life except Himself. If God is either non-living or is Himself created, then there is less of a contradiction. Perhaps better to phrase it as, "God created all other life."

If I say God created all other life and He himself is eternal which means he is uncreated, would that make a difference?

I would have a created life category and then have a numerical order of every person (human,angel) in the order they were created. God would not be in that category. You and I would be in that category.

 

[rossum]

If I say God created all other life and He himself is eternal which means he is uncreated, would that make a difference?

Yes. That statement does not contain a logical error.

 

[ferengi]

Yes. That statement does not contain a logical error.

She did it again - ros claims - The first life formed by chemistry

PROVE IT

 

[Caroljeen]

She did it again - ros claims - The first life formed by chemistry

PROVE IT

She didn't say that.

 

[ferengi]

She didn't say that.

Your evidence is?

 

[Caroljeen]

Did anyone read chapter 1?
I have some comments and questions about the 6 principles of the theory of evolution: Evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change and a comment on scientific theories.
I'll be back later today to explore these with anyone who is interested.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Did anyone read chapter 1?
I have some comments and questions about the 6 principles of the theory of evolution: Evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change and a comment on scientific theories.
I'll be back later today to explore these with anyone who is interested.

I read the book a while ago, and I just recently went through chapter 1, I'm happy to discuss it.

 

[Caroljeen]

I read the book a while ago, and I just recently went through chapter 1, I'm happy to discuss it.

Great!

I'll start off the conversation by addressing one of his digs against creationism on page 13.

Do you agree with the author that imperfections are a sign that we are not created by intelligent design because if there is an intelligent designer shouldn't we have been created perfect?
He uses the examples of the awkwardness of the fins on turtles especially those who have to dig in the sand to bury their eggs leaving their eggs on the sand exposed and unprotected from predators. Why didn't the creator design fins to be more scoopable?
The other example was that of male testicles stating that "No intelligent designer would have given us this tortuous testicular journey." LOL!!! Do you agree with his assessment? Would you prefer your testes to be internalized? Don't most males have a penchant for fondling their testes?
My continued gripe that I bring before God is "why buggers?"

 

[Temujin]

Great!

I'll start off the conversation by addressing one of his digs against creationism on page 13.

Do you agree with the author that imperfections are a sign that we are not created by intelligent design because if there is an intelligent designer shouldn't we have been created perfect?
He uses the examples of the awkwardness of the fins on turtles especially those who have to dig in the sand to bury their eggs leaving their eggs on the sand exposed and unprotected from predators. Why didn't the creator design fins to be more scoopable?
The other example was that of male testicles stating that "No intelligent designer would have given us this tortuous testicular journey." LOL!!! Do you agree with his assessment? Would you prefer your testes to be internalized? Don't most males have a penchant for fondling their testes?
My continued gripe that I bring before God is "why buggers?"

Please, before going any further, please explain what you think a "bugger" is? Because I hope to goodness it isn't what I think it is.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Great!

I'll start off the conversation by addressing one of his digs against creationism on page 13.

Do you agree with the author that imperfections are a sign that we are not created by intelligent design because if there is an intelligent designer shouldn't we have been created perfect?
He uses the examples of the awkwardness of the fins on turtles especially those who have to dig in the sand to bury their eggs leaving their eggs on the sand exposed and unprotected from predators. Why didn't the creator design fins to be more scoopable?

I agree with his assessment, but there is a necessary idea that he didn't include. In order for a claim to make logical sense, you have to be able to say why it is necessary that, by the claim, we must see A and we must not see B. That makes the claim falsifiable. Otherwise, we could claim all sorts of mutually contradictory things ("Yahweh designed everything" - "Krishna designed everything" - etc.) and there's nothing we could point to on the ground that could disprove - falsify - any of those claims. The problem with the intelligent design theory is that it never says what we must necessarily see and what we could not ever see; what the designer would *have* to design and what the designer *could not* design.

Imperfections are the thing that we *would* necessarily see under evolution. But they are not necessary under intelligent design.

The other example was that of male testicles stating that "No intelligent designer would have given us this tortuous testicular journey." LOL!!! Do you agree with his assessment? Would you prefer your testes to be internalized? Don't most males have a penchant for fondling their testes?

Where angels fear to tread: Of course I'd prefer internal testes. The pain of getting hit in them is, in my characterization, a *deep* pain. I've got plenty or other things - well, at least one - I could be fondling anyway. ; )

 

[Caroljeen]

Please, before going any further, please explain what you think a "bugger" is? Because I hope to goodness it isn't what I think it is.

I meant "booger".

I sincerely apologize for my inappropriate comment about testes. I was thinking of my older son. I should have just kept it in the family.

 

[Caroljeen]

I agree with his assessment, but there is a necessary idea that he didn't include. In order for a claim to make logical sense, you have to be able to say why it is necessary that, by the claim, we must see A and we must not see B. That makes the claim falsifiable. Otherwise, we could claim all sorts of mutually contradictory things ("Yahweh designed everything" - "Krishna designed everything" - etc.) and there's nothing we could point to on the ground that could disprove - falsify - any of those claims. The problem with the intelligent design theory is that it never says what we must necessarily see and what we could not ever see; what the designer would *have* to design and what the designer *could not* design.

Imperfections are the thing that we *would* necessarily see under evolution. But they are not necessary under intelligent design.

True. But God did say that everything he made was good. Things became corrupted after the fall.

Where angels fear to tread: Of course I'd prefer internal testes. The pain of getting hit in them is, in my characterization, a *deep* pain. I've got plenty or other things - well, at least one - I could be fondling anyway. ; )

I'm not sure the fall would have any impact on the shape of flippers on turtles or external vs internal testes, though. I'm also not sure that either is a bad thing.
I sincerely apologize for typing that. It wasn't appropriate. Unfortunately I left after I posted it and just got home now.

 

[Gus Bovona]

True. But God did say that everything he made was good. Things became corrupted after the fall.

Unfortunately, there's not sufficient evidence that the fall took place. Consider, for instance, Genesis. That's not enough, as Hogwarts would be just as real on that basis.

If you claim that the Yahweh is real, and therefore the fall took place, you've made a leap between Yahweh being real and the fall taking place that isn't sufficiently supported. Yahweh could be real but Genesis be wrong about the fall. Yahweh could have reasons beyond our understanding to let a mistake be included in Genesis. Same for using the resurrection to justify the reality of the fall.

Ultimately, it's the same problem of falsifiability. It has to come back to the designer, despite inserting things like the fall that rely on that particular designer, and Yahweh is the ultimate in unfalsifiability, given "reasons beyond our understanding," "morally sufficient reasons to allow gratuitous suffering," etc. What state of affairs about anything would be impossible in our world if it had been created by Yahweh? How should we limit what Yahweh can and can't do? We can't, by definition.

 

[Caroljeen]

Once again, the author, speculates as to the start of the evolutionary process...perhaps a self-replicating molecule--that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection...Evolution simply means that a species undergoes genetic change over time...which originates in mutations.

I'm hesitant to react to much of what he says in this chapter because he didn't present the evidence in my opinion that would make evolution a fact. I might wait and see what he has to say in the next few chapters.

I did think his missing link discussion on page 6 was unconvincing, "The common ancestor X is often called the "missing link" between descendant groups. It is the genealogical connection between birds and modern reptiles---the intersection you'd finally reach if you traced their lineages all the way back...But although common ancestors are no longer with us, and their fossils nearly impossible to document (after all, they represent but a single species out of thousands in the fossil record), we can sometimes discover fossils closely related to them, species having features that show common ancestry." To me, what he wrote on speciation sounded very speculative and yet the author chooses to say that evolution is a fact and is true.

I think this, speciation, is the hardest pill to swallow. I realize he stresses the time it takes to evolve from a reptile to a bird but at this point I find it unlikely.

 

[Caroljeen]

Unfortunately, there's not sufficient evidence that the fall took place. Consider, for instance, Genesis. That's not enough, as Hogwarts would be just as real on that basis.

I'm not yet convinced that evolution has sufficient evidence to support it being a fact at this point either.

If you claim that the Yahweh is real, and therefore the fall took place, you've made a leap between Yahweh being real and the fall taking place that isn't sufficiently supported. Yahweh could be real but Genesis be wrong about the fall. Yahweh could have reasons beyond our understanding to let a mistake be included in Genesis. Same for using the resurrection to justify the reality of the fall.

I understand you want evidence for the existence of YHWH, the veracity of the Bible stories, and the resurrection. I believe they are true because I have been given personal subjective evidence over and over that God exists, Jesus exists and the gospel is true by God. As for "mistakes" in the Bible, that would be the work of fallible men. It doesn't lessen the truths that are contained in the Bible.

Ultimately, it's the same problem of falsifiability. It has to come back to the designer, despite inserting things like the fall that rely on that particular designer, and Yahweh is the ultimate in unfalsifiability, given "reasons beyond our understanding," "morally sufficient reasons to allow gratuitous suffering," etc. What state of affairs about anything would be impossible in our world if it had been created by Yahweh? How should we limit what Yahweh can and can't do? We can't, by definition.

Okay then. Let's stick to discussing what is in the book. Do you believe evolution is true?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Once again, the author, speculates as to the start of the evolutionary process...perhaps a self-replicating molecule--that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection...Evolution simply means that a species undergoes genetic change over time...which originates in mutations.

I'm hesitant to react to much of what he says in this chapter because he didn't present the evidence in my opinion that would make evolution a fact. I might wait and see what he has to say in the next few chapters.

I think the first chapter's purpose is to define what the theory of evolution is: what the primary parts of it are. The evidence for each part comes later, IIRC.

I did think his missing link discussion on page 6 was unconvincing, "The common ancestor X is often called the "missing link" between descendant groups. It is the genealogical connection between birds and modern reptiles---the intersection you'd finally reach if you traced their lineages all the way back...But although common ancestors are no longer with us, and their fossils nearly impossible to document (after all, they represent but a single species out of thousands in the fossil record), we can sometimes discover fossils closely related to them, species having features that show common ancestry." To me, what he wrote on speciation sounded very speculative and yet the author chooses to say that evolution is a fact and is true.

I think this, speciation, is the hardest pill to swallow. I realize he stresses the time it takes to evolve from a reptile to a bird but at this point I find it unlikely.

Why do you think speciation is unlikely? Remember, speciation can take thousands of years, or more, so the role those time scales can sometimes play can escape us because we can't really grasp how long that period of time is.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I'm not yet convinced that evolution has sufficient evidence to support it being a fact at this point either.

Whether evolution has sufficient evidence for it is a separate question from whether the fall has sufficient evidence for it. The evidence for each should be examined without reference to the evidence for the other. It has to stand or fall on it own.

I understand you want evidence for the existence of YHWH, the veracity of the Bible stories, and the resurrection. I believe they are true because I have been given personal subjective evidence over and over that God exists, Jesus exists and the gospel is true by God.

But personal subjective evidence can play no role in determining what has objectively happened, and that includes the fall. How could it? If we allow personal subjective evidence in, then we have to admit evidence that directly and fully contradicts other evidence. My personal subjective experience may well directly and absolutely contradict yours. But reality isn't like that. In reality, if we see absolutely contradictory evidence, we know something is wrong with the evidence, not reality.

As for "mistakes" in the Bible, that would be the work of fallible men. It doesn't lessen the truths that are contained in the Bible.

But that doesn't prevent the story of the fall being the work of fallible men.

Okay then. Let's stick to discussing what is in the book. Do you believe evolution is true?

The best single piece of evidence for evolution - and it doesn't just rest on a single piece of evidence - isn't covered very well in the book. In fact, I don't find it in the index. It's called the double nested hierarchy. It means that we have two independent lines of evidence that predict successfully the same nested hierarchy of the descent and ancestry of species against fantastic odds if it were due to chance: "Seventy-five independent studies from different researchers, on different organisms and genes, with high values of CI (P < 0.01) is an incredible confirmation with an astronomical degree of combined statistical significance (P << 10-300, Bailey and Gribskov 1998; Fisher 1990)." (from the double nested hierarchy link earlier)

 

[Caroljeen]

I think the first chapter's purpose is to define what the theory of evolution is: what the primary parts of it are. The evidence for each part comes later, IIRC.

Good.

Why do you think speciation is unlikely? Remember, speciation can take thousands of years, or more, so the role those time scales can sometimes play can escape us because we can't really grasp how long that period of time is.

It's all speculation and possibilities. Millions and billions of years...very difficult to grasp that amount of time.

"All scientific truth is provisional, subject to modification in light of new evidence." pg 16
He is basically saying that truth can be false if something new comes along to disprove it. It would be better to stay away from the word "truth" and use uncertain language. How can someone that does that be trusted?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Good.

It's all speculation and possibilities. Millions and billions of years...very difficult to grasp that amount of time.

I see two different things you could be meaning here. Do you mean a lack of practically any evidence, or do you mean lack of direct evidence which requires inference?

"All scientific truth is provisional, subject to modification in light of new evidence." pg 16
He is basically saying that truth can be false if something new comes along to disprove it. It would be better to stay away from the word "truth" and use uncertain language.

I think he means "truth in so far as we can see it." It's not the truth changing, but just what we think is the truth.

How can someone that does that be trusted?

He's writing colloquially, not for an academic audience, but for general readership. He also qualified "truth" with "scientific," so there's that.

This is not a hill I would die on, though. I'm willing to accept that someone could have a problem with him using the word "truth," but that should not count very much against the evidence for evolution that he will lay out. And, it's not about trusting him. Evolution is true not because we trust Jerry Coyne, but because we trust science, because it's the best method so far of figuring out objective truth, even if flawed humans have to carry it out. But science does have a self-correcting mechanism built into it.

 

[Temujin]

I meant "booger".

I sincerely apologize for my inappropriate comment about testes. I was thinking of my older son. I should have just kept it in the family.

Don't for goodness sake apologise. That is normal amusing human behaviour. No gone thinks any the less of you for it. The reverse in fact.

I apologise for jumping on your use of a word, which I knew you had got wrong, in a way that any Brit would find hilarious and shocking at the same time. We use English differently. What you all booger, we call bogeys. I don't know what you call buggers, but to a Brit, it's not a word you would use in company, even company with which you might say booger and joke about testes.

Let's draw a line and get back to the subject in hand.