Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Okay, just clarifying.
Why Evolution is True
- Thread starter Caroljeen
- Start date
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
This 'someone else' you cannot even demonstrate exists.
docphin5
Well-known member
There are arguments for God but probably not anything you would be interested in. I imagine you like to keep things simple. If you cannot subject something to your senses then it doesnt exist. God is intelligible so not physical, although we know about him through the things he has made.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
I am always interested in arguments for the existence of any god. I doubt that you have any that I've not heard, though - that's not a reflection on you, just that there are a finite number and I've heard a lot.
That's nice. Probably best to keep what you imagine to yourself.
You would do well to stop attempting to tell me what and how I think.
No, we don't know about him through the things he has made - you are just begging the question. You must demonstrate his existence before we can talk about what he has made.
docphin5
Well-known member
Right, you don’t. We agree on something.
No I don’t. If you set the goal posts so far away that you can never reach them then you set yourself up for failure. (See above)
If creation itself is part of him and from him then it helps to talk about creation in order to demonstrate him. That is why this discussion of evolution is important because it is a mechanism within creation to bring about the will of God, that is to produce moral beings. If you remove moral beings from the discussion of God then you miss the whole point of creation itself and of God himself. They are intertwined, creation and God.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
You misread (or mistyped). WE don't.
Yes, you do. And since I've not set any goal posts at all, the rest of this paragraph does not make sense.
IF. And before y ou can show that creation itself is a part of him, you need to demonstrate his existence.
All irrelevant until you can demonstrate the existence of this god.
Ha! That's the end of that conversation...
I finished chapter 5 on Natural Selection: The Engine of Evolution
It was just okay. I wasn't as overwhelmed with the evidence as I was in the first 3 chapters. He started out using an example of natural selection that I didn't find convincing (beach mice- pg 126-128) and ended up asking the question "...is natural selection sufficient to explain a really complex organ, such as the eye?...opponents of natural selection claimed that the eye could not have formed by gradual steps. How could "half an eye" be of any use?" (pg 153-154) The chapter also includes explanations and examples of Genetic drift, evolution in animal and plant breeding (this wasn't convincing either as a proof for evolution), evolution in a test tube, drug and poison resistance, selection in the wild and can selection build complexity?
On complexity- Coyne stated, "Hard problems often yield before science, and though we still don't understand how every complex biochemical system evolved, we are learning more every day. After all, biochemical evolution is a field still in its infancy. If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that what conquers our ignorance is research, not giving up and attributing our ignorance to the miraculous work of a creator. When you hear someone claim otherwise, just remember the words of Darwin: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
I think Coyne is trying to rally evolutionists to not be discouraged by their lack of evidence for the evolution of complex biochemical systems which he didn't have real substantial proof at the time of the publication of his book (2009). Though he did have a study that developed a computer-generated model of how the eye might have evolved using types of eyes found in nature from the simple to the more complex. pg 154
I don't agree that science is the be all and end all in explaining life on this planet. I believe God has the ultimate say in regard to the universe we live in. I just don't know how it all fits together.
Coyne sums up this chapter with more on Darwin - "We can't see the Grand Canyon getting deeper, either but gazing into the great abyss, with the Colorado River carving away insensibly below, you learn that most important lesson of Darwinism: weak forces operating over long periods of time create large and dramatic change."
Next up: Chapter 6: How Sex Drives Evolution
It was just okay. I wasn't as overwhelmed with the evidence as I was in the first 3 chapters. He started out using an example of natural selection that I didn't find convincing (beach mice- pg 126-128) and ended up asking the question "...is natural selection sufficient to explain a really complex organ, such as the eye?...opponents of natural selection claimed that the eye could not have formed by gradual steps. How could "half an eye" be of any use?" (pg 153-154) The chapter also includes explanations and examples of Genetic drift, evolution in animal and plant breeding (this wasn't convincing either as a proof for evolution), evolution in a test tube, drug and poison resistance, selection in the wild and can selection build complexity?
On complexity- Coyne stated, "Hard problems often yield before science, and though we still don't understand how every complex biochemical system evolved, we are learning more every day. After all, biochemical evolution is a field still in its infancy. If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that what conquers our ignorance is research, not giving up and attributing our ignorance to the miraculous work of a creator. When you hear someone claim otherwise, just remember the words of Darwin: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
I think Coyne is trying to rally evolutionists to not be discouraged by their lack of evidence for the evolution of complex biochemical systems which he didn't have real substantial proof at the time of the publication of his book (2009). Though he did have a study that developed a computer-generated model of how the eye might have evolved using types of eyes found in nature from the simple to the more complex. pg 154
I don't agree that science is the be all and end all in explaining life on this planet. I believe God has the ultimate say in regard to the universe we live in. I just don't know how it all fits together.
Coyne sums up this chapter with more on Darwin - "We can't see the Grand Canyon getting deeper, either but gazing into the great abyss, with the Colorado River carving away insensibly below, you learn that most important lesson of Darwinism: weak forces operating over long periods of time create large and dramatic change."
Next up: Chapter 6: How Sex Drives Evolution
docphin5
Well-known member
My boss who was a flight surgeon used to say, “We learn more and more about less and less until we know everything about nothing.” How true!
I have heard it said another way, “The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.”
To Coyne’s point, there is an association between religious fundamentalism, education level, and denial of evolution. IOW, People with the least education (i.e., those who actually know less than others) are more likely to be religious fundamentalists and consequently deny evolution. There was a study done several years ago that demonstrated it.
Last edited:
I believe that was Darwin's point. Coyne quotes him frequently in his book.
Temujin
Well-known member
It is also reinforced by the findings of Dunning and Kruger, as well as being demonstrated several times a day on this board.
Obviously, not everyone who has doubts about evolution is a numbskull, just as not everyone who accepts evolution is knowledgeable or suitably modest about their lack of knowledge. It is very clear however that both Darwin's and Coyne's points are illustrated very regularly here.
I respect the atheists and evolutionists on CARM. Most are able to make reasonable and logical arguments for their beliefs.
I had to look up Dunning and Kruger.
Last edited:
Temujin
Well-known member
When a poster takes the trouble to look up a reference that is unfamiliar, no criticism can be applied to them. You don't know everything. I certainly don't know everything. There is a difference between those who come here hoping to learn and those who come here to demonstrate that in their view, they have nothing to learn.
Criticism is expected in this type of forum.
Chapter 6- How sex drives Evolution
"...the currency of selection is not really survival, but successful reproduction."(page 161) I don't remember my science teacher stressing this point when he taught evolution. But it makes sense. The only way to pass along advantageous traits is to reproduce. " Sexual selection is simply selection that increases an individual's change of getting a mate. It's really just a subset of natural selection..." (pg 161)
Sexual selection is used two different ways, 1. a trait that is used for direct competition between males for access to females or 2. the females choose among possible mates. Examples were the size of the male elk antlers to fight with in order to become an alpha male with more chances for reproduction or the number of eyes on the male peacock's tail feathers in order to seduce the females. Coyne gave plenty of examples and research.
Sexual dimorphism- traits that differ between males and females of a species all for the sake of drawing the opposite sex to themselves to reproduce and pass on genes that make the species naturally stronger to survive. Coyne had much to say about dimorphism but to my surprise he didn't mention pheromones nor any amount a pleasure a species might have when they mate as being a cause for one member of a species to mate with a certain member of the opposite sex of the same species.
Coyne presented an interesting argument for "Why sex?" by presenting the case for reproducing parthenogenetically vs sexual. (pg 168-169).
For a chapter on sex, it was somewhat boring. He didn't touch on humans in this chapter. That comes later in the last chapter.
The next chapter is called, The Origin of Species. Chapter 7
"...the currency of selection is not really survival, but successful reproduction."(page 161) I don't remember my science teacher stressing this point when he taught evolution. But it makes sense. The only way to pass along advantageous traits is to reproduce. " Sexual selection is simply selection that increases an individual's change of getting a mate. It's really just a subset of natural selection..." (pg 161)
Sexual selection is used two different ways, 1. a trait that is used for direct competition between males for access to females or 2. the females choose among possible mates. Examples were the size of the male elk antlers to fight with in order to become an alpha male with more chances for reproduction or the number of eyes on the male peacock's tail feathers in order to seduce the females. Coyne gave plenty of examples and research.
Sexual dimorphism- traits that differ between males and females of a species all for the sake of drawing the opposite sex to themselves to reproduce and pass on genes that make the species naturally stronger to survive. Coyne had much to say about dimorphism but to my surprise he didn't mention pheromones nor any amount a pleasure a species might have when they mate as being a cause for one member of a species to mate with a certain member of the opposite sex of the same species.
Coyne presented an interesting argument for "Why sex?" by presenting the case for reproducing parthenogenetically vs sexual. (pg 168-169).
For a chapter on sex, it was somewhat boring. He didn't touch on humans in this chapter. That comes later in the last chapter.
The next chapter is called, The Origin of Species. Chapter 7
rossum
Well-known member
... and flying fish, which are water-up gliders.
I'm struggling reading this chapter on, The origin of species, in which the author is explaining HOW species evolved with a couple of different theories, biological and geographical. I keeps putting me to sleep. I don't even want to discuss it. I have 4 pages left.
The next chapter is on the evolution of man. It will be the most difficult thing for me to accept.
The next chapter is on the evolution of man. It will be the most difficult thing for me to accept.
There was one thing I found interesting in chapter 7 and was wondering how I could find out more. On page 196 Coyne wrote, "The second prediction of the theory involves geography itself. If populations must usually be physically isolated from one another to become species [prevents reproductive intermixing and therefore DNA intermixing], then we should find the most recently formed species in different but nearby areas. You can get a rough idea of how long ago species arose by looking at the amount of difference in their DNA sequences, which is roughly proportional to the time elapsed since they split from a common ancestor..."
I'd like more of an explanation on how they arrive at the time between the amount of differences in their DNA sequences. He is talking about millions of years. How can this be estimated on DNA differences? I think it must be based on the age of divergent fossils and then related somehow to their DNA.
Last edited: