Confused about evolution

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I've said nothing of the sort. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith in a Creator. I also agree that such faith seems logical.

What I do stress, on the other hand, is that religiously motivated attacks on evolution are rooted in deception, distortion, poor reasoning, and in misunderstanding both of science and of scriptures.

The consequen ...[text shortened]... place a terribly high value on engineers who are able to build bombs and bomb delivery systems.

Ohhh. I am sorry then. I thought you believed in evolution as a fact. I am sorry.

Im glad to know that you see faith as logical.
I have mentioned that I am a religious person and that I have read both creationists book and and evolution books.
I have tried to keep a balanced view.

I have conlcuded that it isnt logical to believe evolution.

I do hope some day, many will see this.

Goodbye. Tim.

Originally posted by Phledos
What about the logical evidence that a design must have a designer.

Do you not think its logical to believe that one person created 1 item.

If not, what you are saying is more outrageous. You are saying that no one created 1 item.

LOGIC.

Your mistake lies in assuming that there is "design" in the universe. Your choice of words is deliberate, so that you can then infer a "designer" behind the supposed design. Of course this is a false assumption on your part. There is no design in the universe, although there is plenty of order. Order which has perfectly naturalistic explanations not requiring a designer.

A further weakness in your argument is that even if the universe was designed, there is no way to know if it was your particular god who designed it. It could have been designed by some other deity, or evil spirit. It could have been designed by a race of aliens. Merely positing a design does not enable you to infer a designer of your choice.

And finally, we come back to the old observation that if god designed (or caused) the universe, the who designed (or caused) god? It is just as easy to claim that the universe is eternal as it is to claim that god is eternal.

So, the "Argument from Design" gets you absolutely nowhere.

Originally posted by Phledos
I thought you believed in evolution as a fact. I am sorry.

Apology accepted.

I recognize evolution as the theory that accounts for the facts. Calling it a fact confuses terms. Although in the everyday meaning of the term, I suppose evolution is a fact. I desist from using such language when discussing science. The more specific, more technical meanings of such terms as fact, hypothesis, theory, and law create less confusion than standard common usage.

I strongly suspect the existence of a creator, and find the belief comforting. But I am also fairly confident that the understanding of a creator pronounced by most modern Christians cannot be true. Through study of the Bible I have come to recognize that the hermeneutics practiced by fundamentalists and most evangelicals is untenable. Also, I have seen now reason, aside from the accident of birth, for favoring the Bible over the Qur'an as "scripture". Moreover, my superficial study of the Qur'an has led me to the view that it speaks more highly of the glory and majesty of the creator. If one wished to posit Creation as a philosophical position (it cannot be scientific, for it relies on faith rather than observation), the Qur'an would seem a better foundation than the Bible.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I have a question for you. How many theists accept the theory of evolution simply because the majority of poeple believe it?

Another question: If the majority of people believe something, does that automatically make it true?

I don't know how many theists accept evolution simply because the majority of people believe it. Why don't you ask them instead of me? Although I suspect that many theists accept evolution simply because the evidence for it is overwhelming and that it does not necessarily contradict their faith in god. I suppose they assume that it was god who caused evolution. Even theists (by and large) are not stupid enough to ignore the preponderance of physical evidence in favor of evolution.

I'm not going to waste my time detailing all the evidence for evolution that you asked for in your subsequent post. Look it up on your own. And no, I am not referring to "Nebraska Man". Only creationist idiots blather on about that nonsense.

Finally, it goes without saying that having a majority of people believe something does NOT make it true. This is the logical fallacy - argumentum ad populum. A majority of people believe in a god of one type or another, but that doesn't make it true. Evolution, on the other hand, is believed because (as I've said numerous times) the evidence for it is simply overwhelming.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't know how many theists accept evolution simply because the majority of people believe it. Why don't you ask them instead of me? Although I suspect that many theists accept evolution simply because the evidence for it is overwhelming and that it does not necessarily contradict their faith in god. I suppose they assume that it was god who caused evol ...[text shortened]... is believed because (as I've said numerous times) the evidence for it is simply overwhelming.

I pressed the recommendation button twice, but it worked only once.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't know how many theists accept evolution simply because the majority of people believe it. Why don't you ask them instead of me? Although I suspect that many theists accept evolution simply because the evidence for it is overwhelming and that it does not necessarily contradict their faith in god. I suppose they assume that it was god who caused evol ...[text shortened]... is believed because (as I've said numerous times) the evidence for it is simply overwhelming.

Have you ever read Darwins Origin of Species?

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't know how many theists accept evolution simply because the majority of people believe it. Why don't you ask them instead of me? Although I suspect that many theists accept evolution simply because the evidence for it is overwhelming and that it does not necessarily contradict their faith in god. I suppose they assume that it was god who caused evol ...[text shortened]... is believed because (as I've said numerous times) the evidence for it is simply overwhelming.

Evolution, on the other hand, is believed because (as I've said numerous times) the evidence for it is simply overwhelming.

Would you mind specifying whether you are speaking about microevolution or macroevolution?

If you are talking about macroevolution, then the only evidence can be found in the fossil record. The fossil record is full of speculations.So would you now be so kind as to point out the numerous evidence which shows that species have changed for example from bird to fish or whatever ?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Evolution, on the other hand, is believed because (as I've said numerous times) the evidence for it is simply overwhelming.

Would you mind specifying whether you are speaking about microevolution or macroevolution?

If you a ...[text shortened]... species have changed for example from bird to fish or whatever ? [/b]

oh jeez, It's all the same Theory he said evolution , he means evolution.

Originally posted by Phledos

There is little point. It will not change your mind. I will provide you with the links.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c06.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter9.asp
http://www.jasonhilburn.com/probability.h ...[text shortened]... easent, but seemingly hopeless life. (Wherever you are heading?)

Edit to add a disclaimer: Long post, but I think it's worth reading. Thanks.

It could begin to change my mind. You don't switch positions generally from one good argument. Usually a preponderence of many good arguments along many dimensions brings this about.

Ok let's examine each link in turn, being extra wary (or for some of us, weary 🙂 ) of uniform p.m.f.'s which necessarily convert the calculations into a numerical exercise with no bearing on abiogenesis theory.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c06.htm

Since each of the 84 positions in the chain could be occupied by anyone of the 20 kinds, the total possible arrangements is 2084, which, after conversion to base 10, is roughly 10^109. The different arrangements are considered equally probable; so the probability of anyone molecule being in the correct order for insulin is 1 in 10^109. Allowing for one substitution (to be tolerated) makes it a bit easier for chance, and brings the probability down to 1 in 10^106 approximately.12
Going back to Dr. Eden’s statement that the total number of protein molecules that ever existed on earth might be 1052 as a liberal estimate, we will give chance another big boost by assuming that the 1052 are all different and are all the proper length for insulin. We can now figure the probability that any one of those would by chance be in correct order for insulin.

Uh, oh, uniform p.m.f. The article assumes that each outcome is equally likely. This is not what theory would say. Rather there are natural forces which make some outcomes more likely than others. Skimming throught the rest of the article, the author grants many superfluous and impotent concessions, but never alters a reliance on a uniform p.m.f. This is because the author understands that a concession of this nature would bring those astronomical numbers way way down.

Next.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter9.asp

Here they note the objection that the underlying process is not uniform randomness (citing a Scientific American article). The site dismisses the claim out of hand, and again goes back to using a uniform p.m.f. to generate ridiculous figures.

http://www.jasonhilburn.com/probability.htm

Argument from Fred Hoyle. Used a uniform p.m.f.

Next.

http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/evolution-improb.html

This is a good site that quotes experts who address the exact objection I am raising (though they do not couch it in terms of probability mass functions).

So there you have it. As I predicted the creationists chose to cling to their invalid assumption of an underlying uniform p.m.f. I am surprised that you still brought these articles up, even after I warned you about uniform p.m.f.'s. It makes me think that you really don't understand what one is.

Your final comments:

(note that these men are all scientists.)

Even if they are, so what? They are obviously either not educated in probability theory, not educated in biochemistry, or are being purposefully deceptive to win a point.

Of course you will now say, this is all from creationists sites. But I have searched throught the evolutionists sites too. They are not telling us of the probabilty. Are they hiding something???

I am arguing ideas here, not titles. The reason that you aren't finding exact probabilities of life arising from non-creationists is that they really don't know. In order to construct a probability, you need a sample space. That is you need to know what all the possible outcomes are. You also need know what the underlying weights on each outcome are. A uniform p.m.f. (p.d.f. for a continuous case) assumes that every possible outcome is equally likely. This is often not an appropriate characterization when modeling real world events.
Getting the right sample space and underlying weights would be a very big task indeed. That is why they are trying to understand the all the non-random laws that shape the outcomes.

Extra: Another big problem with all the creationist calculations you offered: they all assume that the realization for the next draw in the chain is independent of what has been drawn before. That is the conditional probabilities are equal to the unconditional probabilities. This really helps blow up the numbers.

Originally posted by Phledos
Well what do you think?

Mutants or mutations do not do anyone any good. The theory of evolution pushes the human life cycle forward. (Enhancing)

If mutations were a basis for evolution then they are not doing their job, because they a ...[text shortened]... Cancers kill people, they do not give people a new ability.

Bye

What do I think? I think occasionally mutations do organisms some good.

The theory of evolution pushes the human life cycle forward. (Enhancing)

What the heck does that mean?

If mutations were a basis for evolution then they are not doing their job, because they arnt pushing the human race forward at all.

You don't know this. I don't think you understand the TOE. I am not sure what you mean by "forward" in any case.

Cancers kill people, they do not give people a new ability.

Well that is generally true.

Originally posted by Phledos
Perhaps does that then mean that your 'so called law' of evolution is possibly incorrect too, then.

Check it out.

Who calls the TOE a Law?

It may be incorrect. However you must realize to what extent Newton's Laws are incorrect. Except at extremely high velocities, the error in Newton's Laws is so small as to be insignificant. Are you suggesting the TOE is as accurate as Newton's Laws?

Originally posted by Phledos
Were in the fossil record does it show that humans evolved from Flat Worms?

It hasnt been found. (Big loopholes)

Bye

Yes it has. It is shown in the way animals developed more and more human like traits as time went on. For example, fish existed after flatworms, and amphibians after that, and reptiles after that, and mammals after that. Each group of animals is more and more human like and is similar to the group that came before it in many ways.

Originally posted by Phledos

You can believe a theory which is totaly improbable.
Or you can believe in a theory which is more probable.
Which One?

There have been repeated attempts to discredit evolution by flourishing some half baked statistics along the lines that it is highly improbable for, say, insulin to have evloved. Why don't the fundies produce some statistics (as they are obviously very keen on them) demonstrating that gods exist etc.

What is the probability that the christian god rather than budha or whoever created the world. What is the probability of creation taking seven days.

C'mon boys, lets see how good your number crunching is. If you want to disprove evolution its no good showing that some aspects are imporbable, you must demonstrate that creation is more probable.

Originally posted by frogstomp
oh jeez, It's all the same Theory he said evolution , he means evolution.

I am afraid you have also been so brainwashed that you cannot seem to comprehened that the word "evoluition" has more than one definition. Only one of them is proveable, namely microevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are totally different. When people say "evolution" has overwhelming evidence, they usually refer to microevolution, then some ignoramuses think that "evolution" as in macroevolution has overwhelming evidence, which is clearly not true.

Btw: I'm sure he has his own mouth and can answer for himself. Unless of course if you have been appointed as his official spokesperson.

PS: If you don't know what the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is then I can strongly suggest that you have been brainwashed.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am afraid you have also been so brainwashed that you cannot seem to comprehened that the word "evoluition" has more than one definition. Only one of them is proveable, namely microevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are totally different. When people say "evolution" has overwhelming evidence, they usually refer to microevolution, then some i ...[text shortened]... microevolution and macroevolution is then I can strongly suggest that you have been brainwashed.

The young earth creationist calls us brainwashed?