The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

briancalgary wrote:

Robins works well

So, do you agree that what I described up above actually happens? Or at the least, can you imagine that it might happen? Or do you not understand what I wrote? I'm asking this because you also write this:

brianCalgary wrote:

The world and ecosystems are just far to complicated to be set up by random chance.

The whole point about the three points that I listed up above is that there is random variation from each variation to the next, but operated upon by a highly-selective process that makes it non-random. That means that the the world and the ecosystems were NOT set up by random chance like you think they were. What happened is exactly the opposite actually.

To take a concrete example of evolution in practice. Say you like the color red and your kid who's doing some painting for you turns up with two tubs of differently-colored paint, neither of which are what you want. You tell him that you don't like either of the shades and to try again. Next time, he comes along with four new tubs with four new colors which he's mixed at random, of which you reckon two are a bit closer, but two are definitely further away from the shade you want. You chuck the bad two and tell him to try again with the two you reckon are closer. You keep doing this and you'll eventually get the shade you want, through a random, but selective process.

Do you see the distinction that I'm making? Do you see where your belief that the process is random is wrong?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

So, do you agree that what I described up above actually happens? Or at the least, can you imagine that it might happen? Or do you not understand what I wrote? I'm asking this because you also write this:The whole point about the three points that I listed up above is that there is random variation from each variation to the next, but operated upon by a highly-selective process that makes it non-random. That means that the the world and the ecosystems were NOT set up by random chance like you think they were. What happened is exactly the opposite actually.

To take a concrete example of evolution in practice. Say you like the color red and your kid who's doing some painting for you turns up with two tubs of differently-colored paint, neither of which are what you want. You tell him that you don't like either of the shades and to try again. Next time, he comes along with four new tubs with four new colors which he's mixed at random, of which you reckon two are a bit closer, but two are definitely further away from the shade you want. You chuck the bad two and tell him to try again with the two you reckon are closer. You keep doing this and you'll eventually get the shade you want, through a random, but selective process.

Do you see the distinction that I'm making? Do you see where your belief that the process is random is wrong?

I think the problem we have is that nearly every explanation of this kind we offer contains an intelligent agent - in this case, the person choosing the paint colour. Further, these examples usually include a 'goal-state' - in this case the colour the 'agent' wants.

Our examples, then, frequently contain the fallacies of teleology and agency which are the heart of the creationist world-view - and therefore tend, if anything, to intellectually confirm their emotional position.

Examples that do not contain these fallacies are more difficult to offer, but not impossible - although most of them are actually examples from evolution...

Take a pond, containing initially 100 blue and 100 yellow fish. The two types of fish can interbreed to produce green offspring, and they don't actually care about colour themselves, so they breed equally with any colour fish to produce mixed-colour offspring.

Now, add some herons. The herons find it easier to spot the yellow fish than the blue fish, the blue fish than the green fish, and blue-green fish are hardest of all.

At the end of the first 'round', the herons have eaten 20% of the blue fish, and 40% of the yellow fish (leaving 80 and 60 respectively). The survivors breed, randomly, with each other - which produces 46 blue fish, 67 green fish, and 26 yellow fish, assuming each mating pair produces exactly one offspring and no colour preference.

Next round, we have blue, yellow, and green fish. Of these, the herons will again eat more of the yellow than the blue, but more of either than the green. Assuming they eat the same proportions as before, and 10% of the green fish, the next year's population will be: 37 blue, 62 green, 15 yellow.

These fish again interbreed, and the results will be: 12 blue, 40 blue-green, 35 green, 17 green-yellow, and 2 yellows.

You can repeat this ad infinitum, but the outcome should be fairly clear - the eventual population of fish in our pond will be blueish-green fish, with the blue and yellows eliminated.

The random outcome would be a population consisting mostly of green fish, with equal shading either side including a few blues and yellows.

The selection pressure from the herons - that they are better at catching yellower fish than blue - biases the population towards the blue end, away from the easily caught yellow.

Now, the fish in the pond have attained the colour which makes it hardest for the herons to catch them. We could see this as evidence of design, because that is a better explanation than randomness - but neither are as good an explanation as the reality, which is that a little bit of selection pressure drove the population to that colour by eliminating the more easily caught colours and leaving the harder ones.

There is no intelligent agent in this - the herons, if they could, would rather have easier-to-catch yellow fish in the pond, but they unwittingly make their lives harder by catching those that are easiest to catch. Nor is there a 'goal state' - if storks come by, and find it easier to catch blue-green fish than yellow-green, the colour of the fish population in the pond will change again, depending on whether there are more storks than herons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The world and ecosystems are just far to complicated to be set up by random chance. The numbers just don't work.

Come on BC, how many times has it been explained on this thread that evolution works by anything but random chance. I've done it at least 15 times to various posters, including yourself.

Is it a question that you don't understand, or that you don't want to understand? That is where the whole "proud to be ignorant" thing comes into to play

5uspect

Its not purely random chance. The changes or mutations that can occur are not totally random they are limited by how much the genes are shuffled between generations. It is very very very unlikely that a cat will give birth to a dog simply because the odds are overwhelmingly against it.

If there is too much of a change from one generation to the next then the organism will surely be a monstrosity, as Darwin called it, and surely die through harmful deformations or inability to breed.

As Scofflaw correctly points out it is difficult to explain selection easily without agency. His example is very good, and you can add increasing amounts of complexity on it. If for example there was a current in the pond that pulled the fish to one end of the pond the fish would be mostly stuck in one side of the pond with only half the available food. (They would also be potentially be easier to catch by birds)

Now the yellow fish that are easiest to catch will be picked off and they will have fewer children and there will be a trend to difficult to spot fish. But also the fish that are the strongest swimmers will have more mobility in the pond as the current is also a selection pressure. They will have access to more food, and since they are spread out more they may survive better than in a stagnant pond.

So if a any type of fish is a genetically stronger swimmer, which means that its genes are arranged in a way that its fins and muscles are built slightly better than the others it will have an advantage. It has access to more food and potentially greater shelter from predators.
But this advantage isn't absolute. Many of these fish will still be eaten but fewer than the weak fish.

Now over the generations the fish will tend to be more difficult to spot and stronger swimmers through inbreeding with the mixed the genes for colour and swimming strength. Not all new fish will benefit as sexual reproduction mixes the parents genes randomly in a 50-50 mix so the birds will continually pick them off reinforcing the "good" genes in the strong green fish.

However this seems like a goal, driven by the current, this may change as the fish migrate to new environments and over sized fins adapted for strong currents may be an energy sapping hindrance.

Also the birds will have to evolve to survive also. They ones with slightly better eyesight will eat more and reproduce more resulting in sharper eyed birds.

Now how then can an eye itself or any organ evolve?
By pretty much the same process. I'll leave that to Darwin himself:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_on_evolution_of_the_eye

The catch of course is that every gradient in the development of an animal must confer some advantage in the environment. That is why agency is not required.

EDIT: some spelling and grammer corrections.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

So, do you agree that what I described up above actually happens? Or at the least, can you imagine that it might happen? Or do you not understand what I wrote? I'm asking this because you also write this:The whole point about the three points that I listed up above is that there is random variation from each variation to the next, but operated upon by a highly-selective process that makes it non-random. That means that the the world and the ecosystems were NOT set up by random chance like you think they were. What happened is exactly the opposite actually.

To take a concrete example of evolution in practice. Say you like the color red and your kid who's doing some painting for you turns up with two tubs of differently-colored paint, neither of which are what you want. You tell him that you don't like either of the shades and to try again. Next time, he comes along with four new tubs with four new colors which he's mixed at random, of which you reckon two are a bit closer, but two are definitely further away from the shade you want. You chuck the bad two and tell him to try again with the two you reckon are closer. You keep doing this and you'll eventually get the shade you want, through a random, but selective process.

Do you see the distinction that I'm making? Do you see where your belief that the process is random is wrong?

Yes I do see what is happening, it is quite clear that there is an intelligence at work to determine the combinations and a communication between two intelligences to determine the correct colour.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I think the problem we have is that nearly every explanation of this kind we offer contains an intelligent agent - in this case, the person choosing the paint colour. Further, these examples usually include a 'goal-state' - in this case the colour the 'agent' wants.

Our examples, then, frequently contain the fallacies of teleology and agency which are the heart of the creationist world-view - and therefore tend, if anything, to intellectually confirm their emotional position.

Examples that do not contain these fallacies are more difficult to offer, but not impossible - although most of them are actually examples from evolution...

Take a pond, containing initially 100 blue and 100 yellow fish. The two types of fish can interbreed to produce green offspring, and they don't actually care about colour themselves, so they breed equally with any colour fish to produce mixed-colour offspring.

Now, add some herons. The herons find it easier to spot the yellow fish than the blue fish, the blue fish than the green fish, and blue-green fish are hardest of all.

At the end of the first 'round', the herons have eaten 20% of the blue fish, and 40% of the yellow fish (leaving 80 and 60 respectively). The survivors breed, randomly, with each other - which produces 46 blue fish, 67 green fish, and 26 yellow fish, assuming each mating pair produces exactly one offspring and no colour preference.

Next round, we have blue, yellow, and green fish. Of these, the herons will again eat more of the yellow than the blue, but more of either than the green. Assuming they eat the same proportions as before, and 10% of the green fish, the next year's population will be: 37 blue, 62 green, 15 yellow.

These fish again interbreed, and the results will be: 12 blue, 40 blue-green, 35 green, 17 green-yellow, and 2 yellows.

You can repeat this ad infinitum, but the outcome should be fairly clear - the eventual population of fish in our pond will be blueish-green fish, with the blue and yellows eliminated.

The random outcome would be a population consisting mostly of green fish, with equal shading either side including a few blues and yellows.

The selection pressure from the herons - that they are better at catching yellower fish than blue - biases the population towards the blue end, away from the easily caught yellow.

Now, the fish in the pond have attained the colour which makes it hardest for the herons to catch them. We could see this as evidence of design, because that is a better explanation than randomness - but neither are as good an explanation as the reality, which is that a little bit of selection pressure drove the population to that colour by eliminating the more easily caught colours and leaving the harder ones.

There is no intelligent agent in this - the herons, if they could, would rather have easier-to-catch yellow fish in the pond, but they unwittingly make their lives harder by catching those that are easiest to catch. Nor is there a 'goal state' - if storks come by, and find it easier to catch blue-green fish than yellow-green, the colour of the fish population in the pond will change again, depending on whether there are more storks than herons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your right no intelligence, but we started with a species of fish and finished with a species of fish. There is not a new species and what you describe quite nicely is an example of micro evolution at work, which no one would disagree on.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

There is not a new species and what you describe quite nicely is an example of micro evolution at work, which no one would disagree on.

The only people who claim there is a difference between macro and micro evolution are Creationists.

Macro evolution is simply micro-evolution happening over a very long period of time. It is the accumulation of all the micro changes, spread over many generations.

There is no difference between macro and micro evolution, the process is exactly the same. If micro-evolution happens then so does macro-evolution.

Or to put it another way, there is no reason why micro evolution would just stop suddenly before it reached the macro evolution level.

Generations of one particular species mutating into different species have been observed in rapidly reproducing life forms, such as bacteria, insects and various plants life.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Ekancone

Danno wrote:

Dear Mods and fellow Boards Members.

I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism, and to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as the most fundamental part of the origins of man, and also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.

I hope that with enough interest that this thread becomes a sticky.

I also wish to ask everyone who posts here not to personally attack any person contributing. I look forward to a good debate...

Is the Earth 10,000 years old?

No. Why?

The movement of continents. Now this requires a bit of science stuff called maths so you may find this hard to swallow but...

Look at two continients that were once joined, say South America and Africa. Calculate the speed they are moving away from each other at 5.7cm a YEAR.

So lets say that South America and Africa are, i dunno at least 6000km (6,000,000m) from each other.

6000000/5.7 = 1052631.5789473684210526315789474 years


Case closed.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

The only people who claim there is a difference between macro and micro evolution are Creationists.

Macro evolution is simply micro-evolution happening over a very long period of time. It is the accumulation of all the micro changes, spread over many generations.

There is no difference between macro and micro evolution, the process is exactly the same. If micro-evolution happens then so does macro-evolution.

Or to put it another way, there is no reason why micro evolution would just stop suddenly before it reached the macro evolution level.

Generations of one particular species mutating into different species have been observed in rapidly reproducing life forms, such as bacteria, insects and various plants life.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Explain to me what the link is saying, in a manner that a layperson can understand.

Ekancone

BrianCalgary wrote:

Your right no intelligence, but we started with a species of fish and finished with a species of fish. There is not a new species and what you describe quite nicely is an example of micro evolution at work, which no one would disagree on.

But it doesnt work like he described! That would be some form of Lamarkism! Blue Fish + Yellow Fish does NOT equal green fish. The only way those fish could turn green was if there was some advantage to be had to being more green and if the neccessary genetic code existed to lead to a mutation of that code..

BrianCalgary

daithifleming wrote:

Is the Earth 10,000 years old?

No. Why?

The movement of continents. Now this requires a bit of science stuff called maths so you may find this hard to swallow but...

Look at two continients that were once joined, say South America and Africa. Calculate the speed they are moving away from each other at 5.7cm a YEAR.

So lets say that South America and Africa are, i dunno at least 6000km (6,000,000m) from each other.

6000000/5.7 = 1052631.5789473684210526315789474 years


Case closed.

Your starting point is the assumption that they were joined? Why?

BrianCalgary

daithifleming wrote:

But it doesnt work like he described! That would be some form of Lamarkism! Blue Fish + Yellow Fish does NOT equal green fish. The only way those fish could turn green was if there was some advantage to be had to being more green and if the neccessary genetic code existed to lead to a mutation of that code..

So what are you saying?

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

it is quite clear that there is an intelligence at work to determine the combinations and a communication between two intelligences to determine the correct colour.

I was afraid that you would reply in this way, as Wicknight suggested you would. I used people only so that the situation would be easy for you to picture and not to suggest that "intelligence" is causing the selection to take place. I'll was going to try a simpler example without people, but as you've conceded that evolution exists -- what you refer to as "microevolution" -- I'll leave the point stand and won't repeat it.

briancalgary wrote:

an example of micro evolution at work, which no one would disagree on.

Good. That's a start. But as Wicknight points out, the term "microevolution" is an invention of modern creationists. They developed the term so that they could concede points like Wicknight made in his post, but not have to concede that "macroevolution" (another recent creationist term) can take place.

What you refer to as "macroevolution" (fishes to dogs or whatever), is what biologists call "speciation", ie, the creation of new species.

The link that Wicknight supplied gives plenty of examples of speciation ("macroevolution"), complete with times and places where they were seen and how people know that it's speciation that took place.

A classic example of speciation occurs in what's called "ring species" where a single bird (in this case) starts living in one place, but spreads, with its more and more distant relatives being more and more different from the original bird. Eventually, you get to the point where birds are sufficiently genetically far apart that they can't breed with each other. And, hey presto, that's speciation for you. This link explains a bit more about it, together with an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species (see "Larus gulls").

Ekancone

BrianCalgary wrote:

Your starting point is the assumption that they were joined? Why?

God obviously.

robindch

Brian -- please ignore daithifleming for the time being. His points are not relevant to the discussion that you, Wicknight and I are having.

Ekancone

BrianCalgary wrote:

So what are you saying?

That people who believe that blue fish + yellow fish = green fish, are idiots.

Ekancone

robindch wrote:

Brian -- please ignore daithifleming for the time being. His points are not relevant to the discussion that you, Wicknight and I are having.

What? Is he being serious? Is he serious?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Explain to me what the link is saying, in a manner that a layperson can understand.

Ok

Macro-evolution happens, it has been observed to happen.

One species has been observed to evolve into another.

In the modern world, not fossil records or computer simulations. This has actually been observed to happen.

You stick one species of insect or plant or bacteria, in a lab you come back a day/week/year later you have new species living in the dish or bowl where you had the old species.

Accumulative mutations (micro-evolution) within a species will eventually produce a shift from one species to another (macro-evolution). This has been observed.

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote:

Ok

Macro-evolution happens, it has been observed to happen.

One species has been observed to evolve into another.

In the modern world, not fossil records or computer simulations. This has actually been observed to happen.

You stick one species of insect or plant or bacteria, in a lab you come back a day/week/year later you have new species living in the dish or bowl where you had the old species.

Accumulative mutations (micro-evolution) within a species will eventually produce a shift from one species to another (macro-evolution). This has been observed.

Google 'Antibiotic resistance' for the proof that evolution exists.

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote:

What? Is he being serious? Is he serious?

He is not being rude, that is just Robin's style

He wants Brian to focus on the issue of evolution, rather than being side tracked by the issue of continental drift, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

The reason is that Brian is the mod of this forum, and if we can get him to understand evolution us atheists can open the 7th seal and summon demon god Cathulu ... er ... I mean it will be a major break through for this thread

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote:

Google 'Antibiotic resistance' for the proof that evolution exists.

That has already been discussed. Creationists don't accept this as a evolution because the bacteria is still the same species of bacteria. Which is why I'm trying to show Brian example where a species actually changes into a different species.

robindch

wicknight wrote:

What? Is he being serious? Is he serious?

I think DF is referring to BC here. Whatever, it's irrelevant just now...

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

Your right no intelligence, but we started with a species of fish and finished with a species of fish. There is not a new species and what you describe quite nicely is an example of micro evolution at work, which no one would disagree on.

Its about the continued accumulation of mutations.

Fish were just used as a simple example. Ultimately life began with self replicating molecules. All these molecules wanted to do was replicate. These evolved to better adapt to the pressures in their environment through copying errors in the replication process. Some developed additional features, errors in the replication process, helping them to adapt. This may have been greater reproduction rate, the ability to cannibalise other macro molecules or prevent cannibalisation. Primitive reflexive "limbs" that could randomly propel the molecules around without any input or control other than chemical reactions fliping a switch would have allowed them become somewhat mobile. Some may have become light sensitive allowing them to move in the direction of sources of energy, the ones who's mutations had the opposite effect would simply die.

Some grew large into macro scale objects while the majority remain small in the form of bacteria etc. The selection pressure would continue on all organisms big and small as they compete for scarce resources. Light sensitive patches could develop into better light sensitive patches, eventually ones that can detect motion and into ones that can focus light. Hard bits that made an organism tougher than others could develop into harder bits becoming structural like bones or armour. All these mutations must confer an advantage. Movable bits that allow mobility would get stronger and improve movement. The most efficient swimmers could swim in other areas than those who couldn't. This would allow different species to arise, through accumulated gradual mutations. Molecules to bacteria to tiny sea creatures and plants to fish.

The ability of an organism to consciously control itself and its movement would be a revolution in evolution. Response to stimulus like light in plants (and humans) is simply a reflex without any conscious thought. The development of a nervous system would allow faster reactions to threats and food opportunities. Biologists describe evolutionary arms races where predator and prey both develop weapons and defences to eat and avoid being eaten.
Brain power would be a huge advantage.

Now you'll probably say that it's this conscious thought that makes humans created as how could such a thing just randomly come into existence. Well I'm still reading that particular book but it can be explained with neural networks and evolutionary psychology.

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

The reason is that Brian is the mod of this forum, and if we can get him to understand evolution us atheists can open the 7th seal and summon demon god Cathulu ... er ... I mean it will be a major break through for this thread

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Wenham's goal post shifting is a good example of compartmentalization that seems to be a common response when attempting to deal with this issue. The line "The Bible is not a science book", which completely misses the point of whether or not it is accurate, is often heard on this forum as well.

I think Wenham's point is that the Genesis creation account (in his opinion) is using symbolic or poetic language and that the original readers would have understood it as such. He represents a considerable number of Christians. Whether I agree with him or not, or whether you think he is compartmentalising or not, is not the issue. I was citing Wenham to show that evolution is not antithetical to Christianity, or indeed to the belief that Scripture is verbally inspired.

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote:

Its about the continued accumulation of mutations.

Fish were just used as a simple example. Ultimately life began with self replicating molecules. .

And how did these first replicating molecules form?

robindch

briancalgary wrote:

And how did these first replicating molecules form?

One topic at a time. We're dealing with evolution, not biogenesis.

Are you happy that you agree and understand everything that's been written so far? ie, that speciation happens and that there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that it does.

If not, then we can recap. If so, then we can continue to the next topic.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

One topic at a time. We're dealing with evolution, not biogenesis.

Are you happy that you agree and understand everything that's been written so far? ie, that speciation happens and that there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that it does.

If not, then we can recap. If so, then we can continue to the next topic.

The topic is not evolution. The topic is existence of everything and how it got here. Which includes evolution but is not limited to evolution.

5uspect brought up Ultimately life began with self replicating molecules.. So I think that my question is valid.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

One topic at a time. We're dealing with evolution, not biogenesis.

Are you happy that you agree and understand everything that's been written so far? ie, that speciation happens and that there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that it does.
.

No, not satisfied with speciation. Need a road map to show exactly when and how it has been observed in teh wild.

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

The topic is not evolution. The topic is existence of everything and how it got here. Which includes evolution but is not limited to evolution.

5uspect brought up Ultimately life began with self replicating molecules.. So I think that my question is valid.

I think Robin is right here. We need to deal with the problems you have with evolution before we tackle abiogenesis otherwise we'll all get confused!

I'm not trying to dodge the question here, it will be answered. I think that by trying to explain the science this way we are making real progress.