Natural selection requires a breeding population in order to weed out the weak. Think of the implication of that statement in regards to how it impacts the development of more sophisticated multi-celled life forms from so-called simple, asexually reproducing one-celled life forms. Think, now, of the biological requirements for sexual reproduction.
Am I to believe that two mutually dependent genders, both with perhaps irreproducibility complex, but with altogether different reproductive systems, could have simultaneously arisen by random mutations and natural selection from simple asexually reproducing forms? In absolute terms, I perhaps misused the word ‘life’ in the preceding paragraph because, by common definition, life infers the ability to reproduce. I speak in a colloquial sense, but I hope my meaning is clear and my writing lucid. Moving on……..
One question that haunts me is why some are so vituperatively defensive of their materialistic world view? It seems that some are repelled by the concept that life may have been caused by something beyond nature. They seem to be more comfortable with the idea that we arrived on the scene due to nothing more than fortuitous concourses of atoms with natural selection and random mutations as our ‘designer.’
They often resist the evidence of design with fanatical vigor and insult the intelligence of those who question their dogma. Why are so many repelled by the idea that they just may have been designed by something other than the impersonal forces of nature? Why is the idea so repugnant? Can we not at least consider and discuss the possibility without rancor? Can we, on both sides of the divide, be civil in our dialog? After all, the implications of the origins of life are tremendous and personal.
There are some that take a middle path, one that I personally find dissatisfying on a number of levels.
The idea of an evolutionary process perhaps directed by some Divine Being, one of for example, the panentheism of process theology, seems a reasonable compromise to many who take the question of origins with some level of seriousness, but this mushy middle ground fails to satisfy (me, at least) on both scientific and metaphysical, or perhaps more correctly, theological grounds. Such is a topic for another day.
I make no pretense. I am a Christian of the Reformed persuasion. My faith is not invalidated by my admittedly limited understanding of nature and science. I do believe many operate under the erroneous assumption that there is necessarily a dichotomy between ‘faith’ and reason. I say this because I know there are those who seek to invalidate dissent of the status quo due to perceived ulterior motives. Such is akin to shooting the messenger because the message does not appeal to the recipient.
Dude you need yo learn about evolution. And when I say “learn about evolution” I don’t mean look on creationist sites (note: intelligent design is creationism).
Evolution is not spontaneous or random. Evolution is a slow process of gradual change over many generations, it is never spontaneous.
And its not random. A creature with a traits that give it a grater chance of survival will have grater chance of passing on those traits to its offspring and those offspring who inherit those traits would in turn pass it on to there offspring.
Think about it this way, 50% of X species that are born survives long enough to reproduce however there are some in the species that has 51% chance of surviving and reproducing. Now that 1% difference is small but over many generations that 1% difference becomes very big. Lets say the environment can ony support a hundred of species X and 50 of them have the trait that give that extra 1% (lets call that species X.1, now odd are that there will be 49 of X and 51 of X.1 in the next generation and in the generation after that 48 52, then 46 54 and so on.
The “irreducible” complexity idea is psudoscientific garbage (I want to use another word but). Nothing animals have is irreducible, though in “its” currant form “it” may not work if you remove a component but that ignores that fact that the components them selfs would change over time. A good example is the eye, creationists often use it as an example of irreducible complexity (and usually misquote Darwin at the same time) but if you remember the the eye and its components change slowly over many generations you’ll realize that its not irreducibly complexity, if you remove one component and alter the other components you can make an eye that works with out that one component.
Evolution is a scientific theory, a scientific theory is a heavily tested explanation of a groupe of related observations. For a majority of scientists to say that something is a scientific theory that means it has allot of validity behind it. It doesn’t mean it is the right explanation but it dose mean that there is a hell of allot of evidence backing it up.
There is no evidence for creationism, intelligent design isn’t even a scientific hypotheses let alone a theory. It has made no predictions thus no experiments can be done. Predictions and experiments are the second and third step to making a theory, you can’t skip um’.
And its a cop out. Even if we don’t know something that doesn’t mean that its supernatural in origin and by using the supernatural as and explanation you explaining the unexplained with the unexplainable.
Its not dogma, theres no room for the supernatural in science and there no reason to use it as an explanation for anything. Anything that has been explained with the supernatural I can think of a naturalistic explanation for and if there isn’t one that I know of I can make one up
It isn’t that we find the idea of design repugnant. It’s that we don’t find it useful.
Bear in mind that scientists, for the most part, are people who are really, really into things like beetles, or genetic recombination, or weather systems, or quarks, or whatever nerdy little interest captures their imagination. The notion that some sort of extra-natural design lies behind the subject of their fancy does not contribute anything additional to their studies.
If they are interested in, say, the chemical mechanisms behind chromosome pairing, design doesn’t suggest any avenues of research. The various chemical and biological theories do, so scientists use them.
Regarding your first point about sexual reproduction, consider that there are many species capable of reproducing both sexually and asexually, that there are sexually reproducing species that don’t have male/female distinction, that there are species (mostly fungal) with several genders. In other words, we’ve got scores of living intermediates between various forms sexual and asexual reproduction. Claiming that such a transition couldn’t happen is like claiming that airplanes can’t fly while standing at a busy airport.
Lone Wolf,
First, what makes you think I do not read other than creationist websites? FYI, I read people as diverse as, for example, Richard Dawkins, Steven J Gould, and Michael Behe. While I appreciate your attempts at educating me on the definition of ‘evolution’, I do not need to validate my credentials for you, nor do I need you to explain evolution or Darwinism to me. I have thought and read about origins and it’s implications for probably longer than you have been alive. I am quite capable of defining Darwinism — in all it’s tautology….natural selection — working with random mutations within a species and driven by environmental pressures — selects traits that impart a competitive edge for survival, for reproduction.
Secondly, I do not currently have the time or inclination to answer each of your statements on a point by point basis, but perhaps I will do so in the future. However, regarding “Evolution is a slow process of gradual change over many generations, it is never spontaneous”, read a bit about punctuated equilibria. Too, do a bit of reading on abiogenesis, then come talk to me.
To be honest, what I perceive from your post, more than anything, is arrogance and an unwillingness, for whatever reason, to open your mind to reasonable alternatives. (In a later post, I responded thusly regarding the aforementioned statement regarding my accusations of arrogance : “I was completely out of line and without excuse. Words spoken are often haste and are irrevocable; written words should be well-tempered and thoughtful so as to be without regret; mine were not.”)
Hello myrmecos,
First, thank you for your thoughtful comment. In a later post and when time allows, I would like to address the ‘god of the gaps’ concern in relation to ID which is what I believe is at the heart of most criticisms regarding ID.
Secondly, your observations on sexual/asexual reproductions are quite insightful. However, I do not believe they address the question of how “two mutually dependent genders, both with perhaps irreproducibility complex, but with altogether different reproductive systems, could have simultaneously arisen by random mutations and natural selection from simple asexually reproducing forms.”
I think I could have been more clear, too, on the point that I was trying to convey. Natural selection only works on breeding populations. The issue I intended to address was, in the broader context, of abiogenesis, of how that which reproduces asexually could, through random mutations without natural selection, evolve sexual reproduction with complex male and female reproductive systems.
Thirdly, in regards to your statement, “It isn’t that we find the idea of design repugnant. It’s that we don’t find it useful.”, I perhaps overstated the ‘repugnant’ part, but indeed, I have found many conversations on this potentially divisive subject, on both sides (and I have, myself, been guilty), ‘devolve’ into to ad hominem attacks. Also, in terms of identifying artifacts of intelligent design in nature, what is SETI?
Lastly, in regards to your statement, “The notion that some sort of extra-natural design lies behind the subject of their fancy does not contribute anything additional to their studies.” — remember that modern science stands on the shoulders of scientists who, like Newton, among others, acknowledged an underlying order, born of the Creator, of the universe. Indeed, I believe cogent arguments can be made that we would have no science if not for the presupposition of theism by those who laid the foundations of scientific inquiry.
Again, thank you for your irenic tone and thoughtful comments.
Ron
Thank you for this blog, its … educating to say the least, I will be back! Thank you.
There are several thing that tell me you have a lack of knowledge about evolution. First is “Am I to believe that two mutually dependent genders, both with perhaps irreproducibility complex, but with altogether different reproductive systems, could have simultaneously arisen by random mutations and natural selection from simple asexually reproducing forms?” first its not random chance, evolution is not random, its not driven by random mutation, it driven by who can have the most viable offspring. And you use an the “irreproducibility complex” which is pseudoscience and and it ignores the fact that evolution happens through show changes over time (just look at how fish reproduce, amphibians, reptiles then mammals. You could sort of see snap shots of the evolution of sexual reproduction)seconded you use the statement “Darwinism”, evolution is not an “ism” it a scientific theory, third you mention abiogenesis, abiogenesis is not evolution, they are two deferent subjects
The Newton argument fails for many reason, 1. He lived before the theory of evolution was ever though up 2. he was one man. 3. There are many scientists who believe in God but that doesn’t mean the supernatural has any place in science. One of the things that separate scientists from creation pseudoscientists is that fact that they separate there beliefs from there science.
I am not arrogant and closed minded. A supernatural explanation is not an explanation and a cop out. Science is the best way to find answers to questions and evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting while creationism has none.
Just look up information on the evolution of sexual reproduction, you can’t think of a way for sexual reproduction to evolve but that doesn’t mean someone else hasn’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction (I know its wikipedea but)http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/19.Evol.of.Sex.HTML
http://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+of+sexual+reproduction&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Lone Wolf,
First, I humbly apologize and ask for forgiveness for the remarks regarding you being narrow minded and arrogant. I was completely out of line and without excuse. Words spoken are often in haste and are irrevocable; written words should be well-tempered and thoughtful so as to be without regret; mine were not.
Moving on….In regards to your statement, “the fact that evolution happens through show changes over time (just look at how fish reproduce, amphibians, reptiles then mammals.”–upon what empirical evidence to you validate that statement? The fossil record? The term ‘missing link’ is a great misnomer because it infers we find a chain of intermediate fossil forms that validates specious evolutionary inferences when if fact, we do not. Hence, punctuated equilibria. Ever read about the Cambrian explosion? You may counter with fossil examples of horse evolution, of vestigial features in whales, etc, and I will respond, you will counter, back and forth, ad nausea.
Second, in regards to your statement, “you mention abiogenesis, abiogenesis is not evolution, they are two deferent subjects” Validate that statement, please. Abiogenesis infers that life, by purely naturalistic mechanisms, arose from non-life. If that is not the foundation of evolution of life, then what is? I believe you are confusing Darwinism, a naturalistic mechanism of descent with modification from a common ancestor that seeks to explain speciation, with the overarching theory of evolution. There is no known, viable, verifiable, mechanism for abiogenesis, and none, thus far, appears forthcoming. Not that there are not gaps in our knowledge, but biology is a fairly mature discipline, and it is what we know about biology and microbiology that seems to invalidate the origin of life from non-life, that seems to preclude life, unaided by something that possesses pattern recognition, etc, arising from non-life. My whole point is that sexual reproduction cannot be explained by natural selection because natural selection requires sexual reproduction. Which came first, as it were, the chicken or the egg?
Regarding Newton, et al, I mentioned him as one example of many. Again, the point I was trying to make was that the fathers of modern science made an inference of order in the universe, an order born out of theism. They presupposed a Creator that imbued the universe with laws, with order, that made it understandable.
Thank you for taking to the time to dialog and interject thoughtful comments.
Best regards,
Ron
As a general rule, I will not use URLs/links to bolster my points within a dialog nor will I read URLs/links of others in the ‘give and take’ of a dialog. Please use your own words and thoughts.
One, I do not have the time to read the contents of the URL. Two, it helps protect both you and me from getting lazy in our thinking.
“The fossil record? The term ‘missing link’ is a great misnomer because it infers we find a chain of intermediate fossil forms that validates specious evolutionary inferences when if fact, it does not (moderator speaking here….I changed, both here and my original comment, from ‘it does not to ‘we do not’ for the sake of clarity).”
Okay how dose finding a chain of intermediary fossils not validate evolution? The theory of evolution makes the prediction that there would be intermediary’s between a species that evolved into another, and the fossil record has these. If you use a hypothesis or theory to make a prediction and test that prediction and find that prediction to be accurate and upon review and duplication of the test others find it to be accurate not in part validate a theory of hypothesis?
Of course no one validated prediction is enough but evolution has multiple validated prediction, observational evidence from the adaption of bacteria to antibiotics creating antibiotic resistant bacteria as well as observation of evolution of bacteria and insects in the lab as well as genetic evidence and speciation.
Abiogenises is not the same subject as evolution. The theory of evolution dose not explain abiogenises cause its not meant to explain abiogenises just as any abiogenises hypothesis is not meant to explain the origin of the earth and any hypotheses or theory that explains the origin of the Earth is not meant to explain the origin of the universe.
There are several hypotheses and I think some has some evidence supporting them but not enough to make a theory.
There are many scientists that have and many today that presupposes a Creator that imbued the universe with laws, with order, that made it understandable how ever that dose not belong in science.
You put me in a perplexing situation. I could say anything i want but to ultimetly prove my arguments I would end needing to show some source, other wise its just an opinion. And the same applies to you and every one else.
A point I forgot.
There are allot of things you, I and every one can’t figure out, allot of things that we can’t think of a way of explaining how ever that doesn’t mean someone else hasn’t. This is why you, I and every one has to look things up. If you don’t look up things and find information about things you don’t understand, you will never understand them.
Lone Wolf,
This will probably be my final response, at least for the time being. In regards to my statement concerning the fossil record, my point is that we DO NOT FIND indisputable intermediate forms in the fossil record. Species appear suddenly with all their ordinal characteristics already formed. Those few forms that are claimed to be transitional are highly debatable. One can see patterns in clouds that carry more empirical weight than the claims made of so-called transition forms.
As far as bacterial resistance to antibiotics, one of the icons of evolution, this as been spoken to much more coherently than I really care or have the time to do so, but I will only make a couple of quick points. As far as I know, there has never been an observed increase in complexity in bacteria in regards to resistance to antibiotics. The mutations that enable a bacteria to be resistant to an antibiotic usually entail a loss of information within the bacteria and often renders it less able to function and survive in environments that would normally be conducive to non-resistant bacteria. In no way can one extrapolate a ‘molecules to man’ evolutionary paradigm from bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
As far as your statement “Abiogenises is not the same subject as evolution”, I cannot reason you out of a position that you did not reason yourself into. We are talking about the evolution of life, and if you remove abiogenesis from the debate, you have removed the foundation.
Best regards,
Ron
There have been a grate deal of intermediate fossils found, just recently on a documentary about the Dover “Intelegient Design” trail they talked about a recently discover fossil of an intermediary between fish and amphibian.
I know your not going to check these but iI hope you will.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/04/06/fossil-shows-transition-from-sea-to-land/
The scientific theory of evolution dose not explain abiogenises, it dose not explain it cause its not meant to, just as any abiogenises hypothesis would be meant to explain the origins of the earth and just as a theory of the origin of the earth is meant to explain the origin of the universe.
Do some research cause your lack of knowledge on the theory of evolution is larg. I understand you don’t have time but take some time you would otherwise spend replying to me and do some research.
And stay away from the creationists sites and intelegient design is creationism.
Lone Wolf,
As far as I am concerned, this dialog is through. I would take your ‘concerns’ about my lack of knowledge of evolution, of which I humbly admit many gaps, seriously if, one, you would take a least a little bit of effort to spell-check your posts, and two, you would listen. I made a concerted effort to express the fact that I would read your thoughts as expressed by your own words, but not posted URLs, and I was quite clear as to why. The clear meaning of my post requesting those who comment to do so in their own words was apparently lost on you and prompts you to post not one, but three, three URLs.
I will not longer approve any more of your comments as I see this evolving dialog with you an exercise in futility for both of us.
Ron