Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[Independent]

So there are some serious flaws with TOE

That's why it's still called a 'theory'! But 'flaw' is a pejorative word - 'incomplete' is more accurate.

I suggested some maths that I perceive as a problem for TOE also, would you care to comment?

Actually I was saying that the maths for TOE rate of mutation don't stack up - i was under the impression I was on your side with this one!

The difference is, i believe that the inadequacy of this explanation will be improved on, just as happened with Copernicus etc. As i say, when you look at it round the other way, and try to find a piece of evidence that 'disproves' TOE, there is none.

Again to make the comparison with Copernicus - if astronomical sightings were then made that appeared to place the Earth at the centre of the solar system, that would have been disproof. No such sightings were made. However, the variations in the orbit of Mars meant that his maths didn't entirely add up, and the notion remained a 'theory' until Kepler enhanced it.

 

[Gator]

Is there a link for a really good run down on the rates of evolutionary change from a creationist point of view? Thanks.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Actually I was saying that the maths for TOE rate of mutation don't stack up - i was under the impression I was on your side with this one!

I understood that you were on my side with the maths problem, and maths has been the incentive for scientists to adjust their thoughts.

Again to make the comparison with Copernicus - if astronomical sightings were then made that appeared to place the Earth at the centre of the solar system, that would have been disproof. No such sightings were made. However, the variations in the orbit of Mars meant that his maths didn't entirely add up, and the notion remained a 'theory' until Kepler enhanced it.

Agreed, but, these planets can be observed in their orbits today, science has come up with ways to observe their movements, and plot their course. The evolution that I am most interested in happened from around six hundred million years ago, scientists do not have time machines to observe it as it happened.

The time the very first bone or cartilage came into existence, certainly less than a billion years ago, according to fossil records, more like six hundred million years ago.

So if we look at some maths, suppose a generation is one month, you could have twelve billion generations in a billion years. Suppose a mutation takes ten years to spread through a population, that could give a hundred million chances to pass a mutation forwards to a next generation, which indeed is a big number.

If you were looking purely at mathematical odds of a two to one chance of each component being right, then with a bit of luck you might get thirty right with a hundred million chances. If there were a hundred components to get right, a hundred million chances just wouldn’t work. But we know of many skeletal systems that have a combined total of around two thousand bones, ligaments, muscles and tendons.

As you say the numbers just do not add up.

Why would God put down so many confusing clues for TOE?

I am not sure that God put down any clues for TOE, he just created the universe and life. Evolution just seems like a bucket full of holes, you stick your TOE in one of the holes, and the water keeps coming out the gaps.

Whoops sorry about that

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[observer]

I think the fundamental mistake that you're making is the assumption that evolution is pure chance - it's not.

Evolution works on these 3 components:

(1) Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive.
(2) Organisms vary, and these variations are at least partly heritable by their offspring.
(3) On average, offspring that vary most strongly in directions favored by the environment will survive and propagate. Favorable variations will therefore accumulate in populations.

It's these 3 combined which mean that your analogy is not accurate.

Think about guessing a 10 digit password. If we guess 10 digits and then ask "is that right?" it's going to take us a long time to get the answer. But if as we're guessing, any letter we get in the correct place is held (here we can think of the held letter as being a beneficial mutation in a creature) then guessing the password suddenly becomes incredibly manageable and takes much less time.

The explanation I've used comes from here http://phys.org/news/2010-12-mathematics-plenty-evolution.html and is from a paper from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

This http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf is a much more maths heavy look at the way in which maths is mis-used by anti evolutionists.

 

[MustafaMc]

Personally I am certain that TOE is broadly correct and at some point this will be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It will make no more sense to disbelieve in TOE than in gravity. What will happen then? Those who have set themselves wholeheartedly against TOE will be faced not with a scientific crisis, but with a crisis of faith.

...and I am just as 'certain' that it is broadly incorrect, but I could be wrong. We know a whole lot more about the intracacies of genetics and molecular biology now than when Darwin came out with his book, but they have in no way reinforced ToE. True, the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics was seen initially to support ToE as it was a means to explain heritable differences between individuals that could be extrapolated upon, but I find it quite telling the ToE hasn't advanced beyond very rudimentary basics that can be accepted on a micro scale.

Why would He choose to make evolution unable to function except by continual direct intervention on His part, yet make all the other laws of the universe complete in themselves?

This is a good point and you could be right. The development of a single individual from a fertilized egg seems quite miraculous to me, but, having some understanding of the process, I see that each step is not directly controlled by God. There could possibly come a time when the molecular basis for ToE, without the intimate involvement of God, is shown to be based on scientific principles, but until then I will have to say, "Where's the beef?"

The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and despite many findings it hasn't been falsified yet. And any good scientific mind will change if it is falsified in the future.

I don't see how it is falsifiable, yet if it is proven true, then "any good scientific mind will change" and accept it.

 

[MustafaMc]

Evolution just seems like a bucket full of holes, you stick your TOE in one of the holes, and the water keeps coming out the gaps.

Peaceful greetings, Eric H. Could it rather be seen as wishfully trying to make a bucket out of a bunch of holes?

 

[جوري]

^ atheists have to be dogmatic and indoctrinated about their religion how else can they justify their lifestyle choices? I can't believe how many times this topic has been discussed and they still come back with lengthy self concocted fatwas recycling 200 year old rhetoric!

We don't use the same drugs from five years ago to treat many conditions yet they use the same ailing arguments from the time of galilee. Somehow jumping on the back if a retired and I mean that as in shelved pioneers makes them smarter by proxy!
People have to drop their beliefs when discussing science- no one is interested in opinion everyone has one as is!

 

[Independent]

Greetings Eric

The time the very first bone or cartilage came into existence, certainly less than a billion years ago, according to fossil records, more like six hundred million years ago

I don't think bones present a specific challenge to evolution ahead of other issues. The evolution of the bone structure is extremely unlikely to have occurred one by one, bone by bone. Instead, it's likely that the capacity to create bone would have evolved, and subsequently used to develop bones where necessary.

Interestingly, there is evidence that a breakthrough evolutionary step can result in a spurt in development. For instance it is suggested that once sight evolved, it was so useful that creatures with some version of the eye rapidly filled all available niches. The rate of evolution is not governed simply by abstract maths, but also by utility and environment. It's misleading to think of it as simply random - natural selection is anything but random as the word 'selection' implies. However, it does not require a guiding intelligence.

I am not sure that God put down any clues for TOE, he just created the universe and life.

The combined No 2 chromosome is found only in humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. This makes absolute sense with TOE. If it is instead the result of an act of God, it is bizarre and difficult to understand except as a deliberate clue. If it had been found in the 'wrong' branch of the evolutionary tree it could potentially have disproved evolution. Yet once again, no evidence is ever found that disproves TOE. The Creationist account of the world does not make sense in this context, unless you attribute deliberate confusion to God.

 

[Independent]

This http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf is a much more maths heavy look at the way in which maths is mis-used by anti evolutionists.

Very interesting link here which casts doubt on the doubters, as it were. The popular statistics about the improbability of evolution happening in the time period available are themelves open to question.

For instance, TOE critics such as Michael Behe have treated mutations as if they were only either 'good' or 'bad' - whereas in fact most of them are neutral. A neutral mutation may be passed on because there is nothing to prevent it from happening. This greatly affects the statistics Behe presents.

Behe is also famous for the argument of 'Irreducible Complexity' (a revival of the Paley's watchmaker argument). The idea is that some developments require more than 10 mutations, without any one of which the development would be either useless or even destructive. But increasingly we are finding that those individual mutations are either beneficial for a different, unrelated purpose or simply neutral. (For example, most of the enzymes needed for blood clotting also have utility in digestion - so they evolved and were retained for a separate purpose, and then co-opted for clotting.)

This means that they could indeed have evolved one by one and the mathematical 'impossibility' of their simultaneous development is revealed as illusory.

TOE is not the finished article, but from the evidence so far I can't see any reason to suppose that it is wrong in fundamental concept. When you focus not on the gaps in TOE, but on the absence of any evidence at all that actually contradicts TOE, then it's very hard not to accept that it must be broadly correct.

 

[observer]

TOE is not the finished article, but from the evidence so far I can't see any reason to suppose that it is wrong in fundamental concept. When you focus not on the gaps in TOE, but on the absence of any evidence at all that actually contradicts TOE, then it's very hard not to accept that it must be broadly correct.

Exactly; as the years go by the evidence keeps stacking up and evidence against is conspicuous by its absence.

One of the problems, as discussed in the link, is that now, as in other branches of science, there is much that the layman simply does not know about these things. This often makes it difficult to understand the subtleties of the argument but also, as with the distorted probability argument peddled by creationists, it makes it easy to introduce pseudo-science into the debate which appears to counter evolution but really does no such thing.

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

there is much that the layman simply does not know about these things.

Interesting observation. So how many atheists would you say fall in the layman category who simply do not know enough about the TOE to really understand what it's all about? Or are all atheists experts in TOE?

 

[Independent]

So how many atheists would you say fall in the layman category who simply do not know enough about the TOE to really understand what it's all about

Of course, most of us are laymen about any subject - being atheist or otherwise doesn't affect this. The world is too complicated to be an expert in more than one or two things. But the broad concept of evolution is easy to understand and appears to fit with the world people see in many ways.

 

[observer]

Of course, most of us are laymen about any subject - being atheist or otherwise doesn't affect this. The world is too complicated to be an expert in more than one or two things. But the broad concept of evolution is easy to understand and appears to fit with the world people see in many ways.

Exactly.

 

[Independent]

The habit of associating TOE with atheism is both innaccurate and misleading. TOE is supported by many scientists who are also religious such as the Roman Catholic Kenneth Miller. He has a very good rebuttal of creationism and particularly the famous flagellum argument here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html).

He concludes this about the debate:

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom. Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

 

[Muhaba]

Very interesting link here which casts doubt on the doubters, as it were. The popular statistics about the improbability of evolution happening in the time period available are themelves open to question.

For instance, TOE critics such as Michael Behe have treated mutations as if they were only either 'good' or 'bad' - whereas in fact most of them are neutral. A neutral mutation may be passed on because there is nothing to prevent it from happening. This greatly affects the statistics Behe presents.

Behe is also famous for the argument of 'Irreducible Complexity' (a revival of the Paley's watchmaker argument). The idea is that some developments require more than 10 mutations, without any one of which the development would be either useless or even destructive. But increasingly we are finding that those individual mutations are either beneficial for a different, unrelated purpose or simply neutral. (For example, most of the enzymes needed for blood clotting also have utility in digestion - so they evolved and were retained for a separate purpose, and then co-opted for clotting.)

This means that they could indeed have evolved one by one and the mathematical 'impossibility' of their simultaneous development is revealed as illusory.

TOE is not the finished article, but from the evidence so far I can't see any reason to suppose that it is wrong in fundamental concept. When you focus not on the gaps in TOE, but on the absence of any evidence at all that actually contradicts TOE, then it's very hard not to accept that it must be broadly correct.

If the only proof you have is that there is no evidence to contradict TOE, then what evidence is there that contradicts the statement: the world was created by God?

 

[Muhaba]

Greetings Eric


I don't think bones present a specific challenge to evolution ahead of other issues. The evolution of the bone structure is extremely unlikely to have occurred one by one, bone by bone. Instead, it's likely that the capacity to create bone would have evolved, and subsequently used to develop bones where necessary.

Interestingly, there is evidence that a breakthrough evolutionary step can result in a spurt in development. For instance it is suggested that once sight evolved, it was so useful that creatures with some version of the eye rapidly filled all available niches. The rate of evolution is not governed simply by abstract maths, but also by utility and environment. It's misleading to think of it as simply random - natural selection is anything but random as the word 'selection' implies. However, it does not require a guiding intelligence.


The combined No 2 chromosome is found only in humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. This makes absolute sense with TOE. If it is instead the result of an act of God, it is bizarre and difficult to understand except as a deliberate clue. If it had been found in the 'wrong' branch of the evolutionary tree it could potentially have disproved evolution. Yet once again, no evidence is ever found that disproves TOE. The Creationist account of the world does not make sense in this context, unless you attribute deliberate confusion to God.

Note the words in bold. Theory of Evolution is nothing but a bunch of assumptions. There's no evidence that what is being suggested is correct. And assumptions are not science. For example, it's not said "it's likely that the sun is in the center of the solar system." The sun being in the center is a verified fact. but in TOE all you have is "This thing is like this, there are some fossils here, there are some similarities between these things, so it's likely that they evolved or it's suggested that this happened." blah blah blah.

 

[جوري]

fact is chromosome fusion or breaks or translocation has only given us diseases such as cancer

The result is that a fusion gene is created by juxtapositioning the Abl1 gene on chromosome 9 (region q34) to a part of the BCR ("breakpoint cluster region") gene on chromosome 22 (region q11). This is a reciprocal translocation, creating an elongated chromosome 9 (der 9), and a truncated chromosome 22 (the Philadelphia chromosome).[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] In agreement with the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN), this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_chromosome
.. and the same goes for mutations except for silent mutations.. none of the proposed methods of 'evolution' have given us a new species .. adaptation isn't evolution in the sense atheists desire. Be that as it may the methods of reproducing the results they desire can be easily attained in a lab, why not put the money where the mouth is? take a primate and turn it human!

The 'creationist' need not make a case for creation, all they need to do is point out the flaws in the so-called 'scientific theory'

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

Of course, most of us are laymen about any subject - being atheist or otherwise doesn't affect this. The world is too complicated to be an expert in more than one or two things. But the broad concept of evolution is easy to understand and appears to fit with the world people see in many ways.

I think it was not really that long ago when the broad concept of a flat earth was easy to understand and appeared to fit with the world people saw in many ways. I suppose that proved that the earth was flat, right?

 

[Pygoscelis]

If the only proof you have is that there is no evidence to contradict TOE, then what evidence is there that contradicts the statement: the world was created by God?

There is plenty of evidence besides that, which has already been shown in this thread. Just scroll up. And in case you've been ignoring his many posts, Independent has been saying that evolution and God are compatible.

It is some theists here who are saying that evolution and God are not compatible. I can see why they take that position, because whereas evolution does not disprove God, it does go a long way towards disproving literal translations of the creation myths of the major religions. And once a theist admits that part of his holy book isn't literal, who is to say what parts of the rest of it are literal, if any?

Now, let's consider your question of what evidence is there that contradicts the statement "The world was created by God". May I assume you mean an all powerful, all knowing, and all benevolent God? If so then we have plenty of evidence against that. If we accept the presumption that life forms on earth were created in their present form by a designer, then we can reasonably conclude that the designer is either incompetent or malevolent.

We eat, breathe, and speak through the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death every year. Dolphins have separate holes for eating and breathing. Does God like dolphins more than humans? We have cross-wired brains where the left side of the brain controls the right side of our body and the left side controls the left. Our eyes are wonderful products of evolution, but surely an all powerful designer could have done much better. We only see a very small segment of the light spectrum, and we have blind spots.

And evidence for evolution keeps getting found, leading scientists into concluding we evolved. Did God plant this just to confuse us? Is God a trickster God more in this for his own entertainment?

Evolution simply fits better as an explanation than does direct creation by Allah.

 

[جوري]

Again, more stuffing less science by non-scientists who proclaim to have better understanding than those who're actually studied in the fields of genetics, molecular biology and medicine. Sobhan Allah!