[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

What math? What mathematical model of probabilty? You started a thread recently about "Belief" and how you thought a Belief was just an estimate of a probability. You were presented with a great deal of discussion about why that is a naive concept. I don't think you ever responded to that discussion. You have evidently just ignored it and continue on with your naive concept of belief hoping that your use of psuedo math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" will automatically legitimize it for your readers and convince them you are saying something meaningful.

I don't believe that "God" magically steps in and bypasses nature to perform magical supernatural feats. I believe that science is best equiped to explain how nature works. But these beliefs are not based on a psuedo application of math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" to God. They are based on my understanding of what the word "God" might reasonably mean in relation to my subjective experience of the spiritual.

Given these beliefs I have no problem looking at the scientific theory of evolution and discussing it on its own merits. No need to bring "God" into the picture at all. How well does the scientific theory of evolution actually explain the evidence? As phil pointed out, there is substantial fossil evidence pointing to the reality of macroevolution. The question is whether mutation is a powerful enough force for altering dna to explain it - along with natural selection. I have my doubts about this.

Yes, the time scales are large. But are they large enough? Just pointing out that given enough time random changes can do almost anything does not show that the time actually alloted was indeed enough time. Given enough time a monkey could randomly type all the works of Shakespeare. That doesn't mean 6 billion years is enough time for him to do it. Things like (.5)^100 get too small too fast.

The theory of evolution is still in its infancy in my opinion. We have been suprised recently by discoveries about the merging of bacteria into other organisms and possibly even into cells of larger creatures, thus altering the dna in a way other than Mutation. The links by phil and m_the0ry about cross breeding of both plant and animal species show another possibility for species level change in dna structure. We also have recent discoveries for changes of gene regulation without dna alteration called Epigenetics. Who knows where these advances in the theory will lead and who knows what new discoveries wait around the corner? There may even be something to the idea of a general Gaia type Planet Wide evolutionary paradigm.

Why bring "God" into any of this. It's science. I don't know why some people insist on a "God" that tinkers with nature but if that's what they want to believe I guess that's going to be their Religious belief. They are not going to be swayed by psuedo application of math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" nor should they. In fact, you are doing exactly the same kind of thing that we resist when Religious people try to pawn off their Religious terms as science. You are trying to pawn off mathematical terms as Religious.

PairTheBoard