What prevents evolution?

[Borodog]

This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).

So let me pose this question. If you have:

a) Self-replicators organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and

b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and

c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then

Evolution is inevitable.

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is inevitable


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[ QUOTE ]

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never made either of these statements. It's possible I've said evolution isn't science without qualifying it, but what I've meant and as far as I know have always said is atheistic evolution isn't science. There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary. People like Sagan say the cosmos is all there is, was or will be. These statements and others like them are unscientific.

Much depends on what you mean by evolution. I've said before no one I know doubts that black moths transform into white moths, that the beaks of finches change over time, that the modern horse is somewhat different from the prehistoric horse, etc.

At one level I seriously doubt what is sometimes called macro evolution which is basically that all life forms have a common ancestor. I see no way whatsoever this can be scientifically established. I think the fossil record tends to disprove this rather than prove it. If one of the requirements of science is that it make accurate predictions I don't see how the one common ancestor theory can ever rise above the theoretical level.

At another level, even this isn't the real issue. I take on the fossil record at times, especially the human fossil record, because I think it's bogus from what I've seen, and also because I really want to know if it does establish the descent of man from primates. I discuss other aspects of evolution as well. But these are all side issues. The only real issue that matters is the question of God. The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't occur anymore than it says the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is not a sphere or the earth is 12000 years old. These are all errors in interpretation, sometimes reasonable errors, sometimes intentionally false misrepresentations. One of the problems is that the word evolution is a red flag. It has a history and stands for more than simple change in life forms. It's also often used in a vague, ill-defined and equivocal manner. The opponents are often talking about two different things. Also, many vocal evolutionists, like Dawkins, are also stridently anti-religious. They directly and indirectly assert that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. When you put it like that I will deny evolution every time.

I submit to you that if science got rid of its insistence on ascribing evolution to chance, if Dawkins would retire to a chicken farm, and if scientists would do science and stop preaching against a God they can never prove doesn't exist, much of the controversy between ID and evolution would disappear. I firmly believe there is no conflict whatsover between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation.

[MidGe]

Heya NotReady,


I think your bove post makes your position eminently clear and whilst I diagree strongly with many of your conclusions (about evolution from primates and the single cell ancestor), I think you are missing the very point of much of the dabate between theists and those not so inclned here. Altough you allude to in a couple of ways.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two sentences above are quite different, I would say nearly apposite in meaning. Allow me to paraphrase them to put my interpretation of the meaning.
1. Science does not concern itself with the existence or not of such a thing as a god. Science concerns itself with natural laws (ie repeatable results).
2. The fact that evolution does make god unnecesary, does not say anything about its existence or absence. What will settle that question is faith.

The problem I see is when, for whatever reason, but I think mostly an insecurity vis-a-vis their "faith" or beliefs, theists start to argue that science does indicate a neccesity for a god. This is wrong. This is where they also loose the argument. There is a boundary between science and beliefs that ought to be kept intact for the survival of, both or either, imo.

As far as concerns for conflict between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation, altough not a believer in any sense, as you probably know, it sorts of make sense that the interpretaion of the bible should be in accordance with what is observed even for a believer. Indeed to do anything else, would make for some very slippery and dangerous grounds.

Ok, that was my 2 cents worth. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I wished all theist brothers would post in as an itelligent manner as you do.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Science does not concern itself with the existence or not of such a thing as a god. Science concerns itself with natural laws (ie repeatable results).


[/ QUOTE ]

Science is a word much like evolution and Christianity. It is defined very differently by different people. It's often defined differently by the same people at different times.

[ QUOTE ]

2. The fact that evolution does make god unnecesary, does not say anything about its existence or absence.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't possible for evolution to make God unnecessary. A question - Is the statement that evolution makes God unnecessary itself a scientific statement?

[ QUOTE ]

theists start to argue that science does indicate a neccesity for a god.


[/ QUOTE ]

For science to mean anything, for there to even be science, God is necessary. If God created the universe, how could science be possible without God? There would be no universe and no one to study it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype,

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is inevitable


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. And another such as "and these are sufficiently likely and sufficiently numerous to produce humans from dust in a 3 billion year timespan."

Only reason and common sense support that statement, not hard proof.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, many vocal evolutionists, like Dawkins, are also stridently anti-religious. They directly and indirectly assert that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. When you put it like that I will deny evolution every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
So because you're prickly about anti-religious sentiments, you'll deny a scientific theory you know to be true? That's pathetic.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


Evolution is inevitable




I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.


I agree. And another such as "and these are sufficiently likely and sufficiently numerous to produce humans from dust in a 3 billion year timespan."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Borodog's post is about the inevitability of evolution, not the inevitability of man arising from bacteria. There is no such need for advantageous mutations for evolution to occur. Lets start with a hypothetical.
1. God creates a world with just one island, a sea of water and turtles. 1000 turtles are hatched at the beggining of year 1, 500 are identical clones of each other as are the other 500. The only difference between the groups is that when they crawl back onto the island to depsoit their eggs after maturing the exposure to the sun will produce a brown spot on the back of group A, but not group B. Here you have a difference in phenotype that confers no reproductive advantage or disadvantage, but allows us to distinguish the groups. All 1000 turtles go off and swim and mature but 500 return. The returning tutles deposit 2 eggs which hatch into 1000 new turtles and swim away repeating the cycle. God introduces brownian motion into the ocean which decides the which turtles make it back to deposit eggs and which don't. At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations. It doesn't matter that the phenotype had no impact on the reproductive success of the turtles for that phenotype to become dominant. Thisis evolution on a very very slow scale, but the point is that given Borodog's conditions evolution WILL occur unless there is a mechanism preventing it. So God could not create the animals as they are and have them remain that way for eternity without actively preventing evolution in some way.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...speciation prevents evolution?
Extinction prevents evolution?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you are not right about how evolution occurs WRT reproduction...

I'm going to a class, but if no one else chimes in, I'll try to elaborate when I get back