DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think David knows math cannot be applied to determining God's existence


[/ QUOTE ]

Coulda fooled me.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

This is a little different for organisms that reproduce asexually, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Lemark had studied certain plants (like flax for instance) he would have been hailed as a genius, instead of a punchline.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[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

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
Why bring "God" into any of this. It's science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm a lurker and I've recently started posting so I haven't quite figured out your faith and what it is but clearly you're one of the more illuminated theists who value science and don't clinge into biblical mythologies as true. You also talk a lot about Love etc. so I'm guessing you're a lot like my brother who also believes in God, emphasizes the meaning of Love but isn't against evolution and is actually quite liberal with his beliefs.

I guess my main point is that these sort of arguments which put science vs. God are directed towards those theists who do that themselves. Not all religious people think science and religion are incompatible and especially in Europe where I live that's very rare. That's an American thing with all the ID nonsense so therefore there is need for atheists/secularists/scientists whatever to bring God into discussion when talking about evolution etc.

[soon2bepro]

Phil: The eye isn't irreducibly complex. You may learn about it from Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.
Here's a link to a video of a childrens' lectures he did back in 1991 (5 years before publishing the book), where he explains why the eye can definitely evolve step by step just like any other complex trait.

Another thing: evolution doesn't say lions turned into zebras or monkeys into people. Nowadays lions, zebras, monkeys, and people are more or less equally complex. We all have a common, less complex ancestor a long long time ago.

[Phil153]

I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

I was trying to provide the creationist objections to David's idea below, which I don't think any creationist would dispute, but which is irrelevant to the question of evolution

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem I have - It's easy to imagine lots of things, so what? I am told these beliefs are made with scientific knowledge behind them. These imaginary "light sensitive patches" are only found one place - the imagination. The fossil record, shows the most primitive of animals with fully formed eyes. And even if we found one with "light sensitive patches" that wouldn't explain their origins either - unless we were to imagine one.

But it's cool- really. I can imagine things too, just don't keep telling me it's on based on science. I'd like someone to admit that they have a belief in naturalism and when the evidence isn't there for their belief they have no problem imagining it. We'd save a lot of time that way.

The same is true for Sklansky's original post. Once we find DNA, it's only a logical progression until we find it feasible to believe in common descent? Perhaps, but that's not science - it's philosophy. This equivocation is frustrating. Am I the only one to see that science and evolutionary thought are not the same thing?

[Alex-db]

The nautilus has a very primitive 'pinhole' eye, with a light sensitive patch. I think answers your question and shows why this is considered science and not imagination.
Evolution of the eye