Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Roustabout]

I am very much concentrating on this single experiment. In the 1980s, the preeminent evolutionary mind in the world wrote a computer program that intelligently guided toward a predetermined end result, and claimed it was proof that a non-designed, blind, unguided process of random output can create order.

You don't seem to understand the implications. You seem to think that one could write a computer program, choosing a different end result to produce a completely different result-- and thus reinforce Darwinian evolution.

Well, duh. You could write another program. And of course, if you choose a different outcome, you'll get a different outcome.

Sorry, but I don't think he fundamentally understands what you are speaking to here. The bold ought to make it clear. That an INTELLIGENT mind constructed the so called random situation. That is the mind conceived an experiment attempting to PROVE an outcome, that was mindless. It's a bit of question begging, no? Much like the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[rjd970]

Sorry, but you've yet to actually do this.
NS is not some ethereal, amoral consciousness that is picking (selecting) one trait over another. Interesting the NS is not a selection at all. When we talk about the function of the human eye, how does NS account for function? Sure we can see how NS is one trait being beneficial, such as long hair vs. short, but that doesn't account for the genetic information and function of hair in the 1st place. This is nothing but a question begging hyposthesis. And you've not SHOWN anything. YOu are taking on FAITH mind you, that NS and random mutation will do this. And that my friend is religion, not science.

I'm not going to discuss the intricacies of ToE and natural selection because there will reach a point where I'm not educated enough, but this should present a pretty good overview of why I think you're mistaken. Take your example of the human eye and its function you seem to be so proud of:

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes. Your end result with a million different books to choose from would have been randomly chosen and resulted in a different end-state, but would have used the same process. The implication is that no particular end-state would have been given preference...ie...we weren't "guided" to be here if Hamlet wasn't chosen, life was "guided" to another end-state by random events (random choosing of another book). The process was the point of the experiment, the end state could have been anything randomly chosen for any reason.

Are you saying that we were guided to this specific end-state by a designer and no other end-states were possible? Just because we are here isn't proof it was designed that way, it easily could have been just random chance set of events after biogenesis that got us here.

I'm saying that I believe we are here because God knew exactly what He wanted us to be.

Are you saying that randomly choosing an end state isn't choosing an end state? Because natural selection, as proposed, is not selecting on an end state at all. You could randomly pull a picture of a spaceship out of a box, but natural selection would never see the picture. For that matter, it would never see a blueprint.

Natural selection would have to turn an airplane into a spaceship out of "molecular" units, using randomly changing instructions, while keeping the airplane in the sky, and not knowing what the spaceship would look like.

And that's giving it the airplane to start with.

Picking a picture out of a hat randomly doesn't help you.

 

[rjd970]

What has science said "from the beginning' about supernatural causes in investigation.

I must say, I get very uncomfortable when I am in discussion with people who use blatant untruths to prove their points.

Newton's statements on an intervening God also opened him up to teasing from Leibniz on why God couldn't have got it right the first time.....but fine. You win the semantics argument because you can quote what Newton said 300 years ago. Congratulations. I'm sorry I used the word "beginning". Jesus.

My point that science is primarily concerned with the natural explanation of phenomena is still true and why the supernatural isn't taught in science classes.

 

[rjd970]

I'm saying that I believe we are here because God knew exactly what He wanted us to be.

Are you saying that randomly choosing an end state isn't choosing an end state? Because natural selection, as proposed, is not selecting on an end state at all. You could randomly pull a picture of a spaceship out of a box, but natural selection would never see the picture. For that matter, it would never see a blueprint.

Natural selection would have to turn an airplane into a spaceship out of "molecular" units, using randomly changing instructions, while keeping the airplane in the sky, and not knowing what the spaceship would look like.

And that's giving it the airplane to start with.

Picking a picture out of a hat randomly doesn't help you.

No, I'm simply saying there are an infinite amount of end-states that could have happened using the same natural processes. If everything were to start all over again on this earth chances are we wouldn't be here or we would look different. The guiding hand of a designer isn't needed to explain us, we just happen to be one of the endless possible products of natural selection.

The random picking of one in a simulation was trying to get you to understand that point in the context of the experiment because you were so preoccupied with arguing the end state was designed to be a certain way. The actual end-state is immaterial, the process of creating order from randomness was the point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My point that science is primarily concerned with the natural explanation of phenomena is still true and why the supernatural isn't taught in science classes.

Continually repeating your philosophical, metaphysical preferences does not prove them. I've asked several times. I've shown historical proof that it's untrue. The creator of our modern scientific method allowed for supernatural causes and limited natural causes to a far more constricted usage than we see in modern Darwinian evolution.

How will you prove your philosophical preference? Or will you just type louder in repeating your unscientific, scientific preferences?

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, I'm simply saying there are an infinite amount of end-states that could have happened using the same natural processes. If everything were to start all over again on this earth chances are we wouldn't be here or we would look different. The guiding hand of a designer isn't needed to explain us, we just happen to be one of the endless possible products of natural selection.

The random picking of one in a simulation was trying to get you to understand that point in the context of the experiment because you were so preoccupied with arguing the end state was designed to be a certain way. The actual end-state is immaterial, the process of creating order from randomness was the point.

I understand that point. I am in awe that you would choose one of many random end results to prove that you don't need an end result. That is all.

 

[rjd970]

I understand that point. I am in awe that you would choose one of many random end results to prove that you don't need an end result. That is all.

I never said that. I'm in awe you still don't understand. I'm simply saying chance can perfectly explain why we are here. Had the dice been rolled any other way there is a good chance we wouldn't be. The specific end result, whatever it could have turned out to be, didn't need to be guided. It just so happens here we are.

 

[rjd970]

Continually repeating your philosophical, metaphysical preferences does not prove them. I've asked several times. I've shown historical proof that it's untrue. The creator of our modern scientific method allowed for supernatural causes and limited natural causes to a far more constricted usage than we see in modern Darwinian evolution.

How will you prove your philosophical preference? Or will you just type louder in repeating your unscientific, scientific preferences?

I walk into a science class with that premise in mind. Arguing the premise itself can take place in a philosophy class.

You are suggesting supernatural explanations be evaluated in current scientific gaps as legitimate scientific theories?

 

[rjd970]

I'm saying that I believe we are here because God knew exactly what He wanted us to be.

This is what I'm arguing. Random chance can offer the same result.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I never said that. I'm in awe you still don't understand. I'm simply saying chance can perfectly explain why we are here. Had the dice been rolled any other way there is a good chance we wouldn't be. The specific end result, whatever it could have turned out to be, didn't need to be guided. It just so happens here we are.

I will continue to belabor the point. How did that experiment prove this? You listed mathematical experiments that indicated this. It turns out it was this one. I called you on the fact that it is flawed in its very design. "Chance" can fully explain why we are here, as long as it is intelligently stewarded to a predetermined end state?

That's the mathematical proof that chance can do what you claim it has done? Really?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I walk into a science class with that premise in mind. Arguing the premise itself can take place in a philosophy class.

You are suggesting supernatural explanations be evaluated in current scientific gaps as legitimate scientific theories?

If that supernatural cause left a natural marker-- absolutely! I've given you a half a dozen examples.

You are claiming that the natural world can not recognize supernatural activity. Prove that assertion. I gave you one example in this very thread, which you ignored. Crap or get off the throne. Prove that supernatural causes can not be observed and their effects tested.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is what I'm arguing. Random chance can offer the same result.

Based on what evidence? An experiment with a fatal flaw in its design? Or are we both agreeing that we are putting faith into something?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I walk into a science class with that premise in mind. Arguing the premise itself can take place in a philosophy class.

It appears that the conversation that is happening in the philosophy class needs to be audited by those in the science class. The above was a grand cop-out.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sorry, but I don't think he fundamentally understands what you are speaking to here. The bold ought to make it clear. That an INTELLIGENT mind constructed the so called random situation. That is the mind conceived an experiment attempting to PROVE an outcome, that was mindless. It's a bit of question begging, no? Much like the Miller-Urey experiment.

He doesn't. It is.

 

[Septic]

Looks like we're cousins with the pig also.

Human to Pig Genome Comparison Complete | [primary-term] content from National Hog Farmer

Maybe one day science will find that missing link and if they do, I'll reevaluate my beliefs. Until then, it's just an unproven THEORY.

Wow, it must have taken you a while to dig up that nugget. (hogfarmer.com) Are you a hog farmer?

Like evolution - germ theory, heliocentric solar system theory & atomic theory are all just theory's - 'the general theory's are confirmed by all available evidence so that it consistent with and can predict new and unobserved phenomena.

Theory's aren't worth much if they can correctly predict all known evidence.'

Unless you have contradictory peer reviewed evidence, the theory of evolution should be regarded as fact. If you (or anyone) can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly change my position. We may disagree on the origin of life but the mountains of evidence supporting evolution is irrefutable.

 

[rjd970]

It appears that the conversation that is happening in the philosophy class needs to be audited by those in the science class. The above was a grand cop-out.

No, it isn't a cop-out. It's the way it is. If you want to throw out the process because you see a philosophical flaw in how it's presented, then go ahead.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, it isn't a cop-out. It's the way it is. If you want to throw out the process because you see a philosophical flaw in how it's presented, then go ahead.

Oh, I got ya. "We won. You lost. Deal with it." I guess that's one way of finding "truth".

Can you at least admit to the "True Scotsman", self-insulating fallacy now?



Good evening.

Oh, and edit: I've shown that the process works just fine without the metaphysical additions. It's not the process that I want to throw out. You seem incapable of separating the "process" from your philosophy.

 

[rjd970]

Oh, I got ya. "We won. You lost. Deal with it." I guess that's one way of finding "truth".

Can you at least admit to the "True Scotsman", self-insulating fallacy now?



Good evening.

You mad?

I'm saying that science and the supernatural are separate magistra. It isn't a matter of winning and losing.

Why do you care so much about what science has to say? You're going to believe what you want anyway. Are you seeking some sort of validation?

 

[Vol8188]

"Meanwhile in Tennessee, they're screaming 'evolution, evolution...We want our thumbs!"-Bill Hicks

 

[rjd970]

I will continue to belabor the point. How did that experiment prove this? You listed mathematical experiments that indicated this. It turns out it was this one. I called you on the fact that it is flawed in its very design. "Chance" can fully explain why we are here, as long as it is intelligently stewarded to a predetermined end state?

That's the mathematical proof that chance can do what you claim it has done? Really?

I don't know how to say it any better. The end state is immaterial. It could be anything. The only reason a specific end state was used in this experiment was so natural selection could be imitated, throwing out "bad" letters and keeping "good" ones. Natural selection in reality is random. Had a random meteor not hit the earth the dinosaurs would still be here and life would look just as "designed" from an outsider.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You mad?

I'm saying that science and the supernatural are separate magistra. It isn't a matter of winning and losing.

Why do you care so much about what science has to say? You're going to believe what you want anyway. Are you seeking some sort of validation?

I'm not mad. I'm pointing out that all you can do is ignore the philosophical implications and history of science to simply repeat the bolded without support. It's quite lame and hard to watch. I feel for you. You are on the failed side of an argument and shoving your fingers in your ears.

I care a lot about what science has to say. I care less what it has to say when filtered through unscientific metaphysical claims.

 

[Roustabout]

I'm not going to discuss the intricacies of ToE and natural selection because there will reach a point where I'm not educated enough, but this should present a pretty good overview of why I think you're mistaken. Take your example of the human eye and its function you seem to be so proud of:

Let's examine"
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Any observational science to show this? No.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye. I hope you understand that this is not evidence. This is conjecture. It's a BELIEF statement. There is no observational science here. A lens formed? OK.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. (Evidence? And question begging. It presumes a sequence exist.) The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. (Speculative and not evidence. And again, question begging.) The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. (Evidence?)

It's like coming upon an advanced camera and speculating that it formed over millions of years. Let's just take a critique of religion. This was written by fallible men.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't know how to say it any better. The end state is immaterial. It could be anything. The only reason a specific end state was used in this experiment was so natural selection could be imitated, throwing out "bad" letters and keeping "good" ones. Natural selection in reality is random. Had a random meteor not hit the earth the dinosaurs would still be here and life would look just as "designed" from an outsider.

I don't know how better to say it. You used this as a mathematical model to replicate blind, unguided natural selection.

It is not blind, it is guided, and it is not natural selection. Do you have any other mathematical models to make your point? This one failed.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Just out of curiosity, Darwinian evolution has withstood 155 years of scientific scrutiny - would you elaborate on what's going to happen in the next 20 years to change that?

Many scientists do not agree with the theory of evolution. If it were such a fact then there would be much more agreement within the scientific community.

Furthering of knowledge and scientific advancements will eventually overturn the idiotic notion of evolution.