If I had a nickel for every time this old chestnut was trotted out I'd be a very wealthy man. 1. This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes. 2. Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity.
If by macro-evolution you mean the evolution and speciation up to higher levels of complexity, then I think this is one of the major problems with the theory of evolution. There isn’t really any evidence that it happens, or even a good theory for a mechanism by which it might happen. It just doesn’t fit what we know of how genetic mutation works. Maybe the mechanism is yet to be discovered, but for now this is one of the big gaps in the theory. Anyone uncomfortable with evolution and speciation up to higher levels of complexity need only propose another plausible theory, and there are a number. For example, man is now thinking of ways that we might be able to terraform Mars. This raises the question, if we’re thinking of doing this to Mars could some being have done this to earth? Logically, there are very likely forms of life in the universe other than us, and if so then the probability is that some of them will be much more advanced than we are. What would we expect to see, then, if the earth had been engineered in this way? Well, it probably would have been developed in stages, and therefore you might expect to see jumps and in the kinds of life that were present on earth throughout its history. There may well have been some corrections along the way as well, so you would likely expect to see periods where certain kinds of life disappeared. And this is in fact what the fossil record shows. Does this represent proof that earth was definitely engineered? Of course not, but it is a valid theory with quite a bit of evidence to support it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oq...6ojIBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result The Science of God is a really good book on this subject. It basically shows how the evolutionary theory and religion are compatible.
to be clear, i wasn't applying it to evolution....though i realize it's in an evolution thread. i posted it in reply to that specific post. and i don't know hoyle. i like his playing cards, though.
Except wouldn't what you cite though apply to skepticism of Evolution? For instance rift valleys and subductions zones are observable but we haven't witnessed the formation of them, just along the lines of say observing a fish become a turtle, so there could be another explanation to them. Also yes movement of plates is detectable but that movement is very slow from a human timeframe and no human has ever witnessed Pangea breaking up. To apply a criticism of Evolution what you are describing sounds like micro-tectonics versus macro-tectonics. Not to be an instigator but it sounds like you have a different opinion than B-bob. I don't claim to be an expert in quantum mechanics but I am interested in hearing both views regarding how much is known and unkown about quantum mechanics. I don't know how string theory is taught in high schools or if it is taught at all but it seems like in wider culture it is presented as having more weight than it actually has. To a point I agree with you and believe that is one of the problems why this is such a hot issue debate. I do think secular proponents have used Evolution to attack and ridicule religion at times. I find that as disturbing as the denying Evolution on a purely religious grounds since Evolution isn't truly in conflict with the idea of a God.
But we do witness rift valleys forming and subduction zones subducting. We do also see genetic drift and certain kinds of evolution happening. We essentially don’t see evolution to higher levels of complexity happening, however. If you’re questioning whether Pangea was the starting point I don’t think anyone would have a big problem with that. That’s just the current theory of where the movement started based on how the current pieces fit together and on other geological similarities. Iirc, the more contentious issues relate to hotspots, and the kind of large lava flows that occurred around Yellowstone National Park, and large earthquakes that occasionally seem to happen in the middle of plates. I’m no expert either, but perhaps a good example would be the wave and particle properties of light. We know it behaves this way and can repeat the relevant experiments an infinite number of times, but I think we still don’t understand exactly how this happens. Is this the kind of issue you’re looking for? It became popular after I’d finished school as well. I think some people think it has a lot of weight, but I believe there are significant competing theories even within the broad category of string theory. I find it more disturbing, although both are disturbing. Actually, I think they’re both doing about the same thing. One is using bad science to falsely claim that science has proved something it hasn’t, and the other is using an, imo, indefensible interpretation of the Bible to claim that it says something that it doesn’t.
I was trying to find that article. It amazes me greatly. I don't see why we (humans in general) have to fill in all the gaps in scientific theories to accept them. We will probably fill alot of the gaps in the near future, maybe a bit more in a few generations and maybe some that will never be filled. But it does not take away what makes sense from a reasoning perspective. Just because humans can't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we can only see, hear,taste, touch, smell doenst mean thats all there is (this is a bad example). I am sure there are other things that we cant experience, but other animals for example can (sonar for example).
The Theory of Evolution is so strong precicely because it correctly predicts how those gaps will be filled. The e. coli study is a great example; they found the "catdog" referenced in the other thread.
yes. but you need to do more photochopping to make us laugh -- that is the only solution. Grizzled, we do disagree a little. Quantum mechanics. The "wavicle" thing is not a problem if you embrace the theory, and that's kind of an intro quantum issue. If you want a cozy hands-on understanding that leaves one sleeping well at night, apparently reality just isn't that kind. The wave-particle duality is, if you embrace quantum theory, just a rhetorical relic leftover from models that don't work well at the electron scale. If we separate comfort from completeness, I think most physicists would agree that quantum theory (and I'm specifically saying quantum electrodynamics) is incredibly complete and robust. Gravity is a whole different matter (or energy, har!) But this is a real tangent -- sorry. In terms of evolution and complexity, the entire universe seems to be pitched at increasing complexity. You start with energy and form a few basic particles. Given slight asymmetries, these aren't evenly distributed so they can clump (even more complexity.) Then clumps of simple atoms like hydrogen and helium, via fusion can build more complicated atoms. Holy crap you start building stars and planets and galaxies, all the time moving to greater complexity. Why would life be any different... ? From single cells to multiple cells and differentiated cells to colonies of cooperating multi-cell lifeforms, and so on. To me then it's the same thing (scientifically) to argue that God created bacteria and horses and humans simultaneously as it does to think that quarks, electrons, and then galaxies, molecules, and planets all came into being simultaneously. So to me it looks like one long beautiful line of increasing complexity and wonder. Started why? Rules determined how? One topic I haven't seen yet in this thread (or the other one?) is phylogenetics (sp?): the new examination of various parts of the animal kingdom by comparing and contrasting DNA. This field is really shedding a lot of light on formerly assumed gaps between animals in the tree of life. In some cases it's rewriting how we classify groups of animals. I'm not one of those guys frequenting arguments on evolution, so I would need to read a lot more.
This statement underestimates the set of "infinite possibilities" Consider the billions of carbon based chemical reactions that occur every millisecond on each of the hundreds of billions of planets over tens of billions of years. Events on the order to 1 in 10 to the 50th power could be happening frequently. And, all you need is one to become successfully self replicating in the simplest form and away you go on the evolutionary path. When viewed from the human perspective it might appear quite extraordinary but from the cosmological perspective it might not. I don't think anyone would say organic compounds are in any way rare though.
That’s very interesting, and it’s certainly suggestive, and it definitely warrants more investigation, but it is also very preliminary and not something nearly strong enough to base broad conclusions on. And, unfortunately, that final statement means that you have to be even more cautious with these findings. Clearly he has a bias and for him his research was not just about the science. It was also about attacking creationists. That kind of bias can cause someone to see things in a certain way, or to minimise alternative explanations. I’ve worked as a research assistant in an engineering lab at a university and I’ve seen some of these things happen. I’m not saying that Lenski’s findings are necessarily wrong, of course. I’m just saying that with that clearly stated bias it is prudent to approach his findings with an added measure of caution. And again, these findings are quite preliminary. He himself says that he doesn’t know why it happened and has yet to isolate the specific mutation, or other cause. I don’t know enough about these things, but could this have been caused by an extremely rare recessive gene? In other words, could this be a case of genetic drift rather than a mutation? Without knowing exactly what happened it seems to me that he’s taking a very bold step by coming to the conclusions he has.
True, humans tend to do that. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt: 26 locations over 20 years = 1 mutation ( I think thats right according to the article?) Think about the bizallion times larger sample size that is earth over millions of years. Remember compounding effect of mutatations on mutations. Nope, evolution seems about right.
I feel even less confident discussing quantum physics than I do biology and I'm a layman in both. Given the amount of experimental evidence out there and the development of quantum computing and superconductivity it does seem like a lot of quantum theories are being shown to be robust. To bring this back to this particular topic it seems to me that much of the same criticism directed at Evolution could be applied to quantum mechanics, specifically the inability to observe it directly. This was brought up in the catdog thread but I would hesitate to call Evolution a process of moving from simple to complex as the fossil record shows many movements where complex organisms and biological systems have died out leaving simpler organisms and systems. As you state the whole Universe appears to be moving from a state of simplicity to complexity which to me makes sense under the Law of Thermodynamics and obviously life as we know it is part of the Universe. For life though it doesn't seem to be an even or gradual process and one with fits and starts. I think that goes for all of us.
I have been a skeptical 'Christian' my entire life (I am 26 FWIW) Born of Christian parents, attended Church every Sunday and was sent to a Christian school. Needless to say, I have always had exposure to the Bible, and the Creation theory wasnt a theory to me, it was an undeniable FACT. It has taken me to the age of 26 to discover there is actually something other than 'god' to explain the earth ... of course I knew of evolution, but it was the 'work of the Devil' and therefore not worth paying attention to or trying to learn about. Partly thanks to Richard Dawkins - especially through his book 'the God Delusion' - I have found the answers to many questions, and been able to debunk many ideals i'd always doubted anyway. I have found LIBERATION through my new found understanding. The kind of liberation I thought being a Christian was supposed to offer me...Liberation through Atheism! If you can identify with my upbringing, then please read the God Delusion and learn to think logically and critically...and most importantly... without FEAR.
This review by H. Allen Orr succinctly and respectfully puts what I thought of the God Delusion. selected exerpt: I'm tempted to copypasta the whole thing.
I think what's amazing is that no one talks about how odd it is that ALL LIFE...I mean all life on this entire planet...is all based on DNA. I mean, does anyone think it's odd that another system for transmitting instructions didn't come about in a billion years????
