Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
Kent, It looks like the conversation between you and Ilíon is a little heated at this point and I was at first hesitant to reply, but I hope you take it as it is intended. Before talking about one possible proof, please consider first my previous post on the foundational faith required even for requesting one. Mathematics and physics are no exception to this principle. Take for example this statement from a discussion about set theory: "There is a further, very serious obstacle, which is that, as Gödel showed, it is impossible to prove the consistency of ZF within ZF. This means that we have to take the consistency of our axioms on faith". http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/settheory.html Now to the proof. Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997): "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." (George Wald, "Origin, Life and Evolution," Scientific American (1978). Quoted in Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take the Heat (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 46.)
Juanfer
Apart from the fact that the origin of life is not part of the study of evolution, I agree that the origin of life is one of the questions we do not have the answer to. This is part of the reason why I'm willing to accept the belief of some people that an external agent "drives" evolution. Having said that, the spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved is not the same as that proposed by those that believe in a chemical origin of life. There have been a number of fairly elegant experiments (by Fox and others) that show that amino acids, sugars and other core molecules of life can and are created by simple reactions. Could these chemicals have made the leap to self-reproduction? I haven't a clue, but I will repeat -- this is not part of the theory of evolution and would be a little akin to pointing out an unknown fact in physics as being a flaw in mathematics.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent,
Kent Sharkey wrote:
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data.
I think this is what I did in my original post. In consistency with your premise you should at least acknowledge that evolution is not the best explanation for the data. Other evolutionists have done it, like Prof. Jerome Lejeune, internationally recognized geneticist: "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…" -- modified at 10:25 Saturday 17th March, 2007
Juanfer
As for Dr. Lejeune: I disagree that it is a bad theory, but I can see (I think) where he is coming from. I think the important parts are not the knee-jerk "it's a bad theory", but better explained in the later half of that quote, "Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…" He is not saying that there is no evolution, merely that the current explanation does not fit his critera of a great theory. Now, let's go back to your original proof:
- Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there.
Physics/cosmology, not evolution. I will agree that it's a good question, and I'm far from convinced by Hawking's latest, "It just appeared."
- After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747)
While still not evolution, this one seems understandable. The "cooling" of the energy produced matter, the matter organized using gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
- Uniform matter then became diverse. How?
Not sure what you mean by diverse. Do you mean different types of matter, or that it spread? (either way, still not evolution).
- Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere.
Gravity, and probably the initial momentum of the material (material orbiting the accreating star might have too much of an orbital velocity to collapse into said star). As we have observed planets orbiting other stars, this seems to have happened in many locations.
- Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions?
Many of the compounds that exist today are observed in stars. Remember that they're not just pretty sun-tan inducing objects, but nuclear furnaces. They generate various chemical materials, some of which end up being spread throughout the solar system. In unrelated (probably also nuclear) reactions, carbon and similar materials have been observed in comets and other solar system bodies.
- Some complex compounds started interact
-
Hi Juanfer, I would see it as an example of evolution, yes. There are differences in the DNA of the gulls, currently enough that they (at least at parts of the circle) have ceased to interbreed. With time, and selective forces, they could easily become "something other than gulls."
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand what you mean. On the other hand, it is precisely the nature of those 'selective forces', their source and the direction in which they operate what is in question. These 'forces' along with the use of terms like 'could', 'maybe', 'probably', etc. are ubiquitous in almost every statement I have found in favor of evolution; these terms could easily be associated with eastern mysticism. If we try to make a case for evolution as science, we must be ready to apply the full rigor of the term to it. In other words, the fact that we can conceive of something does not make it real. If we assume (again, by faith) that such 'selective forces' exist, we still need to answer our belief about how 'easy' it really is for them to cause beneficial changes, particularly in spite of Haldane's Dilemma, which has yet to be satisfactorily resolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma Walter ReMine seems to have found a clarification to the dilemma, but his paper is apparently rejected on unscientific grounds: http://saintpaulscience.com/a_tale_of_peer-review.htm Regards,
Juanfer
-
Kent,
Kent Sharkey wrote:
The scientific method does not require any practices, values, etc. other than the endless cycle of observation, hypothesis, proposal, test, theory.
I understand how we have come to assume this to be the case, but this is not accurate for these disciplines require the exercise of our faith in the principles of causality and induction. Please follow this link and the interactions that followed to identify a few core beliefs upon which any scientist builds up the practice of his profession (note that Chris avoided the point by accusing me of trying to remove causality): http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1901714#xx1901714xx
Kent Sharkey wrote:
I give you my old Molecular Evolution professor. The professor I had for that final year course at University was a devout Mennonite. He believed in evolution, as science as observed and tested and refined the theory for > 100 years. He believed, however, that it was a mechanism of God. For him, and many others, this is a perfectly rational explanation.
I cannot question the sincerity of what your professor believed, but truth is independent from our particular opinions and these must be tested in some way to see if they conform to it. Even though any kind of test will necessarily start with faith (which I hope you have already accepted), it must be consistent with reason and evidence. In his case, I would present the same challenges about his worldview and how he can rationally and consistently arrive to a conclusion different from his God's revelation.
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis.
Please note from my original post that the attack was not on 'some facet' but on several points (not at all an exhaustive list) of the evolutionary theory. These points should make evident to any rational individual that the whole package is an exercise in philosophical absurdity, a castle built on thin air. The alternate hypothesis has already been presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. This hypothesis is perfectly consistent with all the available evidence and does not contain any of the inconsistencies I pointed out. You may disagree with this but, if t
juanfer68 wrote:
The alternate hypothesis has already been presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. This hypothesis is perfectly consistent with all the available evidence and does not contain any of the inconsistencies I pointed out. You may disagree with this but, if this is so, please provide a reason.
Please don't tell me you propose "Young Earth Creationism" as a possible answer to evolution? I hate to sound like I'm attacking, but there are so many inconsistencies in that I don't even want to consider it a conjecture, let alone theory.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand what you mean. On the other hand, it is precisely the nature of those 'selective forces', their source and the direction in which they operate what is in question. These 'forces' along with the use of terms like 'could', 'maybe', 'probably', etc. are ubiquitous in almost every statement I have found in favor of evolution; these terms could easily be associated with eastern mysticism. If we try to make a case for evolution as science, we must be ready to apply the full rigor of the term to it. In other words, the fact that we can conceive of something does not make it real. If we assume (again, by faith) that such 'selective forces' exist, we still need to answer our belief about how 'easy' it really is for them to cause beneficial changes, particularly in spite of Haldane's Dilemma, which has yet to be satisfactorily resolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma Walter ReMine seems to have found a clarification to the dilemma, but his paper is apparently rejected on unscientific grounds: http://saintpaulscience.com/a_tale_of_peer-review.htm Regards,
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
If we try to make a case for evolution as science, we must be ready to apply the full rigor of the term to it. In other words, the fact that we can conceive of something does not make it real.
Well, I come back to the definition of theory I used earlier, or rather of the scientific method:
- Observe
- Propose answer
- Test
- Refine answer or throw out in favour of another answer
- Repeat
I also stand by the use of evolution as being our best answer to the observations we've seen, and our best tool for making predictions about future observations. We can never use absolute language, just as I could never say, "When I flick this switch, the light will always come on." As for Haldane's dilemma, it's true -- there is no way to switch all the genes you desire in a single generation. However, evolution does not need a single generation to work. It is the slow progression of gene frequencies until one gene (or set of genes) dominates. To use the moth example from that Wikipedia page, when the trees were darkened, more of the lighter moths were eaten, increasing the proportion of dark genes in the population. If the selective pressure were maintained, this would have continued until the dark moths became the norm. As the dilemma points out, other genes would also be being simultaneously selected. However, in general, Haldane's dilemma (or rather using it to somehow 'explain' why evolution can't exist) seems to parse very much like Zeno's paradox.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Apart from the fact that the origin of life is not part of the study of evolution, I agree that the origin of life is one of the questions we do not have the answer to. This is part of the reason why I'm willing to accept the belief of some people that an external agent "drives" evolution. Having said that, the spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved is not the same as that proposed by those that believe in a chemical origin of life. There have been a number of fairly elegant experiments (by Fox and others) that show that amino acids, sugars and other core molecules of life can and are created by simple reactions. Could these chemicals have made the leap to self-reproduction? I haven't a clue, but I will repeat -- this is not part of the theory of evolution and would be a little akin to pointing out an unknown fact in physics as being a flaw in mathematics.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Given your willingness to accept that an external agent ‘drives’ evolution I see no need to determine whether or not Pasteur’s and the chemical views of spontaneous generation are really different in principle. I would just say in passing about Fox’s experiment that we must critically examine any statement suggesting that, just because we can manufacture something using our will and aligning the process with the results we expect, it will necessarily follow that it must have happened naturally, especially without those necessary conditions! For the problematic assumptions in Fox’s experiment: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=79 I consider this more foundational, though:
Kent Sharkey wrote:
I'm willing to accept the belief of some people that an external agent "drives" evolution.
What is this agent exactly external to? Is it just external to the earth but still part of the naturally observable phenomena, a transcendent being like God, or something else we cannot know anything about? Moreover, if we believe that this external factor, which we can call A for convenience, was required in the origin of life, and that arbitrariness is not an option in our scientific approach, when do we and what would be the reason for us to remove A from our subsequent equations? Where A's location after the kick-off?
Juanfer
-
juanfer68 wrote:
The alternate hypothesis has already been presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. This hypothesis is perfectly consistent with all the available evidence and does not contain any of the inconsistencies I pointed out. You may disagree with this but, if this is so, please provide a reason.
Please don't tell me you propose "Young Earth Creationism" as a possible answer to evolution? I hate to sound like I'm attacking, but there are so many inconsistencies in that I don't even want to consider it a conjecture, let alone theory.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent, I completely agree with you: inconsistencies should not be allowed in a rational exchange. Let me just add to it that the same applies for arbitrariness; would you agree? If this is the case, I think we have a workable framework to scrutinize our worldviews. You should be already excited then, for if ‘Special Creation’, which is what I advocate, is merely a conjecture, I must be at a great disadvantage after I decided to take on evolution if it is such a well established scientific theory. Consistency and the preponderance of evidence would be on your side, making my task titanic and yours very simple. I consider it fair for me to start with the grounds of my worldview to avoid confusion, so you don’t have to guess where I am going. Throughout any subsequent exchanges I will try to show how the worldview I hold to is internally consistent and rational, and this is not contingent upon our own psychological or personal preferences. In other words, the fact that I believe it does not make it real if it isn’t, and the fact that you don’t believe it does not make it unreal if it is. Of course, I have to grant that our beliefs have a psychological effect on us, but this matter is not relevant for this discussion. I will also try to be ready to acknowledge and correct any violation of the laws of reason or ambiguities that you may find in my posts. Here we go: I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the reliable foundation to account consistently for the various aspects of human knowledge and experience, which is not the same as saying that I expect to find in it a description of every conceivable personal affair or scientific observation. In consequence, I believe its affirmation that we have been created in the image of God and thus share some of His attributes but not all, according to the fundamental creator-creation distinction. From God’s revelation I learn that faith “is the evidence of things not seen” and that “through faith [I] understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”. Even though I did not see the worlds as God created them, I find that faith, as defined here, continues to be the key to understand my own experience and the way I interact with the environment. From the premises above I find it perfectly reasonable to observe the world around me and hope that the events I observe follow a set of rules or laws that, though invisible, allow me to predict fut
-
juanfer68 wrote:
If we try to make a case for evolution as science, we must be ready to apply the full rigor of the term to it. In other words, the fact that we can conceive of something does not make it real.
Well, I come back to the definition of theory I used earlier, or rather of the scientific method:
- Observe
- Propose answer
- Test
- Refine answer or throw out in favour of another answer
- Repeat
I also stand by the use of evolution as being our best answer to the observations we've seen, and our best tool for making predictions about future observations. We can never use absolute language, just as I could never say, "When I flick this switch, the light will always come on." As for Haldane's dilemma, it's true -- there is no way to switch all the genes you desire in a single generation. However, evolution does not need a single generation to work. It is the slow progression of gene frequencies until one gene (or set of genes) dominates. To use the moth example from that Wikipedia page, when the trees were darkened, more of the lighter moths were eaten, increasing the proportion of dark genes in the population. If the selective pressure were maintained, this would have continued until the dark moths became the norm. As the dilemma points out, other genes would also be being simultaneously selected. However, in general, Haldane's dilemma (or rather using it to somehow 'explain' why evolution can't exist) seems to parse very much like Zeno's paradox.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey wrote:
We can never use absolute language, just as I could never say, "When I flick this switch, the light will always come on.”
Kent, This is a good start to apply the laws of reason to test the internal consistency of our worldviews, as I proposed in a previous post. I would say that I disagree and agree at the same time, but in a different sense. Let me explain: The statement “We can never use absolute language” is itself absolute and, therefore, contradictory or absurd. If it is true then it is false and, if it is false then it is true. How is it then that I can agree and disagree and still be rational? First, I can agree if we both assume the existence of an external context from which the affirmation can be made about the object of it. For example, I would agree if you say “We can never use absolute language” to refer to the level of certainty we can achieve from within the limited realm of our observations. But this makes sense for the Christian; this is the realm of the unseen or invisible things we call laws, which are nothing more than the impersonal name we give to what we cannot observe but neither deny. Talking about Jesus, the letter to the Colossians describes Him as: "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible", "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." You may not believe this or consider it preposterous but, is this not internally consistent and also with our own experience and reason? What would be a rational alternative? On the other hand, I would have to disagree if we consider the whole realm of reality, simply because we have just used an absolute statement showing our belief in such things, haven’t we? As a Christian, the use of absolutes is perfectly acceptable and thus we can make sense of mathematics, proofs, physics, etc., even if our understanding of them is open to discussion. How do they make sense for a non-Christian? If we deny absolutes, rational consistency would demand from us to stop using ‘=’ and similar symbols, along with any declarative statement containing words such as ‘is’, ‘does’, ‘causes’, ‘becomes’, ‘evolves’, etc. and replace or modify them with terms like ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, ‘probably’ and the like. In conclusion, faith has to be necessarily exercised regarding any affirmation about absolutes, either to deny or to accept them.
-
As for Dr. Lejeune: I disagree that it is a bad theory, but I can see (I think) where he is coming from. I think the important parts are not the knee-jerk "it's a bad theory", but better explained in the later half of that quote, "Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…" He is not saying that there is no evolution, merely that the current explanation does not fit his critera of a great theory. Now, let's go back to your original proof:
- Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there.
Physics/cosmology, not evolution. I will agree that it's a good question, and I'm far from convinced by Hawking's latest, "It just appeared."
- After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747)
While still not evolution, this one seems understandable. The "cooling" of the energy produced matter, the matter organized using gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
- Uniform matter then became diverse. How?
Not sure what you mean by diverse. Do you mean different types of matter, or that it spread? (either way, still not evolution).
- Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere.
Gravity, and probably the initial momentum of the material (material orbiting the accreating star might have too much of an orbital velocity to collapse into said star). As we have observed planets orbiting other stars, this seems to have happened in many locations.
- Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions?
Many of the compounds that exist today are observed in stars. Remember that they're not just pretty sun-tan inducing objects, but nuclear furnaces. They generate various chemical materials, some of which end up being spread throughout the solar system. In unrelated (probably also nuclear) reactions, carbon and similar materials have been observed in comets and other solar system bodies.
- Some complex compounds started interact
Kent, Thanks for taking the time to address comprehensively the issues I presented in my first post. Please bear with me as I have to confess I am somewhat slow and it will take time for me to cover the amount of information you provided. If I may ask, please check my other response about our worldviews and then we can start examining each one of your answers to find out whether they meet the definition of ‘observations’, ‘assumptions’, ‘rational conclusions from observations’, or rather ‘requirements’ for the evolutionary worldview to be believable. In the process I intend to adhere to our principles of avoiding inconsistencies and arbitrariness. Thanks.
Juanfer
-
Given your willingness to accept that an external agent ‘drives’ evolution I see no need to determine whether or not Pasteur’s and the chemical views of spontaneous generation are really different in principle. I would just say in passing about Fox’s experiment that we must critically examine any statement suggesting that, just because we can manufacture something using our will and aligning the process with the results we expect, it will necessarily follow that it must have happened naturally, especially without those necessary conditions! For the problematic assumptions in Fox’s experiment: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=79 I consider this more foundational, though:
Kent Sharkey wrote:
I'm willing to accept the belief of some people that an external agent "drives" evolution.
What is this agent exactly external to? Is it just external to the earth but still part of the naturally observable phenomena, a transcendent being like God, or something else we cannot know anything about? Moreover, if we believe that this external factor, which we can call A for convenience, was required in the origin of life, and that arbitrariness is not an option in our scientific approach, when do we and what would be the reason for us to remove A from our subsequent equations? Where A's location after the kick-off?
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
I would just say in passing about Fox’s experiment that we must critically examine any statement suggesting that, just because we can manufacture something using our will and aligning the process with the results we expect, it will necessarily follow that it must have happened naturally, especially without those necessary conditions!
Absolutely! I would think that no one, hopefully including Fox, feel that this is the way it "must have happened". Rather, I think the value in Fox's (and Urey's, Miller's and all the others working in that field) experiments is that it is possible to generate some of the "chemicals of life" using more simple precursors. I view their experiments more as thought-experiments on par with many physicists. They are what a friend of mine calls, "Mental Masturbation." Fun, but with absolutely no chance of anything useful coming of it. I like that site, they put far more rigour to their writing than most of those sites. I don't agree with all of their conclusions, but then I don't agree with all of Fox's either (and they hit many of my disagreements as well).
juanfer68 wrote:
What is this agent exactly external to? Is it just external to the earth but still part of the naturally observable phenomena, a transcendent being like God, or something else we cannot know anything about?
External to the process we observe.
juanfer68 wrote:
Moreover, if we believe that this external factor, which we can call A for convenience, was required in the origin of life, and that arbitrariness is not an option in our scientific approach, when do we and what would be the reason for us to remove A from our subsequent equations? Where A's location after the kick-off?
Well, I didn't say I believed in A, simply that I was willing to accept the belief that some people have for A. These same people -- Kenneth Miller being one of the most visible -- feel that A is also driving the process we observe as evolution. Flipping the switches still, as it were.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
We can never use absolute language, just as I could never say, "When I flick this switch, the light will always come on.”
Kent, This is a good start to apply the laws of reason to test the internal consistency of our worldviews, as I proposed in a previous post. I would say that I disagree and agree at the same time, but in a different sense. Let me explain: The statement “We can never use absolute language” is itself absolute and, therefore, contradictory or absurd. If it is true then it is false and, if it is false then it is true. How is it then that I can agree and disagree and still be rational? First, I can agree if we both assume the existence of an external context from which the affirmation can be made about the object of it. For example, I would agree if you say “We can never use absolute language” to refer to the level of certainty we can achieve from within the limited realm of our observations. But this makes sense for the Christian; this is the realm of the unseen or invisible things we call laws, which are nothing more than the impersonal name we give to what we cannot observe but neither deny. Talking about Jesus, the letter to the Colossians describes Him as: "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible", "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." You may not believe this or consider it preposterous but, is this not internally consistent and also with our own experience and reason? What would be a rational alternative? On the other hand, I would have to disagree if we consider the whole realm of reality, simply because we have just used an absolute statement showing our belief in such things, haven’t we? As a Christian, the use of absolutes is perfectly acceptable and thus we can make sense of mathematics, proofs, physics, etc., even if our understanding of them is open to discussion. How do they make sense for a non-Christian? If we deny absolutes, rational consistency would demand from us to stop using ‘=’ and similar symbols, along with any declarative statement containing words such as ‘is’, ‘does’, ‘causes’, ‘becomes’, ‘evolves’, etc. and replace or modify them with terms like ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, ‘probably’ and the like. In conclusion, faith has to be necessarily exercised regarding any affirmation about absolutes, either to deny or to accept them.
juanfer68 wrote:
The statement “We can never use absolute language” is itself absolute and, therefore, contradictory or absurd. If it is true then it is false and, if it is false then it is true.
Sure, I suppose it fits in with, "This is always a false statement" that someone here uses as their signature. Would you have preferred, "We can generally not make absolute statements." or "We can never use absolute language, with a margin of error of 5%, 19 times out of 20."? I'm sure (based on the rest of your reply) that you did understand the sentiment. I should add that I have been called in the past, "A creature of shades of grey." I will rarely use absolute language, even when I am certain of some result. There is always something that may occur that may change my answer. Perhaps it would be my understanding God as you do.
juanfer68 wrote:
With this in mind, please consider again Haldane's dilemma and tell me how do you know or believe the changes in moths to be the result of an undirected mechanism, rather than a manifestation of an ability already programmed in their genes by their Creator, all of this apart from faith.
The moth population has a number of genes that generate colour in the adult moth. In a 'resting' (aka with no major selection forces) population, these form a fairly natural distribution of colour patterns. Once the trees began to be darkened with soot, birds were able to see the lighter coloured moths more frequently, and ate them. We now had a selective force applied to the population. The genes that encoded lighter coloured moths decreased in the population, therefore the darker moths were more likely to have offspring. The population darkened as a whole. Once the pressure was removed, it would have likely stayed this way, unless there were some other benefit to light-colouredness, or to a gene that was closely associated with the light-coloured gene.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent, Thanks for taking the time to address comprehensively the issues I presented in my first post. Please bear with me as I have to confess I am somewhat slow and it will take time for me to cover the amount of information you provided. If I may ask, please check my other response about our worldviews and then we can start examining each one of your answers to find out whether they meet the definition of ‘observations’, ‘assumptions’, ‘rational conclusions from observations’, or rather ‘requirements’ for the evolutionary worldview to be believable. In the process I intend to adhere to our principles of avoiding inconsistencies and arbitrariness. Thanks.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
If I may ask, please check my other response about our worldviews and then we can start examining each one of your answers to find out whether they meet the definition of ‘observations’, ‘assumptions’, ‘rational conclusions from observations’, or rather ‘requirements’ for the evolutionary worldview to be believable.
I feel like I'm in therapy :laugh:
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent, I completely agree with you: inconsistencies should not be allowed in a rational exchange. Let me just add to it that the same applies for arbitrariness; would you agree? If this is the case, I think we have a workable framework to scrutinize our worldviews. You should be already excited then, for if ‘Special Creation’, which is what I advocate, is merely a conjecture, I must be at a great disadvantage after I decided to take on evolution if it is such a well established scientific theory. Consistency and the preponderance of evidence would be on your side, making my task titanic and yours very simple. I consider it fair for me to start with the grounds of my worldview to avoid confusion, so you don’t have to guess where I am going. Throughout any subsequent exchanges I will try to show how the worldview I hold to is internally consistent and rational, and this is not contingent upon our own psychological or personal preferences. In other words, the fact that I believe it does not make it real if it isn’t, and the fact that you don’t believe it does not make it unreal if it is. Of course, I have to grant that our beliefs have a psychological effect on us, but this matter is not relevant for this discussion. I will also try to be ready to acknowledge and correct any violation of the laws of reason or ambiguities that you may find in my posts. Here we go: I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the reliable foundation to account consistently for the various aspects of human knowledge and experience, which is not the same as saying that I expect to find in it a description of every conceivable personal affair or scientific observation. In consequence, I believe its affirmation that we have been created in the image of God and thus share some of His attributes but not all, according to the fundamental creator-creation distinction. From God’s revelation I learn that faith “is the evidence of things not seen” and that “through faith [I] understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”. Even though I did not see the worlds as God created them, I find that faith, as defined here, continues to be the key to understand my own experience and the way I interact with the environment. From the premises above I find it perfectly reasonable to observe the world around me and hope that the events I observe follow a set of rules or laws that, though invisible, allow me to predict fut
juanfer68 wrote:
You should be already excited then, for if ‘Special Creation’, which is what I advocate, is merely a conjecture, I must be at a great disadvantage after I decided to take on evolution if it is such a well established scientific theory.
I have to admit, this is the first time I've heard the expression "Special Creation" so, please humour me -- do any of the definitions on this page[^] come close to what you're calling Special Creation? The only one I feel is disconnected from observed data is the literal 6 24 hour days one.
juanfer68 wrote:
I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the reliable foundation to account consistently for the various aspects of human knowledge and experience, which is not the same as saying that I expect to find in it a description of every conceivable personal affair or scientific observation. In consequence, I believe its affirmation that we have been created in the image of God and thus share some of His attributes but not all, according to the fundamental creator-creation distinction.
Fair enough. Before I start, let me say that while I lack anything that would be considered faith in most topics[1], I have always had, and continue to have enormous respect for people who do have faith. As for the Bible, I have said in the past the following pithy statement, "It is the word of God, not God's Word." I feel too many human hands have touched it, translated it, and rewritten it to be taken literally, and view most of it as parable, powerfully good advice, and ancient Hebrew law. As for the New Testament, it is biographical, and as with any biography, it doesn't matter how close your friends are, they might miss a point or plan here and there. In addition, I would hope that as you continue, you will realize that I could easily also be having this discussion with a devout Muslim, who also feels that their world view is entirely "internally consistent and rational", but that is different from yours. Or (and I apologize for the connection here) a devout Raelian, who believes that their beliefs are "internally consistent and rational." I don't mean to put these three beliefs up and challenge you (or anyone) to prove which one is correct. I have only two goals through this painful[2] exer
-
juanfer68 wrote:
If I may ask, please check my other response about our worldviews and then we can start examining each one of your answers to find out whether they meet the definition of ‘observations’, ‘assumptions’, ‘rational conclusions from observations’, or rather ‘requirements’ for the evolutionary worldview to be believable.
I feel like I'm in therapy :laugh:
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge, so ping me when you've started the thread. (I rarely have need to go in there).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Oops. I will need a little help here from you. Where is it and how do I create the thread over there? Thanks.
Juanfer
No worries -- it's at: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605. You can click the "New message" near the top of the orange banner. Alternately, as it's just the two of us, and we're both remaining civil, I imagine we could continue it here. Unless you want the broader forum. (and I apologize in advance for that forum).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
No worries -- it's at: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605. You can click the "New message" near the top of the orange banner. Alternately, as it's just the two of us, and we're both remaining civil, I imagine we could continue it here. Unless you want the broader forum. (and I apologize in advance for that forum).
-------------- TTFN - Kent