Evolution; A challenge.

[copacetic]

Dude over the years in here you've seen people who oppose evolution come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas, "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" and "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" being just 2 in a practically infinite list of stupid.

Look at Ekstasis trying to tell us that Intelligent Design is a scientific endeavor. That was so embarrassing I don't even have words to adequately express how bad I felt for the poor guy.

Why would you think that those sorts of people would actually suddenly come up with rational reasons for their continued inability to accept evolution as the most likely explanation of how we all got here.

I don't really, obviously.

I'm just using this thread to display their absolute lack of knowledge about the subject, and my 'expectations' are just a polite way of illustrating this point.

 

[h0ll0w]

h0ll0w as well.

To tell you the truth, I'm really a bit disappointed. I honestly thought the people violently opposed to evolution would have some way to articulate those views, in light of the questions posed.

It couldn't be any clearer, and it answers your questions. The absence of your answer to my post tells me that your challenge has been dealt with.

The only people I have ever seen opposing something violently on these boards, are naturalist/materialist/atheist people violently opposing God and people who believe.

 

[copacetic]

It couldn't be any clearer, and it answers your questions. The absence of your answer to my post tells me that your challenge has been dealt with.

The only people I have ever seen opposing something violently on these boards, are naturalist/materialist/atheist people violently opposing God and people who believe.

I still plan to answer your posts, have some patience.

As for the latter part of your statement, I have to ask if you're being serious? :erm:

 

[porchrat]

I don't really, obviously.

I'm just using this thread to display their absolute lack of knowledge about the subject, and my 'expectations' are just a polite way of illustrating this point.

Subtlety FTW!

Sorry I ruined it by making you have to spell it out.

 

[porchrat]

I still plan to answer your posts, have some patience.

As for the latter part of your statement, I have to ask if you're being serious? :erm:

Well in his defence maybe he has Apache and his mates on ignore and so doesn't see their posts.

Actually now that I give it more thought maybe he has himself on ignore too... uh... wait nevermind this is getting weird.

 

[h0ll0w]

I still plan to answer your posts, have some patience.

It's ironic that you go and bemoan that nobody can answer your challenge, and therefore have no idea what they are talking about, while my post, and the point that techne raised, goes totally unanswered for 2 weeks.

As for the latter part of your statement, I have to ask if you're being serious? :erm:

yes

 

[copacetic]

Adding new information to the genome. DNA is the blueprint, it contains digitally encoded information which is read and then executed, all of the above effects are unable to add new/novel information to the genome. Duplicating/increasing/rearranging existing information is not adding new/novel information which would be needed to create novel biological structures.

All the books in the world have been written with the couple of characters in our alphabet. I'm not certain I understand this argument I'm afraid.

In any case, the article quite clearly shows how new information is added. You haven't addressed this at all.

http://creationwiki.org/Speciation#Evolutionary_potential

With cases of speciation the conclusion is clear if following observational science. Speciation will not produce radical biological structure dissimilarity resulting in a different animal, such is needed to support molecules-to-man evolution, but rather deeply unique and wide-ranging phenotype diversity of structures that constitute specific kinds of animals.
Beyond phenotype expression, any other conclusion will not suffice but rely on extrapolation that assumes deep time.

Quoting from a YEC site that denies the age of the earth as part of its argument is not adequate 'proof' of anything at all.

In any case, the article refers to observed instances of speciation.

I am not of that school of thought, I understand the reasoning behind why there would be apes.

Ultimately though, I am actually of the "school of thought" that we did not evolve from any animal.

You may be of that school of thought, but that's not an argument in itself is it?

 

[copacetic]

It's ironic that you go and bemoan that nobody can answer your challenge, and therefore have no idea what they are talking about, while my post, and the point that techne raised, goes totally unanswered for 2 weeks.

Techne's post had nothing at all to do with the questions, unless I am misunderstanding something, Techne has no arguments with the basics of evolution, just a vast interest in semantic adventures, which I am frankly not up for.

I should have responded sooner, and I apologize for that.

 

[Techne]

One possible reason that people are opposing evolution may lie in their perceived understanding of the concept of natural selection.

This is a rather complex subject but it is important to understand the development of the idea. It can be argued that it is linked to people's view of matter. The most common view of matter today is a mechanistic-cum-atomistic view of matter. It can basically be summed whereby matter can be described as:

1) Homogeneous and of the same nature and only distinguished by quantitative differences of size, shape, mass, spin, tension (string theory) and motion.
2) Having no intrinsic finality or goal-directedness.
3) At the fundamental level has no conscious activity.
4) In ancient Greek atomism there are two fundamental principles, atoms (Greek = átomos) and the void. These can be analogous to todays “fundamental particles” and “empty space-time” respectively.

According to this view, change is described in terms of the arrangement and rearrangement of these fundamental principles. Paley's watchmaker analogy was the basis for the argument from design whereby reality was like a machine composed of mechanistic-cum-atomistic parts with no intrinsic relationship between them. The designs that were observed in reality were argued to be imposed from an outside agent as chance can't explain it. God, according to this view is some sort of machinist.

Darwin came along and developed his concept of natural selection and attributed the designs in nature to be the result of natural selection. Many people of course see natural selection as a refutation of the idea that the universe has a machinist that moved the mechanistic-cum-atomistic parts into designed structures. No designer needed.

Jerry Coyne for example says:

As natural selection demolished Abrahamic faith’s most important empirical evidence for god, the faithful simply regrouped and, after a frenzied confab, began claiming that, don’t you know, natural selection was not only god’s tool for making life and humans, but it was in fact a much better tool than simply creating ex nihilo.

So natural selection is sold by some as though it refutes the design argument. IDers of course disagree, they at least agree that natural selection is a causal factor but argue that it is not enough.

It is however important to realise that Paley's watchmaker argument and the arguments from IDers ARE NOT the same as the traditional teleological argument as defended by Aquinas' Fifth Way.

Darwin saw natural selection as an actual force or cause. Darwin was also a teleologist precisely because of his views related to natural selection and this appears to be how the OP understands natural selection as well. This has been discussed here before. Now the teleological argument relies on the reality of natural ends or final causes and natural selection (as Darwin understood it) not only preserves elements of Aristotle's final causes but also Aristotle's formal causes. The difference is that Aristotle's formal and final causes are intrinsic features of substances and substances on this view where NOT mechanical parts of a machine whose actions were attributed to an outside/extrinsic force. Darwin's idea of natural selection seems to be some sort of force that is part of reality but extrinsic from the substances (or parts as per mechanistic-cum-atomistic view of matter) of reality.

It is thus important to note that the description of evolution via natural selection is very much compatible with Aquinas' Fifth Way and the teleological argument. There are different approaches to the concepts of matter and teleology (see here for example):

It is also important to realize that evolution itself is not an argument against the existence of God. Evolution is just another name for change. One of the arguments for God relies on the reality of change. See Aquinas' first way. So evolution or change itself is not an argument against God and is quite compatible with the existence of God.

 

[copacetic]

It is also important to realize that evolution itself is not an argument against the existence of God. Evolution is just another name for change. One of the arguments for God relies on the reality of change. See Aquinas' first way. So evolution or change itself is not an argument against God and is quite compatible with the existence of God.

I absolutely agree that evolution is not an argument against the existence of god.

The only people who are likely to disagree with you there are people that don't accept evolution.

 

[Techne]

I absolutely agree that evolution is not an argument against the existence of god.

Neither is natural selection . As pointed out, evolution is perfectly compatible with Aquinas' First Way and Natural Selection is compatible with the teleological argument .

 

[copacetic]

Neither is natural selection .

Didn't suggest it was.

As pointed out, evolution is perfectly compatible with Aquinas' First Way and Natural Selection is compatible with the teleological argument .

Sure, if it floats your boat.

It's utterly irrelevant to me, or the purpose of the thread though, which is simply about the understanding anti-evolutionists have of the basics of evolution. As I asked in the first post, let's please not bring religion into this unless it is in aid of answering those eight questions, none of which you are addressing in any case (not that I expect you to either, as I don't believe you disagree with evolution).

 

[Techne]

I think it is relevant. I think it is often the case that people object to evolution because they may think it somehow refutes the idea that the universe is created and kept in existence by God. This sort of mental block can prevent them from trying to understand evolution.

By pointing out that evolution per se does not negate the idea that the universe (even if it stretches back to infinity) is created and sustained by God and pointing out that it is actually perfectly compatible (even an argument FOR it) with such a view, I think those people that are initially opposed to it will try and understand it better.

 

[copacetic]

I think it is relevant. I think it is often the case that people object to evolution because they may think it somehow refutes the idea that the universe is created and kept in existence by God. This sort of mental block can prevent them from trying to understand evolution.

By pointing out that evolution per se does not negate the idea that the universe (even if it stretches back to infinity) is created and sustained by God and pointing out that it is actually perfectly compatible (even an argument FOR it) with such a view, I think those people that are initially opposed to it will try and understand it better.

As I say, if there are theological concerns that cause people to reject evolution, they can bring them up when answering those eight questions I have asked.

No one is saying 'accept evolution and therefore reject god'.

If that's the understanding of people who reject it, they are welcome to bring it up, and it's addressed in any case in the article:

What about God?

The theory of evolution does not address the issue of God, either positively or negatively. The theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, certainly does not need the intervention of a deity, and there are many evolutionists who choose not to speculate about the involvement of God, for a number of reasons-- chiefly among them that there is no evidence to support such a notion, and scientific theories by definition need to be constructed on purely mechanistic, physical processes. On the other hand, there are evolutionists who choose to view the theory as the method by which God placed life on this planet. As this is America, they have the right to believe such. The decision whether or not to incorporate God into evolution is a personal one, based on prior beliefs.

 

[Techne]

Perhaps the reason few people bother to respond here is that they have theological and philosophical concerns (discussed in PD) and not empirical concerns (discussed here).

 

[copacetic]

Perhaps the reason few people bother to respond here is that they have theological and philosophical concerns (discussed in PD) and not empirical concerns (discussed here).

The thing is, often what gets said in objection to evolution, is stuff like 'how can you believe we come from monkeys?!!?!?'.

Which leads me to think, that while many of the objections do indeed stem from theological sources, the bottom line is that people are rejecting something which they don't understand at all, and is not difficult in any sense to have a basic understanding of.

The reason people aren't responding to this thread is because they can't, as I knew they would not be able to without betraying their tremendous lack of knowledge about something which they summarily reject. Which then leads to the obvious question of how they can reject something they don't have the slightest understanding of, which would paint them into a corner they would prefer to avoid, I'd imagine.

 

[Techne]

It cuts both ways though. How can a person believe something they have very little understanding of. And to be fair, I found the article in the OP very wishy washy. What people want to understand is the causes of evolution. What causes things to change? What causes things to be as they are? People can't really respond to something a like the article in the OP. Note there are causes per se and causes per accidens. Causes per se are not prior in time to their effect but prior in nature. Causes per accidens are prior in time to their effect. Evolution deals with causes per accidens e,g, mutations, non-random mating, migration, genetic drift, and differential survival and reproductive success.

Which makes me wonder, can you perhaps, in your own words, give an example of how you understand the per accidens causes of evolution? I think people will relate if you come up with an example and walk them through and keep the discussion within your example. It may be more constructive and conducive to open discussion. To just quote other articles does not give the impression that a person actually knows or understands what he/she is talking about.

 

[copacetic]

It cuts both ways though. How can a person believe something they have very little understanding of. And to be fair, I found the article in the OP very wishy washy. What people want to understand is the causes of evolution. What causes things to change? What causes things to be as they are? People can't really respond to something a like the article in the OP. Note there are causes per se and causes per accidens. Causes per se are not prior in time to their effect but prior in nature. Causes per accidens are prior in time to their effect. Evolution deals with causes per accidens e,g, mutations, non-random mating, migration, genetic drift, and differential survival and reproductive success.

Which makes me wonder, can you perhaps, in your own words, give an example of how you understand the per accidens causes of evolution? I think people will relate if you come up with an example and walk them through and keep the discussion within your example. It may be more constructive and conducive to open discussion. To just quote other articles does not give the impression that a person actually knows or understands what he/she is talking about.

OP is directed at people who reject evolution, I've made it clear I've no interested in getting into a long winded semantic adventure with you.

 

[Techne]

You don't have to, you can just be constructive and construct your own examples and understanding of the concepts, I am sure people will appreciate your effort.

 

[copacetic]

You don't have to, you can just be constructive and construct your own examples and understanding of the concepts, I am sure people will appreciate your effort.

It's pretty clear in the article.

And as I have said, I'm not an expert, so I'd prefer to offer more coherent sources than my own.