Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Spectrum

This is a continuation of a discussion I've had with abaddon. We were at loggerheads in the beginning but I'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent. I still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent Creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted. I have attempted below to come closer to the truth by marrying the two ideas. See what you think. Please feel free to add to it or smash it on the rocks if you can. The Truth is all we seek.

This is my theory of Gods process of evolution:

Just at the outset I'd like to say that I don't know about any of the evolutionary mechanisms (and I mean factual ones) they have discovered that has convinced people like Richard Dawkins to accept it as a fact. It would be an interesting read for me but do I have the patience.
Is this a correct view (courtesy of abaddons previous lessons).
They formulate a theory and then look for practical evidence. If the evidence is there, then that section of the theory turns to fact. One question, is evidence proof? If not, then what constitutes proof?

For the last few evenings I've been watching a program on human autopsy, whilst watching I marvelled at the intricacy of the body, how it is put together, it's functions and synergies. During that time I was trying to contemplate unaided evolution (notice as promised no more blind or random adjectives but unaided) creating such a marvel. I couldn't. The theory, though can be used to explain a process, cannot explain how the pieces of the jigsaw came together under a fine mechanism with the odds stacked against it to create such fantastic systems.

Like I said in previous posts anything with a complex nature follows a set of predetermined laws to get to it's own zenith of complexity be it structure and/or function. I gave examples of stars and computers.
The reason I still have a problem with an unaided process and mechanisms is because the numbers don't stack up. When calculating probabilities for this and that to happen the numbers always indicate a requirement of nonsensical faith to continue belief in such an unaided process. Scientist consider the prob of 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as a non event. Evolutionary probabilities go astronomically beyond this number. I know you've asked me not to go down the road of is it faith or not but I can't help myself . I don't want to go down another faith based system.
Someone said one's personal incredulity should not be thrown into the mix of this argument. I totally disagree because common sense is a valid scientific/social you name it tool. What makes sense to us in this universe makes sense and works for us because we have fundamental knowledge/truths that just makes it so. We cannot therefore philosophise away our common sense with clever catch phrases like personal incredulity or any such other loaded language.

I believe that an intelligent creator has laid down laws of biological evolution just as he did the laws of physics. Stars in all their complexity and magnificence create themselves by simple molecules of hydrogen following the laws of physics wherever there is a primordial star soup. If the creator can make laws for one aspect of his creation then why not for another.

Evolutionary laws would be a subset of the laws of physics. Just as there is an element of "randomness" in the creation of a star ie it's size or whether with it, will form planets, so too the creation of life incorporates this aspect of randomness as to what will be created but without breaking any probability laws and thus common sense is maintained. Maybe I should be saying in this case variety rather than randomness since laws are being followed ... (I'm getting a bit muddled here)

as you said.

" The SELECTION of what features survive is so non random as to defy belief. "

The matrix you see below represents the laws of evolution as a framework. It's fixed it doesn't change. Anything that succums to these laws will follow them faithfully but it still allows for immense variety.
Each intersection you see in the lattice represents an event that if occurs must occur in a particular way so that there is a meaningful outcome for the evolutionary process. An intersection can represent the creation of neucleotides whilst another the creation of wings. To fit the fossil evidence if there is none say for the gradual evolution of the wing then the intersection for the creation of the wing happens in one spurt. This is allowed for because there is an evolutionary law that says it will happen. The miniscule probabilities of getting a wing from good mutation now becomes a moot point. The law of evolution says it will definitely happen. The probability is therefore 1 and not 10 to the power of minus 20,000. Problem solved.
(Don't know how to represent environmental pressures in the lattice though.)
---------------
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
---------------
(can't get the formating right so you won't see a proper lattice. Just in your mind remove the empty lines between the lines containing forward/backslash.)
One question. Wings, poisonous fangs require environmental pressures, I imagine creation of nucleotides don't?

Abaddon this is my fisrt stab at this idea so it's pretty bear. Please feel free to add to it or reconfigure it if you think it has a future. To take it futher I need to read books on evolution - don't know if a can be bothered.
AlmostAtheist

Hey Spectrum,
Good on you for taking an honest look at the facts around you and not ignoring the things that jive with your current belief-set. Beliefs should be believable, after all!
You said:
Scientist consider the prob of 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as a non event. Evolutionary probabilities go astronomically beyond this number.
without getting into who says something so wildly improbable has therefore never happened, let me instead ask about the probabilities about evolution. Which things in particular are you referring to as improbable?
Creationists make a habit of starting with some bad assumptions, then building huge mathematical refutations based on them. For instance, they might talk about the probability of life ever starting at all. They talk about such and so chemicals needing to be in this and thus order in the presence of whatever. That life might begin in any one spot with any one shoebox of chemicals would be quite improbable. But they forget that whatever processes were involved were going on all over the planet, for a billion years. It only had to happen once to get the whole thing kicked off.
After all, how likely is it that a lightning bolt will set a particular tree on fire? And yet forest fires start this way. How? Because there are a bazillion trees and scores of years for it to happen in.
I've found that I'm too lazy and disinterested to really dig into all the goodies of evolution, as Abaddon, SeattleNiceGuy, and FunkyDerek have. I'm sure they will give you better answers, probably without even resorting to the use of the word "bazillion". :-)
Dave
Mary

They formulate a theory and then look for practical evidence. If the evidence is there, then that section of the theory turns to fact

But wouldn't this indicate that they have a biased opinion? If they've already formed a theory and then look for evidence to back it up, how is that approaching the subject without any preconceived ideas?
However, I tend to agree with you. There certainly seems to be evidence for evolution but like you, I find it incredibly hard to fathom that every single thing in the universe came about by accident. I definitely feel that there is an Intelligent Designer out there.......somewhere.
RodentBoy

The idea of an "accident" is really a false one. On one level, yes, the universe is a chaotic place. At the subatomic level, you can't even really talk about single particles being in a specific place or moving at a specific speed, you can only discuss these particles in a statistical manner.
One of the biggest problems that theories like Big Bang cosmology and evolution have is that even some of those that accept them don't actually understand them. The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space from a very hot, dense state to one where it cooled. While the very initial moments after the Big Bang are extremely difficult to probe (and prior to the Planck Time, may even be impossible), but everything after that is largely explainable even by our still limited understanding of physical law. For instance, the creation of matter was not an accident, but simply part of a chain of events that lead from a high density, high temperature state to a cooler one. It wasn't a chance event, but rather inevitable via physical laws. There may be some aspects of the Big Bang that could have happened differently, and lead to a different universe (this is largely surmised from the notion that the decoupling of the basic forces might have been different, altering certain fundemental physical constants).
But the fundemental notion that the universe was once much hotter and denser is simply bourne out by the evidence; in particular nucleosynthesis (the ratio of the main elements hydrogen, helium and lithium to other elements), the cosmic background microwave radiation (a relic of the early universe that comes from every direction) and the red shift of distant galaxies (demonstrating that the universe is expanding).
As to evolution, in one respect it is a fact. Simply stated, evolution is change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Even in asexually reproducing species, mistakes in transcription means that a descendant will never be identical to its parent. The large majority of these mistakes are, unlike the claims of Creationists like JWs, not delerious, but in fact neutral, having no effect one way or the other on the fitness of the organism. A minority will be delerious or beneficial.
The genetic distance between one generation and the next is going to be very small, but it will be there. While the fossil record has long demonstrated this in a somewhat inprecise way, the science of molecular genetics has not only rewritten the evolutionary book, it has confirmed the big picture that the fossil record showed us. All extant organisms that we have looked at all show the genetic heritage of a common ancestor. In fact, though we humans like to feel ourselves special, we are really genetically not very different from your average tuna. Most of the structures are there, the same basic vertebrate body form. Genetically we are closely aligned, but all life, whether it's us, sea squirts or some hardy bacteria living in a hot spring, fit within a nested hieararchy of living organisms.
Evolution is not an accidental process, though it is not one that goes in an particular direction. It's raw fuel is genetic diversity, but the environment puts heavy constraints on how variant any individual can be.
As to abiogenesis, it is still an area of a lot of speculation, and you won't find most biologists and chemists claiming anything more than that a certain process may have lead to life. But there are some tantalizing clues. The Urey-Miller experiment demonstrated that amino acids could be produced in an ancient reducing atmosphere like that of the early Earth's. But in some ways that great experiment has been overtaken by a few key discoveries. The first is that amino acids and other complex organic compounds are in fact relatively common, and found all over the universe; in dust clouds and even orbiting stars, so that it is conceivable that an early Earth was in fact given its organic molecules by comets, rather than necessarily having to be produced locally. The second key discovery is that the sun's energy may not have been responsible at all, and that complex chemistry can occur in deep sea vents, where high temperatures and raw materials would abound. In fact, this is suggested by the fact that the most primitive and ancient of organisms are found in just such places; deep sea vents and in hot springs, places where energy is plentiful.
Shining One

Spectrum,
>but at the same time there is evidence for evolution

The same evidence came be used for creationism in many cases. Make sure you get some balanced reading on this subject. Most people are swayed toward evolution by accepting the flawed presuppositions of the naturalists.
Rex
funkyderek

Spectrum:
Just at the outset I'd like to say that I don't know about any of the evolutionary mechanisms (and I mean factual ones) they have discovered that has convinced people like Richard Dawkins to accept it as a fact. It would be an interesting read for me but do I have the patience.

To really understand this issue, you will have to expend considerable time and effort. If you don't want to, that's fine but remember that you then won't be in a very strong position to argue about it.
Is this a correct view (courtesy of abaddons previous lessons).

They formulate a theory and then look for practical evidence. If the evidence is there, then that section of the theory turns to fact. One question, is evidence proof? If not, then what constitutes proof?
That's not quite how it works. Scientists make observations. Based on these observations, they formulate hypotheses, ways of explaining what they see. They then find ways of testing these. But - and here's the crucial point - instead of looking for evidence to support their hypotheses, they look for evidence that would falsify them. If they find such evidence, the hypothesis can't be correct, so they must start again. A hypothesis that makes useful predictions about the universe, and can be falsified in principle, but has not been in practice despite rigorous testing is usuually known as a theory.
One piece of advice: don't get too hung up on the use of the word theory; it has a range of meanings depending on context, but in science, it's not the opposite of a fact, it's a way of explaining the observed facts.
For the last few evenings I've been watching a program on human autopsy, whilst watching I marvelled at the intricacy of the body, how it is put together, it's functions and synergies. During that time I was trying to contemplate unaided evolution (notice as promised no more blind or random adjectives but unaided) creating such a marvel. I couldn't. The theory, though can be used to explain a process, cannot explain how the pieces of the jigsaw came together under a fine mechanism with the odds stacked against it to create such fantastic systems.
The theory can explain it, and it can explain it exceedingly well, or it would have been abandoned long ago. Scientists are extremely picky about such things, and don't just make up explanations. If evolution wasn't supported by mountains of evidence, it wouldn't be believed.
Like I said in previous posts anything with a complex nature follows a set of predetermined laws to get to it's own zenith of complexity be it structure and/or function. I gave examples of stars and computers.
I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but there is a predetermined law which all imperfectly self-replicating entities in a challenging environment must by their nature follow: the survival of the fittest. Given the right conditions, it's a truism, and while it turns out to be a very powerful "law", it's not one of the sort that requires a lawmaker.
The reason I still have a problem with an unaided process and mechanisms is because the numbers don't stack up. When calculating probabilities for this and that to happen the numbers always indicate a requirement of nonsensical faith to continue belief in such an unaided process. Scientist consider the prob of 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as a non event. Evolutionary probabilities go astronomically beyond this number. I know you've asked me not to go down the road of is it faith or not but I can't help myself . I don't want to go down another faith based system.
Imagine that there's a lottery in China every month. Everybody (1 billion people, or 10^9) gets entered into it and one name is drawn out of the hat each month (and presumably given some money or what would be the point?). After a year there will be 12 names. Now, for whatever list of names you have at the end of the year, it's quite obvious that the chances of getting that exact list are astronomical (10^108 which is not as you might think, around half as likely as a 10^50 event but is 10^58 times less likely). And yet, there you stand with the list in your hands. What's gone wrong here? The problem is with measuring the likelihood of a particular event after the fact. Given that an event happened, the odds of it happening after the fact are 1.
While the odds of evolution taking the particular path it did would have been mind-boggling if anticipated, calculating them after the fact is pointless - unless you want to deliberately deceive people, which may well be the goal of creationists who come up with such numbers. Evolution by natural selection is something that given a certain broad range of initial conditions - not only can occur, but must occur.
Someone said one's personal incredulity should not be thrown into the mix of this argument. I totally disagree because common sense is a valid scientific/social you name it tool. What makes sense to us in this universe makes sense and works for us because we have fundamental knowledge/truths that just makes it so. We cannot therefore philosophise away our common sense with clever catch phrases like personal incredulity or any such other loaded language.
You have a point there. "Common sense" is a very useful tool and can save huge amounts of time. Unfortunately, our brains are not adapted - or designed - for thinking about molecular changes over millions of years. We're suited to live in small groups, hunting medium-sized animals in the savannah. Our brains aren't general purpose computers so we can't always trust our initial scepticism. That's why we have science - to test our initial hunches and see do they match the evidence.
I believe that an intelligent creator has laid down laws of biological evolution just as he did the laws of physics. Stars in all their complexity and magnificence create themselves by simple molecules of hydrogen following the laws of physics wherever there is a primordial star soup. If the creator can make laws for one aspect of his creation then why not for another.
Perhaps that's true. But the laws of physics - as they are - lead inevitably to the laws of biological evolution. There would be no need for God to interfere a second time - if indeed he did so the first time.
Evolutionary laws would be a subset of the laws of physics. Just as there is an element of "randomness" in the creation of a star ie it's size or whether with it, will form planets, so too the creation of life incorporates this aspect of randomness as to what will be created but without breaking any probability laws and thus common sense is maintained. Maybe I should be saying in this case variety rather than randomness since laws are being followed ... (I'm getting a bit muddled here)
What happens in any recombination of genes or mutation event is random (at least subjectively). However, the result is not. A change that leads to an increased likelihood of survival is likely to propagate. One that leads to a decreased chance of survival is likely to die out.
Each intersection you see in the lattice represents an event that if occurs must occur in a particular way so that there is a meaningful outcome for the evolutionary process. An intersection can represent the creation of neucleotides whilst another the creation of wings. To fit the fossil evidence if there is none say for the gradual evolution of the wing then the intersection for the creation of the wing happens in one spurt. This is allowed for because there is an evolutionary law that says it will happen. The miniscule probabilities of getting a wing from good mutation now becomes a moot point. The law of evolution says it will definitely happen. The probability is therefore 1 and not 10 to the power of minus 20,000. Problem solved.
There's no evolutionary law for the development of wings - that is, there's no meta-code which includes instructions for wings. However, selection pressure on certain species has led to them first gliding, and then acheiving true flight. A wing never evolved "in one spurt", but over thousands of generations.
One question. Wings, poisonous fangs require environmental pressures, I imagine creation of nucleotides don't?
Of course they do. The environment is very different, though. The molecules that survive and replicate are the ones best equipped to do so in the environment in which they find themselves.
Abaddon this is my fisrt stab at this idea so it's pretty bear. Please feel free to add to it or reconfigure it if you think it has a future.
I don't think it does. There's already a very powerful theory of evolution that explains things much better, is well supported by the evidence and doesn't require supernatural intervention.
To take it futher I need to read books on evolution - don't know if a can be bothered.
Well, if you're interested you're going to have to. If not, fine but don't expect to take part in serious debates on the subject.
Qcmbr

Something Dawkins said on the TV program regarding religion (Root Of All Evil) which bothered me for some time but I couldn't put my finger on it - an argument used several times by as a straw man against God and finally my brain worked out what was wrong (I'm obviously only blessed with a Cerebral Celeron.)

Argument: Fundamentalists argue a God that starts creation as an explanation for the beginning of life but commit a logical mistake by claiming a God who would himself require a creation. In other words you need evolution somewhere down the chain.

Why I feel thats an incorrect assumption although it sounds so damning: Evolution defines the laws that govern biological adaptation - to apply it to God presupposes that He haas a physical body - an idea only believed in by a few religions. A non-material God wouldn't be explained by a purely materialistic theory.

Since I believe in a physical God this whole post is pretty wasted BUT I just had to share why I felt that argument wasn't as logical as it sounded at first (and I was quite chuffed that I finally scratched that brain itch.)
funkyderek

Qcmbr:
A non-material God wouldn't be explained by a purely materialistic theory.

But it would still require explaining. And as no non-material beings have ever been observed, there isn't really much point trying to explain them.
Qcmbr

Funky Derek - would it require a materialistic explanation then or would a psiritual one be enough. In the realm on non-physical ar ethere such concepts as cause and effect, time, start or end?
Qcmbr

..or even punctuation, grammar and spelling?

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

Share this