Six questions for Theists who endorse ET . . .

[Xru]

Six questions for Theists who endorse ET:

1) why should I think it reasonable that Evolution occurred over billions of years when Evolution is dependent on mutations and the great majority of mutations are either maladaptive or neutral.

2) why should I think Evolution, especially macro-evolution, is reasonable when there appears to be irreducibly complex systems in many/most organisms.

3) why should I be confident in Evolution when there are huge gaps in the fossil record.

4) why should I have confidence in Evolution when evidence such as soft tissue in T. Rex bones is dismissed.

5) why should I have confidence in scientific constructs surrounding Evolution, archeology, geology, etc., when they are based on the fundamental assumption of "Uniformity."

6) why should I accept that life started spontaneously billions of years ago when scientist cannot demonstrate that the required organic molecules could be assembled in a primordial earth. "Life comes from life."

PS Absolutely NO flaming, rudeness or need for documentation. If it is presented, documentation, I may or may not look at it. Sparko will enforce the other conditions for posting with his bloody Pirate sword.

Please keep it simple. I have a wide background in science . . . but not deep.

[nightbringer]

Out of curiosity, why are these questions directed specifically at theistic evolutionists? Doesn't seem like there's anything here that's specifically relevant to a theist over a naturalist.

[Xru]

Out of curiosity, why are these questions directed specifically at theistic evolutionists? Doesn't seem like there's anything here that's specifically relevant to a theist over a naturalist.

Actually . . . I wanted to avoid any hint that a particular response was biased because of an atheistic outlook motivating a defense of ET. I'm not implying, nor intend to imply that atheists who support ET are NOT objective and honest. It's just that some theists and atheists in the public sector have questioned each others integrity so often and loudly I want to completely avoid any suggestion in this thread.

If this doesn't get any answers in this Forum area I'll have to post it in NS.

[Sparko]

Just a comment: did you mean TE (Theistic Evolution) instead of ET?

(back to monitoring the thread with my pirate sword)

[rogue06]

Six questions for Theists who endorse ET:

ET seems to be a nice enough chap but appears to have entered the country illegally making him an "undocumented worker" and ineligible to serve in any political office. Therefore I can not endorse him.


What did he just say about me?

[nightbringer]

Actually . . . I wanted to avoid any hint that a particular response was biased because of an atheistic outlook motivating a defense of ET. I'm not implying, nor intend to imply that atheists who support ET are NOT objective and honest. It's just that some theists and atheists in the public sector have questioned each others integrity so often and loudly I want to completely avoid any suggestion in this thread.

If this doesn't get any answers in this Forum area I'll have to post it in NS.

Okay cool.

The science of the origins debate is very much outside my knowledge but for what it's worth here is what I imagine an evolutionist might say to the 6 issues you raise.

1.) It's not enough to show that the majority of mutations are not beneficial. To discredit evolution on these grounds one would have to show how there could not possibly have been enough neutral or positive mutations to account for the variety of life we see.

2.) The problem I anticipate with claims of irreducible complexity is that they tend to be put forward as strong objections to the effect of "it is impossible for evolution to produce these mechanisms." However so long as a mechanism is physically possible it seems to me that there is always some possible evolutionary pathway that could produce it, even if by pure chance as opposed to a response by pressures of natural selection. It seems best to me to put forward irreducible complexity arguments as probabilistic arguments.

3.) In order for gaps in the fossil record to count as evidence against evolution, it would have to be argued that, were evolution true, those gaps would not be as they are. It isn't enough to merely point out that the fossil record contains gaps. Alternatively it could be argued that the gaps are not evidence against evolution but rather support the claim that evolution lacks positive evidential support from the fossil record, support which is crucial to knowing whether evolution is true or not. To that argument an evolutionist could either attempt to provide evidence from some other source or show why, even with gaps, the fossil record still supports evolution.

4.) Isn't that typically used as evidence not merely for the claim that evolution is false, but also for the claim that the earth is young?

5.) I agree that "uniformity" can be an assumption, however not all assumptions are equally capable of explaning the data. So if uniformity makes sense of the data with little ad hoc explanation, but an alternative assumption really struggles to explain the data, then uniformity, whilee perhaps beginning as a mere assumption, seems to have evidential support.

6.) From what I understand, evolution and abiogenesis are treated as seperate issues. A person could believe one without the other.

[rogue06]

1) why should I think it reasonable that Evolution occurred over billions of years when Evolution is dependent on mutations and the great majority of mutations are either maladaptive or neutral.

Actually neutral mutations, which are the majority of mutations that go on to become fixed as differences between species, can profoundly affect evolution. Genetic drift involves changes in the frequencies of alleles over time that doesn't arise out of natural selection.

One example of such evolution that I can think of off the top of my head are the unusual distribution of blood types in the German Baptists (sometimes called "Dunkers") and Amish Mennonites communities here in the U.S. They are the result of both communities being isolated in that members tend to intermarry.

Such evolution can be seen in groups that are founded by a few immigrants from a larger population (a small flock of birds blown by a storm to a distant island for instance). In such cases there is a loss of genetic variation due to the population originating from only a few members (sort of a population bottleneck). Such small original populations are much more susceptible to genetic drift because of their limited gene pool.

OK, that essentially condensed what could be an entire chapter in a biology textbook into three short paragraphs so if you want more information I suggest Goggling "genetic drift," "neutral mutation" and "founder effect" for more information.

But it really needs to be emphasized that whether a mutation is beneficial, harmful or neutral is entirely dependent on the environment it finds itself in – including the other genes it has to co-operate with to build and run a body. IOW, no mutation is beneficial, detrimental or even neutral until after it has had a chance to be acted upon, by selection, in the organism's environment.

For instance, whether or not a new mutation that causes a mammal to grow thicker, longer fur is good, bad, or neutral depends on several factors. If the climate of this mammal’s habitat was getting colder, the new thicker fur would likely improve its chances at surviving to breed and thus pass along the new mutation to its offspring, and from there on to their offspring, and so on. If, however, the mammal’s environment was instead getting warmer, a mutation for thicker fur would not likely be beneficial and could instead be detrimental.

The point being that the same trait can be beneficial, detrimental, or indifferent to the overall fitness of the organism, depending on context. And mutations don’t have to beneficial in all environments, just in the one where the organism is currently present and there is a selection pressure for that mutation.

IOW, many people are too quick to assert this or that mutation is detrimental without considering the environment.

And one last bit to chew on. Is the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia beneficial or detrimental, and why?

[rogue06]

2) why should I think Evolution, especially macro-evolution, is reasonable when there appears to be irreducibly complex systems in many/most organisms.

Well, perhaps because we can observe speciation (one species dividing into two distinct species) all around us in both nature and the laboratory. And since macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level, by definition speciation is a type of macroevolution. So, being that we have numerous instances of speciation/macroevolution, I think it is definitely reasonable to assume it takes place

As for there being irreducibly complex systems... So far every example put forth from the eye, the blood-clotting cascade, bacterial flagellum, the immune system and even the spring-loaded bar mousetrap example have been repeatedly shown to be anything but irreducible.

Further, the entire irreducible complexity argument is little more than a God of the gaps hypothesis. If there is something that at the moment we can't explain it must mean God-did-it. Then later when a natural explanation can be offered God gets relegated to the leftovers of science -- as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases. Lousy theology IMHO.

It is a mistake to view God as not being immanent in natural law but rather as something that can only to be seen in mysteries science can not yet explain.

[rogue06]

3) why should I be confident in Evolution when there are huge gaps in the fossil record.

Because the fossil record is just one small aspect of the all the cross correlating, corroborating, consilient positive evidence from a hundred different scientific disciplines that support evolution.

And yet as incomplete as the fossil record is everything about it still supports evolution.

4) why should I have confidence in Evolution when evidence such as soft tissue in T. Rex bones is dismissed.

Science never dismissed it but merely asked for more and better evidence supporting the conclusion. And being good scientists that was exactly what Schweitzer and her colleagues set out to provide rather than whining about conspiracies to silence her research.

Further "soft tissues" is a bit misleading in that the material was most definitely fossilized, but through a process previously mostly unknown.

[nightbringer]

Further, the entire irreducible complexity argument is little more than a God of the gaps hypothesis. If there is something that at the moment we can't explain it must mean God-did-it. Then later when a natural explanation can be offered God gets relegated to the leftovers of science -- as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases. Lousy theology IMHO.

It is a mistake to view God as not being immanent in natural law but rather as something that can only to be seen in mysteries science can not yet explain.

Could an irreducible complexity argument not still work just to undermine evolution? That is, not as an argument for God's existence, but as an argument for the inadequacy of evolution. Of course it may be that there aren't any irreducibly complex mechanisms as you claim, I'm just asking whether in principle it would be possible for the argument to function like that.

[rogue06]

Could an irreducible complexity argument not still work just to undermine evolution? That is, not as an argument for God's existence, but as an argument for the inadequacy of evolution. Of course it may be that there aren't any irreducibly complex mechanisms as you claim, I'm just asking whether in principle it would be possible for the argument to function like that.

In principle it could but since ID uses irreducible complexity as evidence for a designer it is reduced to a God of the gaps argument. But the biggest problem for irreducible complexity is that there is no indication that it exists.

[Xru]

Just a comment: did you mean TE (Theistic Evolution) instead of ET?

(back to monitoring the thread with my pirate sword)

Sorry . . . . I mean Evolutionary Theory. I supposed that Theist who argued for ET on NS 301 were areguing for ET and not Theistic Evolution. But that shows how little I know.

I guess I'm interested in the opinions of those supporting TE or TE, ha ha.

[Xru]

Thank you R6 and NightB . . . that helps. I'll probably have some questions but not too many. Your answers are clear enough for even me to understand.

[Xru]

In principle it could but since ID uses irreducible complexity as evidence for a designer it is reduced to a God of the gaps argument. But the biggest problem for irreducible complexity is that there is no indication that it exists.

I saw a video clip refuting that the now notorious flagella (allegedly irreducible) is in fact reducible because if certain organic molecules are removed that propel the flagella, the flagella turns into a spike like appendage that is good for sticking other organism and injecting some kind of poison (?).

Evidently, there are organism with flagella that don't propel but actually do stick another organism and kill it, but not quite an exact reduction of the flagella that propels. I suppose but it seems to me that finding possible uses for that pointed flagella to stick and kill another organism is sort of dodging the question in that it would mean that every so-called irreducible structure that has evolved would need to find a niche that would benefit the organism during its development from a less complex structure to the more complex, or else the organism would have to propagate the reduced structure even though it does nothing to enhance the survivability of the organism. Or is this wrong?

[nightbringer]

In principle it could but since ID uses irreducible complexity as evidence for a designer it is reduced to a God of the gaps argument. But the biggest problem for irreducible complexity is that there is no indication that it exists.

Okay understood.