As I mentioned in a couple of other TWeb forums, I recently went from YEC to OEC. And I keep hearing that OEC's often end up as theistic evolutionists. But for the life of me, I really do NOT understand how thinking people (Christian or non-Christian) can end up honesly BELIEVING in evolution...

How do evolutionists overcome the issue of how ridiculously impossible it is MATHEMATICALLY, for 'order' - of the magnitude of the human brain and DNA - to come from absolute disorder? How could TIME alone account for the order in the universe, natural laws, complex organisms, etc.?

To a lesser degree, (along with other creationists) I believe the issues of life supposedly coming from non-living matter AND the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record also present major problems for evolutionists. But since evolutionists believe their research can overcome these issues, I assume it doesn't make much sense to argue about them (as both sides interpret the data in their favor).

But the laws of probability alone seem to make evolution so ridiculously impossible, that I cannot understand how intelligent people accept it...

-

Keep in mind that many of the evolutionists are not quite in the position you suggest.

After all, for the atheist they require this logically as a creation myth. So they will believe in it because they require it as a plank in their worldview.

For the rest, they have simply been told it is true over and over and simply go with the flow.

Of course those in the second group are changing now, and the next generation will be much much more skeptical than the old guard, who will die off soon enough.

And of course, lots and lots of people don't buy the whole, "atelic creation myth". So, the situation is probably not as bad as you think.

Jason

Hi MBP, I hope I don't mess up your thread with my total lack of scientific knowledge. The one science thing that really stuck in my mind from school (around age 13!) was an experiment where they had a plastic tube filled with little black polystyrene balls (on the bottom) and white ones on top.

The experiment was supposed to demonstrate that when you closed the tube and shook it up, once mixed up, you would never by chance get it to go back to the way it was.

Obviously we didn't have 'eternity' to pursue the experiment...

How do evolutionists overcome the issue of how ridiculously impossible it is MATHEMATICALLY, for 'order' - of the magnitude of the human brain and DNA - to come from absolute disorder? How could TIME alone account for the order in the universe, natural laws, complex organisms, etc.?

Perhaps if you would spell out these mathematical impossibilities we've overlooked (are ignorant of) we could give you an answer.

To a lesser degree, (along with other creationists) I believe the issues of life supposedly coming from non-living matter AND the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record also present major problems for evolutionists.

As do most uninformed creationists. We've come to expect this.

But since evolutionists believe their research can overcome these issues, I assume it doesn't make much sense to argue about them (as both sides interpret the data in their favor).

Well, I for one am pretty tired of going over it time and again, but maybe there's some fresh evolutionary blood here that would give you a go.

But the laws of probability alone seem to make evolution so ridiculously impossible, that I cannot understand how intelligent people accept it...

Go ahead give 'em to us. What are these laws and all the relevant data?

Here's one - from this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html

"Claim CB940.1:

Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r to the 200th power, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10 to the 60th power, which is impossibly small.

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1972. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Acts &
Facts 2.
Morris, Henry M., 2003. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Back to Genesis 179, pp. b-c. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=493

Response:

1. Morris's calculation assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly -- in 200/r generations using the assumptions of Morris's model. (The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate.)"

-

More info. from this page: www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna04.htm

"DEVASTATING MATH PROBABILITIES

The possibilities of it occurring by chance are devastating.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."

-

There are some other probability issues outlined here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

and some more here:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

Originally posted by jason

After all, for the atheist they require this logically as a creation myth. So they will believe in it because they require it as a plank in their worldview.

For the rest, they have simply been told it is true over and over and simply go with the flow.

I don't fall into either of those groups.

Evolution is the best available explanation for the observations, and the critiques of evolution people have brought forward at this site have been uniformly fatuous.

Originally posted by mpb1

Here's one - from this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html

Claim CB940.1:

Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r to the 200th power, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10 to the 60th power, which is impossibly small.

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1972. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Acts &
Facts 2.
Morris, Henry M., 2003. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Back to Genesis 179, pp. b-c. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=493

Response:

1. Morris's calculation assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly -- in 200/r generations using the assumptions of Morris's model. (The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate.)

-

There are some other probability issues outlined here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

and some more here:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

It's not quite that simple. The concept of probabilistic resources must be figured into the reasoning.

Jorge

Originally posted by mpb1

As I mentioned in a couple of other TWeb forums, I recently went from YEC to OEC. And I keep hearing that OEC's often end up as theistic evolutionists. But for the life of me, I really do NOT understand how thinking people (Christian or non-Christian) can end up honesly BELIEVING in evolution...

That's ok, I can't understand how, if you look at all the evidence that you don't end up believing in evolution, irrespective of what, if any, gods you believe in. I see people of all religious faiths in science that see that evolution is what happened. I don't see anyone outside of the Judeo-Christian religions that believes, say, Genesis can be literally true.

How do evolutionists overcome the issue of how ridiculously impossible it is MATHEMATICALLY, for 'order' - of the magnitude of the human brain and DNA - to come from absolute disorder?

And what is the mathematical impossibility of this happening? Please provide some background on this claim.

How could TIME alone account for the order in the universe, natural laws, complex organisms, etc.?

Simple. Time alone doesn't. Since you don't appear to understand what is being proposed, I suggest that you go away, find out what is actually being said and then come back.

To a lesser degree, (along with other creationists) I believe the issues of life supposedly coming from non-living matter

Again this one has been dealt with many times. But, tell me, what is in a cell that does not come from the inanimate? All of the material in the cell consists of inanimate chemcials. What property are you claiming a simple cell has that is somehow "mystical" and cannot come from its chemical components and does not work by electro-chemical actions?

AND the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record also present major problems for evolutionists.

Again you are displaying ignorance of the information that is available. There are identified transitional fossils and if you had bothered to search for them, references to them can be easily found. How about you go away find one of the claimed transitions, say, the whale and show why it is wrong?

But since evolutionists believe their research can overcome these issues, I assume it doesn't make much sense to argue about them (as both sides interpret the data in their favor).

No, go right ahead. Give us an example and your argument.

But the laws of probability alone seem to make evolution so ridiculously impossible, that I cannot understand how intelligent people accept it...

So demonstrate what exactly makes it impossible. Do you know anything about the "laws of probablilty", by the way? I would be interested in hearing the basis for your assertion, as long as you are not going to just do a cut and paste job from AIG or similar.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that you have little experience in the areas of science you are complaining about, so I would like to see some concrete example of your assertions and your reasons for them.

Originally posted by Mark Little

I don't see anyone outside of the Judeo-Christian religions that believes, say, Genesis can be literally true.

Muslims. They actually do accept the Old Testament as God-breathed, and we owe the Muslim world much gratitude when it comes to preserving the works of ancient Greece and making extraordinary discoveries in mathematics, science and engineering during the Middle Ages.



Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Carry on.

Originally posted by Jorge

It's not quite that simple. The concept of probabilistic resources must be figured into the reasoning.

Jorge

Jorge,

What exactly does that mean - in layman's terms?

-

This is a general question, not directed at anyone in particular...

If a first grader can use deductive reasoning to conclude that it would be highly improbable (or impossible) for splats of paint to form a detailed image, why is it that ph.d.'s suddenly become morons in concluding that incredibly complex systems came together on their own - apart from any intelligence?

To Mark Little,

You are right, I know I am the farthest thing from a scientist or a mathematician. But it seems easy to point out my ignorance of science, while avoiding the real issue.

The laws of probability are observable. One need not be a mathematician or scientist to see how obviously ridiculous it is to propose that incredible order came from absolute disorder.

Paraphrasing... you said I should go away, learn some more, and then present an educated argument.

Please consider me an ignorant fool in these areas and tell me in simple terms how evolution overcomes the OBVIOUS laws of improbability - WHICH IT * MUST * OVERCOME IF IT IS TO BE BELIEVED.

-

Here's a link to a two-page article from someone who claims to be an evolutionist and a professional mathematician: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdes...ility-one.html

He basically says that creationists are wrong in using the laws of probability to disprove evolution because there are too many variables that cannot be accounted for, AND because we are not taking into account that there were previous versions of the same/similar 'creatures' that essentially built upon one another. So it wouldn't be that difficult in terms of probability for 'humans version 1.0.1' to mutate into 'humans version 1.0.2.'

If this is even close to the best explanation evolutionists have to offer - IT IS PATENTLY ABSURD!

It would be no different than saying Windows Vista wouldn't have been that hard for evolution to magically 'create,' since it had previously created Windows XP, and before that, Windows 98...

By golly, that magic power of evolution just keeps getting smarter :)

-

Originally posted by mpb1

Please consider me an ignorant fool in these areas and tell me in simple terms how evolution overcomes the OBVIOUS laws of improbability - WHICH IT * MUST * OVERCOME IF IT IS TO BE BELIEVED.

Hi mpb1,

It can't of course. However 'evolutionism' is a faith, not a science.
There is no probability that makes a difference to the true believer..
since we are here and (to the evolutionist) there is no God ..
probabilities of trillions or gogolplexes would not matter.
It is a 1/0 thing. Evolution or God.
They decide (know/convinced/rebel) no God... we are here ..
something happened .. ergo Evolution (with all its accouterments).

Ask a true believer evolutionist to tell you what probability makes a
difference to them and see if you get a sensible answer.

(Logically that conceptual discussion should precede any attempts at
shared probability calculations .. what is the point of calculating numbers
if there is no agreed framework).

In this regard, you might want to look up the Wistar conference.

Little aside .. close friend is a world-class mathie.. very high (low) Erdos#.
Agnostic .. yet rejects evolution simply on the mathematics grounds.
Refuses to be snowed.

The biologist friends get so upset.
They just don't get it.
As they say .. 'do the math'.

As for the slippery slope from OEC to theist evolutionism..
it does seem to be there ... although you are right to ask why
.. my view is YEC.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Originally posted by mpb1

To Mark Little,

You are right, I know I am the farthest thing from a scientist or a mathematician. But it seems easy to point out my ignorance of science, while avoiding the real issue.

Huh? You are claiming such bold claims when you have no idea what the concepts are?

The laws of probability are observable.

Ok - what are they and how do they apply to evolution?

One need not be a mathematician or scientist to see how obviously ridiculous it is to propose that incredible order came from absolute disorder.

Gosh, you are right. Unfortunately, you are just making yourself look silly again, since this isn't that is being proposed. Here you are getting excited about what isn't being said.

Paraphrasing... you said I should go away, learn some more, and then present an educated argument.

Yes. You look like a complete ass coming making claims that clarly you know nothing about.

Please consider me an ignorant fool in these areas and tell me in simple terms how evolution overcomes the OBVIOUS laws of improbability - WHICH IT * MUST * OVERCOME IF IT IS TO BE BELIEVED.

Given that you admit that you know nothing about the topics you are claiming are "absolutely ridiculous" and the tone of your sentence, I don't think I will bother. Information about probability is easy to find and I have told you an animal with identified transition fossils - the whale.

If you want to come in guns ablazing next time, at least do some research so that you don't make yourself look so silly.

Originally posted by NJon

Muslims. They actually do accept the Old Testament as God-breathed, and we owe the Muslim world much gratitude when it comes to preserving the works of ancient Greece and making extraordinary discoveries in mathematics, science and engineering during the Middle Ages.



Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Carry on.

My mistake to omit them. I'm aware they share the OT.

Originally posted by Mark Little

Huh? You are claiming such bold claims when you have no idea what the concepts are? :twitch:

Ok - what are they and how do they apply to evolution?Gosh, you are right. Unfortunately, you are just making yourself look silly again, since this isn't that is being proposed. Here you are getting excited about what isn't being said.:bonk:

Yes. You look like a complete ass coming making claims that clarly you know nothing about.

Given that you admit that you know nothing about the topics you are claiming are "absolutely ridiculous" and the tone of your sentence, I don't think I will bother. Information about probability is easy to find and I have told you an animal with identified transition fossils - the whale.

If you want to come in guns ablazing next time, at least do some research so that you don't make yourself look so silly.

To Mark Little,

Call me an ass all you want :)

I consider your attack on my lack of knowledge in this field to be nothing more than a pitiful excuse NOT to address the issue.

Do I need to have the skills of a mechanic to question an obviously faulty diagnosis of my car? Do I need to be a doctor to understand that if I don't cover a wound, it may become infected by germs?

NO.

And I don't need to be anything close to a mathematician or a scientist to take on a thick-headed, condescending schmuck like yourself - in an OBVIOUS, common-sense issue like HOW PROBABLE IT IS FOR THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING TO BUILD ITSELF.

Only a dufas would suggest such a thing.

Yet you turn the tables and call me a dufas for asking how you could be so stupid to believe it?

And you are no less stupid for having millions of equally stupid people agreeing with you.

-

(I decided to take the gloves off this once, just to make the point :)

Originally posted by Mark Little

My mistake to omit them. I'm aware they share the OT.

Hi Mark, I do not think that is correct. They view the Tanach as corrupted and the quran supplants (some stories contradict straight out, starting with the basic Isaac/Ishmael question). Similar to the NT. Both are from the people of the book but have not been preserved (in their view). They do not accept the Tanach as tangible scripture.

If you have quotes where they actually acknowledge differently, I would be interested in seeing.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic