Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

This is gibberish.   Nobody has ever claimed that evolution proceeds purely randomly.   For example, if you look at camouflage and mimicry in animals, do you seriously believe that one species comes to look like another purely accidentally? 

I don't think you really understand how evolution works, and you are just guessing.

Of course I understand  -  white frogs will get killed off because they are conspicuous, allowing green frogs to flourish in the jungle!  But you still need mutations to cause the green and white pigments.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Your Inner Fish, is it a good book for a beginner.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

I was going to recommend 'Your Inner Fish' as a nice book on evolution, but then I thought that Alan would come back with 'I believe that random negative forces are unable to produce a connection between fish and humans'.

Good choice! Cracking little book, that - Shubin did a splendid accompanying documentary to it as well.

[wigginhall]

Dear Wigs,

Your Inner Fish, is it a good book for a beginner.

Gonnagle.

Yeah, as Shaker says, it's fun, and not too technical.  Available on Kindle.

[Shaker]

I don't want to turn this into the books-on-evolution thread but since it's been raised I want to recommend and encourage anyone and everyone interested to read Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, which is a beautiful tome by a geologist and paleontologist. Michael Shermer called it the best book on the subject ever, and I agree with him.

[Shaker]

Of course I understand  -  white frogs will get killed off because they are conspicuous, allowing green frogs to flourish in the jungle!  But you still mutations to cause the green and white pigments.

Alan, Alan, you're teetering on the brink here, old fruit. You're that far away from catching on.

[Maeght]

Of course I understand  -  white frogs will get killed off because they are conspicuous, allowing green frogs to flourish in the jungle!  But you still mutations to cause the green and white pigments.

Not sure you do understand based on that Alan.

[Shaker]

Not sure you do understand based on that Alan.

Credit where credit's due - he's groping around in the right postcode at least.

[Gordon]

Of course I understand  -  white frogs will get killed off because they are conspicuous, allowing green frogs to flourish in the jungle!  But you still mutations to cause the green and white pigments.

What you don't get though are random instances that just happen and then are sustained across generations: for instance, rabbits are quite fecund but you don't come across them suddenly/randomly sprouting wings.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't want to turn this into the books-on-evolution thread but since it's been raised I want to recommend and encourage anyone and everyone interested to read Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, which is a beautiful tome by a geologist and paleontologist. Michael Shermer called it the best book on the subject ever, and I agree with him.

Unless you source a second hand version of Prothero's book though, it's not cheap. Rough Guide To Evolution is good for less, much less money.

[Maeght]

Credit where credit's due - he's groping around in the right postcode at least.

True - certainly closer than some others on here.

[Shaker]

Unless you source a second hand version of Prothero's book though, it's not cheap. Rough Guide To Evolution is good for less, much less money.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge NS - I bought it new years ago in hardback when it was pretty cheap (perhaps when it was first published - I forget) and have treasured it since. *cough* Amazon Marketplace *cough* might be useful here.

The Rough Guide is also good, though, admittedly (though I think there are clearer books for beginners).

[Alan Burns]

Alan, Alan, you're teetering on the brink here, old fruit. You're that far away from catching on.

It is not new.  I quoted the frogs as an example in the book I wrote some years ago.

After reading Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" I still remain totally unconvinced that evolution can produce life as we know it without divine help.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not new.  I quoted the frogs as an example in the book I wrote some years ago.

After reading Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" I still remain totally unconvinced that evolution can produce life as we know it without divine help.

You want to know why some think you are dishonest? Here is yet another post where you misrepresent what you are replying to. Who said anything about new?

And 'totally unconvinced' is just your argument by incredulity again.


Put forward a case. Don't continue with the assertions. Make arguments.

[Leonard James]

It is not new.  I quoted the frogs as an example in the book I wrote some years ago.

After reading Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" I still remain totally unconvinced that evolution can produce life as we know it without divine help.

Then I don't think you really understood what you were reading. What, specifically, in the book did you find unconvincing?

[Shaker]

It is not new.  I quoted the frogs as an example in the book I wrote some years ago.

After reading Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" I still remain totally unconvinced that evolution can produce life as we know it without divine help.

As NS has already said, that's just your personal incredulity at work again, which counts for nothing. It's a gap-plugging exercise on your part with God as the universal Polyfilla. "Here's something difficult that I don't understand how it works - quick, shove God into the gap. That's better."

Dismal, really.

[Alan Burns]

Then I don't think you really understood what you were reading. What, specifically, in the book did you find unconvincing?

It is the assumption that there will be sufficient beneficial random mutations to drive the process.  There is no definitive way of proving that every beneficial mutation was caused by a chance event, so it all boils down to personal belief as to whether the mutations which brought you into existence were the product of random events or divine guidance.

[torridon]

It is the assumption that there will be sufficient beneficial random mutations to drive the process.  There is no definitive way of proving that every beneficial mutation was caused by a chance event, so it all boils down to personal belief as to whether the mutations which brought you into existence were the product of random events or divine guidance.

Likewise there is no definitive proof that the Sun moves across the sky as a result of gravitational interaction between celestial bodies; it could be that God has dispatched a team of invisible angels to pull it across the sky

[Shaker]

It is the assumption that there will be sufficient beneficial random mutations to drive the process.  There is no definitive way of proving that every beneficial mutation was caused by a chance event, so it all boils down to personal belief as to whether the mutations which brought you into existence were the product of random events or divine guidance.

There's a very good reason why science is methodologically naturalistic and you're providing it. The belief that the world of matter-energy (also known simply as 'the world') can be interfered with at absolutely any time by alleged entities not made of matter-energy and incapable of detection (or even coherent definition, for that matter) - in other words, unknown forces doing things you don't understand by means you can't explain - renders the world an incoherent mess, a nightmare. How do you propose to test for the existence and activity of these supposed entities? What's your methodology for finding out (a) if they even exist in the first place and (b) how and why they do what they do?

Science-wise you're still back in the era of believing that planets have to be nudged in their orbits by angels, as torridon has just said. Are you really so desperate to plug every gap with Goddyfilla that you're reduced to this?

[Alan Burns]

Likewise there is no definitive proof that the Sun moves across the sky as a result of gravitational interaction between celestial bodies; it could be that God has dispatched a team of invisible angels to pull it across the sky

We know that the forces of gravity cause the motions of the planets, but there could be several causes for mutations in DNA reproduction.  There is speculation that some mutations are caused by heavy particles of radiation.  Perhaps these particles were aimed with a precision needed to produce the required mutations.

[Shaker]

We know that the forces of gravity cause the motions of the planets

And we still have absolutely no idea how given that the mathematically sound but wholly hypothetical graviton hasn't been found as there's no particle accelerator yet built powerful enough.

So ... how about those angels?

[Alan Burns]

If the conscious awareness and free will of human beings can aim arrows and bullets to produce desired results, then our creator could also aim the radiation particles to produce the desired mutations.

[Gordon]

It is the assumption that there will be sufficient beneficial random mutations to drive the process.  There is no definitive way of proving that every beneficial mutation was caused by a chance event, so it all boils down to personal belief as to whether the mutations which brought you into existence were the product of random events or divine guidance.

Nope: as regards evolution there are your personal misguided beliefs and then there is the reality of evolution and these are not the same thing, where the TofE provides the best current explanation, and where this explanation requires no 'divine guidance': your personal opinion is, therefore, plain wrong.

The fundamental problem you have is that you start by simplistically presuming 'God', which isn't even meaningfully defined never mind being meaningfully evidenced, and in doing so you then resort to denying established naturalistic explanations in favour of your favourite fallacies: in your case arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance.

[Gordon]

If the conscious awareness and free will of human beings can aim arrows and bullets to produce desired results, then our creator could also aim the radiation particles to produce the desired mutations.

For crying out loud Alan: this is just childish fantasy that you are making up as you go along.

[Shaker]

For crying out loud Alan: this is just childish fantasy that you are making up as you go along.

Yes. It's also bare-faced assertion as well as desperate gap-plugging.

That said it's in essence no different to the train-wreck ending of Ken Miller's otherwise superb book Finding Darwin's God, which has a brilliant first half devoted to science until the wheels come off when Miller (a cell biologist and a Catholic) has to crowbar God into quantum indeterminacy.