Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

Why would you want to try to dodge God if you thought he did exist?

I think we must accept that if somebody believes a god exists, the old phrase "the balance of his mind has been disturbed" is the most appropriate.

[torridon]

Bad example.  There is no comparison between the complexity of a homo sapien and the complexity of a puddle.

And how blind to reason must one be to consider that complexity, of say DNA, is too great to have come about by biochemistry operating on vast amounts of matter over vast stretches of time, so therefore it must have been artificially hand made by something infinitely more complex yet which had zero provenance, zero explanation.  This topsy turvy thinking defies all rules of logic; as always you propose something completely inexplicable as a means to explain something hard.  Baffling.

[Alan Burns]

Any combination - a hand of cards; the disposition of pieces on a chess board; a massive lottery win - looks phenomenally improbable in hindsight, and yet there is that particular hand of cards, there is that particular arrangement of chess pieces and there is Fred Smith from Tamworth with his giant cheque.

But it is not just a single event we are looking at.  If I were to win the national lottery seventeen times in succession I think people would suspect that there was something not random about it.

[Alan Burns]

 you seriously underestimate the number of opportunities for mutation to occur - in sexual reproduction a mutation can occur from "faulty" DNA copying every time successful mating happens. That's who knows how many trillions upon trillions of events.

The human population is bigger than ever, yet in the last few thousand years of recorded history there is little evidence for the many trillions upon trillions of genetic mutations needed to drive human evolution.  So has the Creator sat back and said, "Job well done"?

[Alan Burns]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bag5bXPS1w&feature=youtu.be

Enjoy.

Dear Gonnagle.,
Thanks for this video clip.  Nice to see that it confirms my observation that human willpower can consciously override the behaviour patterns expected from built in instinct and learnt experience, which constitutes my own definition of free will.

[Gordon]

But it is not just a single event we are looking at.  If I were to win the national lottery seventeen times in succession I think people would suspect that there was something not random about it.

Some might, and if they did then they'd need a method to show how they excluded the random: even well-established standard statistical tests involve an estimate of the risk of randomness accounting for the results.

What you are really saying here is that winning the lottery 17 times is succession would be highly unlikely but that doesn't imply that it isn't random. by being in some way 'fixed' - 'highly unlikely' isn't a synonym for 'impossible'.

[torridon]

The human population is bigger than ever, yet in the last few thousand years of recorded history there is little evidence for the many trillions upon trillions of genetic mutations needed to drive human evolution.  So has the Creator sat back and said, "Job well done"?

You don't need to look far to find evidence of recent human evolution; if you have white skin rather than black that is evolution at work; if you can drink milk that is recent evolution at work; scientists have identified over 200 regions of the human genome that are under current selection pressures.

[Alan Burns]

You don't need to look far to find evidence of recent human evolution; if you have white skin rather than black that is evolution at work; if you can drink milk that is recent evolution at work; scientists have identified over 200 regions of the human genome that are under current selection pressures.

But these examples aptly illustrate that unguided evolution offers little more than a few fine tuning processes.  There is no recent evidence for any major enhancement in complexity.

[Stranger]

But it is not just a single event we are looking at.  If I were to win the national lottery seventeen times in succession I think people would suspect that there was something not random about it.

You're still looking at it backwards. We were never the intended target - we are a random outcome. Any outcome at this point in time, is (individually) highly improbable but something had to be the outcome.

If you hold a knock-out competition using a game of pure chance, then somebody is going to win N games in a row (where N is the number of rounds). If it's a very large competition with many rounds, you can make it extremely improbable that any one person will win. Nevertheless, it is certain that there will be such an individual.

Also, doesn't it ever give you pause for thought that the only people who can see these obvious flaws in evolutionary theory, these logical common, sense problems are those with particular religious vested interests? That the vast majority of scientists in the world, of many faiths and none, cannot see them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Bad example.  There is no comparison between the complexity of a homo sapien and the complexity of a puddle.

No, it's good example but you fundamentally miss the point. What was actually explained to you was that it's a basic error to view the story from the perspective of the winner - be it a person or a puddle - and to marvel at the odds of the world being shaped for you. Short version: you fit the world; the world doesn't fit you.

Try reading my post again for further details.

[Stranger]

But these examples aptly illustrate that unguided evolution offers little more than a few fine tuning processes.  There is no recent evidence for any major enhancement in complexity.

Back to personal incredulity.   

Human history is a tiny, tiny amount of time compared to the ~3.8 billion years that life has been evolving.

How about some actual evidence for your god? Your seem filled with doubt and incredulity as far as evolution and consciousness go but when it comes to your favourite deity, you seem to required no objective evidence or hint of reasoning whatsoever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is not just a single event we are looking at.  If I were to win the national lottery seventeen times in succession I think people would suspect that there was something not random about it.

They probably would, but again you miss the point entirely: evolution neither knows nor cares where it will end up - it simply causes adaptations over time, some of which better suit the organism to its environment and some of which do not. Only if "you" were the desired end product would the correct sequence of adaptations necessary to get there be remarkable, BUT YOU'RE NOT. 

It's such a schoolboy error that I wonder at you repeating it. Try reading my last but one post to you again. There's nothing special about you or me as a supposed end game - but for a different adaptation way back when that led evolution down a different path we could have turned out entirely differently, though presumably some of the less bright of those creatures would also be marvelling at the co-incidence of the chain of events that led to them.

Good grief!

[jjohnjil]

Back to personal incredulity.   

Human history is a tiny, tiny amount of time compared to the ~3.8 billion years that life has been evolving.

How about some actual evidence for your god? Your seem filled with doubt and incredulity as far as evolution and consciousness go but when it comes to your favourite deity, you seem to required no objective evidence or hint of reasoning whatsoever.

 SKOS

What you don't appreciate is that God is the one and only 'uncaused' entity.

It is though amazing, that the uncaused entity isn't a sub-atomic particle, it's a fantastically complex, intelligent, loving, all knowing, all powerful entity.

Who'd have thunk it!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The human population is bigger than ever, yet in the last few thousand years of recorded history there is little evidence for the many trillions upon trillions of genetic mutations needed to drive human evolution.  So has the Creator sat back and said, "Job well done"?

Oh dear. What was explained to you was that there have been trillions upon trillions of opportunities for genetic mutations, and that for the most part they confer no particular advantage to the resulting organism. Sometimes though they do, and those that do can enable the organism better to thrive in its environment and, when it does, to pass on it's mutated and advantageous genes to its progeny.

You also seriously underestimate the significance of time - Homo sapiens has only been around for some 150,000 years or so, a tiny amount of time compared wit the three billion plus years of life on the planet. Adaptations have occurred over that time, but you'd be better advised looking at the common predecessors of all the great apes to understand how evolution actually works.

And no, there's no reason to think the "Creator" did anything because - so far at least - neither you nor anyone else has managed a coherent and cogent argument to demonstrate this creator in the first place.

[torridon]

But these examples aptly illustrate that unguided evolution offers little more than a few fine tuning processes.  There is no recent evidence for any major enhancement in complexity.

We wouldn't normally expect rapid changes in a short time though;  periods of rapid change do occur occasionally, the Cambrian explosion for instance, but in the absence of major environmental change we see that evolution proceeds at more steady rates, and the development of white skin in European humans in 20,000 years or the evolution of lactose tolerance in 10,000 years is broadly consistent with theory.  You normally have to think long term to understand major or species level evolutionary change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We wouldn't normally expect rapid changes in a short time though;  periods of rapid change do occur occasionally, the Cambrian explosion for instance, but in the absence of major environmental change we see that evolution proceeds at more steady rates, and the development of white skin in European humans in 20,000 years or the evolution of lactose tolerance in 10,000 years is broadly consistent with theory.  You normally have to think long term to understand major or species level evolutionary change.

There are some basic features of biology which tend to get lost in glorification of and presentation of Darwins great idea. Firstly Darwin is one of the fathers of ecology, secondly there are only really a handful of developments in life, I've its origin, development of the cell, multicellularity, 2 layered animals, 3 layered animals, development of the coelom, development of the anus etc, that gradualistic phyleticism doesn't really speak to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

We wouldn't normally expect rapid changes in a short time though;  periods of rapid change do occur occasionally, the Cambrian explosion for instance, but in the absence of major environmental change we see that evolution proceeds at more steady rates, and the development of white skin in European humans in 20,000 years or the evolution of lactose tolerance in 10,000 years is broadly consistent with theory.  You normally have to think long term to understand major or species level evolutionary change.

Just for Alan's benefit, evolution is thought to have been running pretty hot during the Cambrian but the Cambrian still lasted for some 20-25 million years. Modern Homo sapiens has been around only for about 150,000 years - a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms.

[Shaker]

But it is not just a single event we are looking at.  If I were to win the national lottery seventeen times in succession I think people would suspect that there was something not random about it.

Analogy fail.

Winning lotteries is a single, one-off event. Once the machine is started up the same number of balls zip round and around and around in it and come out at random - either somebody wins (or they don't - as happens often) but each new spin of the balls is in effect a brand-new event, a restart of the process from scratch. Winning the lottery seventeen times in a row would indeed be odds of staggering improbability for this reason.

Unfortunately for you natural selection is nothing like this. It's cumulative, building with grinding slowness upon what has proven to 'work' (i.e. whatever has been conducive to survival long enough to reproduce) beforehand. This slashes odds drastically, and using the word drastically is a major understatement. Richard Dawkins's book The Blind Watchmaker is especially good on this: there's a famous chapter detailing how Dawkins wrote a simple computer program to arrive at a target phrase in a small number of tiny but cumulative steps, re-running the process but crucially (and this makes all the difference) keeping what worked in the last try.

I thought you had once said that you'd read this book, but I must be mistaken in that because if you had read it you would have known why your analogy was such a spectacular failure.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Alan,

Dear Gonnagle.,
Thanks for this video clip.  Nice to see that it confirms my observation that human willpower can consciously override the behaviour patterns expected from built in instinct and learnt experience, which constitutes my own definition of free will.

Yes yes but you forgot to answer my question, my very important question, are you enjoying the Forum? are you enjoying debating with all these Auditors on here, please remember that you are a valued member of our happy little band on this forum, your morale is important to us, now there's a thought, should the Mods appoint a morale officer, I would nominate old Squeaky or Septic Toe, there humour is so corny it could only lighten our day.

Anyway, it is Happy Friday so feel free to inject humour into your posts, for a definition of humour please feel free to ask one of our champions, Vlad, Shaker, Blue or the Wigginhall.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Phyletic gradualism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism

Maybe I should pick a simpler subject to study, I wonder if there are any books on the subject of the female mind

Gonnagle.

[Alan Burns]

Anyway, it is Happy Friday so feel free to inject humour into your posts, for a definition of humour please feel free to ask one of our champions, Vlad, Shaker, Blue or the Wigginhall.

Gonnagle.

I think I have been a successful catalyst invoking the humour of some of these chaps.
They have succeeded in bringing a smile to my face on several occasions.

[Shaker]

I think I have been a successful catalyst invoking the humour of some of these chaps.
They have succeeded in bringing a smile to my face on several occasions.

It's been the same with you Alan ... though not necessarily for the same reasons.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think I have been a successful catalyst invoking the humour of some of these chaps.
They have succeeded in bringing a smile to my face on several occasions.

No doubt, but the question remains: do you now understand where you went off the rails with your (mis)understanding of evolution?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

It's been the same with you Alan ... though not necessarily for the same reasons.

But in a poor light with the sun behind gritted teeth can look a bit like a smile I guess...

[Enki]

True.  Just long enough to kill off the current specimen.

Exactly. So therefore there is less chance that harmful mutations persist in the species. I'm glad you agree.