Why evolution is true

[Samuel]

The usual formula to describe what cosmologists believe the universe is like is "finite but unbounded". The surface of the earth is as well - you can go anywhere, and keep moving on it for ever, but it is not infinite: it has a definite surface area. The surface is two-dimensional, but bent into a three dimensional sphere. Similarly, the universe is three-dimensional, but bent into a four-dimensional hypersphere.

Simple!

 

I love how you pitch this as a kind of throw away remark, like a four-dimensional hypersphere ain't no thing. That's just how we role here on the religion and ethics forum.

[wigginhall]

I am just itching for Alan to show us how God produces mutations, maybe some diagrams would help to make it clearer.   Why does he produce harmful ones?  Or is it just the good ones?

[Alan Burns]

Well that is what the fossil record suggests, not to mention comparative studies of morphology and all we have learned from genetics.  There are said to be dozen of regions of the human genome currently under selection pressure; do you really think God is busy there firing charged particles at us or otherwise interfering with cell replication to bring about his desired genetic change in key areas ?  What a bizarre way of thinking.  Why didn't he just get us right in the first place ?

I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.

The fossil records indicate gradual development.  They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided.  The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.

[Nearly Sane]

I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.

The fossil records indicate gradual development.  They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided.  The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.

Can you show why this is the realistic view rather than just assert it? And can you outline your qualifications in the field of biology?

[Alan Burns]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.

[wigginhall]

As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.

Come on, don't be a tease, show us how God organizes mutations.   Any pix?

[Alan Burns]

I am just itching for Alan to show us how God produces mutations, maybe some diagrams would help to make it clearer.   Why does he produce harmful ones?  Or is it just the good ones?

God's will has creative interaction with this universe in the same way as human free will can induce creativity through interaction with our physical brain cells.

If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.

[Nearly Sane]

Come on, don't be a tease, show us how God organizes mutations.   Any pix?

God loved creating the Black Death. He loves the buboes

[Nearly Sane]

God has creative interaction with this universe in the same way as human free will can induce creativity through interaction with our physical brain cells.

If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.

Your god created cancer. You worship a murdering thug. You love killing children in pain
.

[Maeght]

I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.

The fossil records indicate gradual development.  They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided.  The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.

Who's realistic view?

[Maeght]

If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.

So?

[Shaker]

Your god created cancer. You worship a murdering thug. You love killing children in pain
.

He does drive the kittens and rainbows view of nature into the ground, doesn't he?

I feel a Monty Python song coming on.

[Shaker]

As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.

Where did the existing life forms come from?

[Shaker]

God's will has creative interaction with this universe in the same way as human free will can induce creativity through interaction with our physical brain cells.

If you read Sriram's earlier posts on this thread, he concurs with my thoughts in this area in that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.

Are you quite sure this is the road you wish to go down? Because if I was relying on Sriram for backup I'd be having serious doubts.

[Enki]

As I said in my post - random mutations can facilitate fine tuning on existing life forms.

Which, of course, had nothing at all to do with the post that I was responding to with its silly analogy of evolution being like computer programming with punch cards, and the idea that any random mistake leading to beneficial consequences would be 'truly miraculous'.(post 122).

As far as your idea of 'fine tuning' goes(which you mentioned later in post 127), I am assuming that you do realise that both macro and micro evolution are accepted by scientists as being part of the same process.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_01


Indeed, I believe it was evolutionary scientists who actually instigated the use of the words micro and macroevolution.
Why should I accept your word, rather than that of those who have experience and practice in  their chosen areas of expertise?

On the basis of you saying:

But were they all randomly generated?  I think not.

?

Or you saying:

I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which
is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.

?

And all without a shred of evidence for your belief at all!
I think not.

[trippymonkey]

The fossil records indicate gradual development.  They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided.  The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.
[/quote]

How does NATURAL SELECTION exist if God lets it 'do it's own thing' so to speak.?
And don't fossils 'prove' The Bible is wrong?

Nick

[torridon]

I believe God interacts with nature - He does not overrule it, which is why we see a gradual development of life over long periods of time.

The fossil records indicate gradual development.  They can't be used to verify whether the specific mutations needed for complex life forms were random or intelligently guided.  The realistic view is that random mutations coupled with natural selection may work as a fine tuning method acting on something already complex, but alone are highly unlikely to be able to generate the complexity we perceive in advanced life forms.

This is both bizarre and baseless thinking, not to mention totally self-contradictory.  The idea that a god is 'interacting' with nature by interfering with what would otherwise happen naturally is overruling what would happen naturally.  Why the play with words ?  Why would a designer with unlimited powers not do good design from the outset ? Instead you give us a god making billions upon billions of micro adjustments such that the overall genome moves in the general direction of his divine plan but does so in a way that looks entirely natural.  Tell us, how does god select which cells in which individuals to bring about copying errors in and what method does he employ to create the mutation. Does he just will them, or is he employing some natural looking method like cosmic rays, but precision engineered ones ?  Did Europeans evolve white skin because god was took great care to target only individuals living in Europe with his precision particles ?

Where is the evidence for this line of thinking ? We cannot go around just making up surreal beliefs with no justification.

[Shaker]

We cannot go around just making up surreal beliefs with no justification.

Oh, I think you'll find that some people can and do ...

[Maeght]

Alan, once again, you want to have your cake and eat it. Our actions are influenced by previous events but not determined by them, evolution takes place but is influenced by but not controlled by God? Seems a strange approach to me, but then I don't believe in God or the soul so don't have to squeeze them into things like you do.

[Alan Burns]

This is both bizarre and baseless thinking, not to mention totally self-contradictory.  The idea that a god is 'interacting' with nature by interfering with what would otherwise happen naturally is overruling what would happen naturally.  Why the play with words ?

I am just observing that creative activity, be it from humans or from God, is brought about by intelligent interaction which consciously manipulates the forces of nature, and does not override them.

[Alan Burns]

Where did the existing life forms come from?

good question

[Shaker]

good question

Yes it was. So?

[torridon]

I am just observing that creative activity, be it from humans or from God, is brought about by intelligent interaction which consciously manipulates the forces of nature, and does not override them.

But your claim is that God is interfering with what would otherwise happen naturally.  Under normal circumstances cells replicate faithfully so if God is purposefully bringing about mutations in that process he is overriding normal cellular functioning.  So, what is your evidence for this grand assertion, and how come biologists haven't noticed this; think carefully before answering, my son is a cell biologist.  What you are expecting us to believe is that God is secretively intervening in his own natural order to the tune of billions of interventions per second worldwide to guide the development of the human genome across dispersed populations.  So if he is targeting the genes of Europeans to alter skin pigmentation why does has not also used that mechanism to eradicate the heritable pathologies in the human genome. He could just as easily target the CAG trinucleotide repeat that gives us neurodegenerative disease like Huntington's.  Is he just not bothered about such things ?

[jeremyp]

So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.

There's nothing controversial about that. Whales evolved from land bound mammals. The evidence is incontrovertible.

[ippy]

Even the pope goes for evolution, isn't he supposed to be infallible, so there!!