Evidence for Evolution

[Falco Knotwise]

Statistician William M. Briggs lays out the reason why we ought to summarily reject outright the dismissal of design on a purportedly scientific basis:

What about the rest of (if you will) creation [beyond man]? That must have been designed, too, in the following analogical sense (if I’m going to be misquoted, it’s going to be here).

You’re asked to design a carnival game for kids, a sort of junior wooden pachinko device. Ball goes in at the top, rolls down a board hitting posts along the way, bouncing to and fro, finally coming to rest in one of four slots at the bottom, A, B, C, and D, which, although it’s not part of the analogy, correspond to certain prizes.

Before the ball is dropped nobody really knows which of the slots will have the ball. All sorts of things will cause the ball to land where it does, from the friction of the ball, board, and posts, the bounciness of and wear on the ball itself, the humidity and temperature of the air, even the gravitational field; and many more things comprising the Way Things Are operating on All There Is (the machine and its environment).

Nobody can track all these causes, yet they must be there, because otherwise how would the ball get where it’s going? One thing is clear, the ball can only land A, B, C or D. It cannot land E nor F nor any other letter because these slots do not exist by design.

Evolution is just like that. However changes occur to an organism, whatever mechanism causes genes to shift, the eventual organism must “land” in, and be caused to land in, some slot, or biological niche if you like. Viable organisms are like the slots of the pachinko game, and non-viable ones—the beasts that cannot live because their genes will not produce a living being in a particular environment—are like the slots that aren’t there.

No scientist knows, and more importantly no scientist can know, that the slots we see weren’t designed, weren’t planned for. And the same is true for the slots we don’t see. The reason is simple: whether the slots were designed is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Science can tell us what we’ll see given a set of rules (the Way Things Are), but science, as we learned, must be mute on the big question: why these rules?

[Ken]

I do not believe God created dinosaurs let them run around, die out and then create man. God created dinosaurs during the six days. I don’t really care what the science community thinks, they are wrong.

My point exactly. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Just don't confuse faith (or belief) with science. They are two completely separate spheres.

Ken, you really just don’t get it. The evidence is there you just can’t see it.
Evolution and science starts with a foundational position. Decay rates = earth age
Creationists start with a foundational position.
God‘s word = earth age
We certainly can test the decay rates, but they have no way of knowing that the earth truly has been around that long.
A creationist can explain the decay rates and it’s logical meshing perfectly with creation.
What you call lies, I call truth. I believe in a literal six day creation, God created dinosaurs during this time. Did those dinosaurs die pre-flood? I don’t know. But dinosaurs walked on the earth when man did.
The evidence of scripture supports this. I have been fairly charitable about your views, I don’t believe a lie. You do. You however, are not a liar. And until you get the point that someone is not a liar for believing something you think it’s not true, you will continue to be offensive.

First of all, Evolution isn't at all about decay rates of radioactive isotopes or the age of the earth. That is the field of paleogeology. Evolution is simply the most current SCIENTIFIC explanation to describe the change we see in the natural world. Both the process of change we see happening today, and change we have seen in the past.

I have not accused you or anyone else here on this forum of being a liar. What I have said is that Ken Ham is not being truthful when he states in children's books that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark and were used as beasts of burden by the descendants of Noah. There is not the tiniest shred of Biblical evidence for this assertion. And there isn't the tiniest shred of scientific evidence for this assertion. This is one of those areas where both the Bible and science actually agree. It is something he simply made up out of thin air. Now you might be fine with that fantasy this particular context. But I would suggest that if everyone is free to make up whatever they want about any aspect of scripture or science then we don't have religion or Christianity or even a common reality. We have everyone living in their own fact-free private fantasy world.

I'm puzzled why you are so worked up about Genesis when there are places all through both the Old and New Testaments where science and scripture come into conflict. Take, for example, the story of the loaves and fishes from Matthew 15. French chemist Antoine Lavoisier did research into chemical reactions and matter in the late 1700s and his work led to one of the fundamental laws of chemical behavior: the law of conservation of matter which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be rearranged. The story of Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and two fishes and ending up with 14 basketfuls of leftovers clearly violates the laws of science. Yet one never sees conservative Christians trying to undermine Lavoisier like they do Darwin, and trying to undermine and poke holes in one of the fundamental principles of all chemistry. Why is that? How come Darwin threatens Christianity but not Lavoisier?

Thomas Jefferson tried to reconcile the conflicts between science and religion by creating his own New Testament which he titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" (AKA Jefferson Bible) in which he re-wrote the Gospels by cutting out all the supernatural miracles and events and simply focused on the morals and ethical teachings of Jesus. That was a rather extreme response to the fact that science and faith occupy two separate spheres. Most people don't go that far but simply recognize that science and faith are two separate spheres that do not need to be reconciled. There is no point in trying to create some Venn diagram of overlapping facts that are consistent with both science and faith. Because they are two completely different things.

[JayP]

I am throwing the red challenge flag. Stop it….you are all driving me (and I assume posts of readers) nuts.

One, no more pasting all these pictures. Sheesh

Two, you realize this is such a pointless specific exercises.

Some of the folks have no idea what science, scientific theory, hypothesis, testing, modeling are in relation to scientific “fact”.
No one really knowledgeable about science denies the facts change all the time. My God, go read about them locking up Lister.

But understanding science neither proves nor rejects God. So you can do it all day and get nowhere dudes.

My wife, who is quite intelligent (I have no idea how you get degrees in ChemE, Philosophy and Religious Studies) ticked off a friend of ours Who had gone off on a pro science pro atheistic diatribe by saying….

First, God can make a ten billion year old planet last week with 100 million year old dinosaur bones in it. And He might just make the bones….no dinosaurs.
Second, I think it all rides on the back of a turtle….and yep…it I just an infinite stack of turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN

Third, thieve are much better arguments than if I give you something more scientific. If I do, you will reply and miss my point!

Yes, it’s a test.

[Soloist]

My point exactly. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Just don't confuse faith (or belief) with science. They are two completely separate spheres.

They are the same. God created the observable science. Macro Evolution isn’t observed.

First of all, Evolution isn't at all about decay rates of radioactive isotopes or the age of the earth. That is the field of paleogeology. Evolution is simply the most current SCIENTIFIC explanation to describe the change we see in the natural world. Both the process of change we see happening today, and change we have seen in the past.

You know dating the layers of rock these dinosaur bones is based on radioactive decay rates. The observations lead someone to conclude how old they are. The only evidence that is found to support evolution is in suspect fossils.
Evolution is not describing present change. Evolution is describing how what we see came to be. The fossils and isotope dating is very important for these phylogenetic trees. You seem to have some very obscure ideas as to what this is and that is not what was taught at the university I went to.

I have not accused you or anyone else here on this forum of being a liar. What I have said is that Ken Ham is not being truthful when he states in children's books that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark and were used as beasts of burden by the descendants of Noah. There is not the tiniest shred of Biblical evidence for this assertion. And there isn't the tiniest shred of scientific evidence for this assertion. This is one of those areas where both the Bible and science actually agree. It is something he simply made up out of thin air. Now you might be fine with that fantasy this particular context. But I would suggest that if everyone is free to make up whatever they want about any aspect of scripture or science then we don't have religion or Christianity or even a common reality. We have everyone living in their own fact-free private fantasy world.

It’s not a fantasy to believe God did what He said. You have strong opinions but believing dinosaurs were on the ark isn’t lying. Science and the Bible do not agree. Science says there is no global flood, Science says there is no creator, Science says everything evolved from a single cell organism. The Bible says there was a global flood. The Bible says there is a creator. The Bible says God created kinds of animals. You believe what you want, but stop asserting that Ken is lying by saying dinosaurs were on the ark. Otherwise I will assert that you were lying by saying they’re not. You have no way to know. You base your idea off of the shower thought of evolution and paleontology.

I'm puzzled
why you are so worked up about Genesis when there are places all through both the Old and New Testaments where science and scripture come into conflict. Take, for example, the story of the loaves and fishes from Matthew 15. French chemist Antoine Lavoisier did research into chemical reactions and matter in the late 1700s and his work led to one of the fundamental laws of chemical behavior: the law of conservation of matter which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be rearranged. The story of Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and two fishes and ending up with 14 basketfuls of leftovers clearly violates the laws of science. Yet one never sees conservative Christians trying to undermine Lavoisier like they do Darwin, and trying to undermine and poke holes in one of the fundamental principles of all chemistry. Why is that? How come Darwin threatens Christianity but not Lavoisier?

That’s easy. Everybody already knew that was a miracle and it was impossible. Arguing that evolution is true is trying to eliminate a creator. I could equally express puzzlement as to why you were so insistent on arguing on this. You were convinced in your position and I am convinced in mine. I do not believe you are a liar, but I do believe you are misled. Not only in your accusations, but in your “belief”

Thomas Jefferson tried to reconcile the conflicts between science and religion by creating his own New Testament which he titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" (AKA Jefferson Bible) in which he re-wrote the Gospels by cutting out all the supernatural miracles and events and simply focused on the morals and ethical teachings of Jesus. That was a rather extreme response to the fact that science and faith occupy two separate spheres. Most people don't go that far but simply recognize that science and faith are two separate spheres that do not need to be reconciled. There is no point in trying to create some Venn diagram of overlapping facts that are consistent with both science and faith. Because they are two completely different things.

Science and faith do not operate separate spheres. Science in its true form, reveals the Creator’s tools and programming.
Science that is not testable such as evolution, is actually sharing a much closer tie to faith. Of course you will never agree with that but it’s true.
I should’ve listened to my own advice before so feel free to continue arguing with whoever wants to but this conversation has devolved… I guess I do believe in some form of evolution… The evolution of conversation naturally reverts to its lower forms.

[Ken]

Statistician William M. Briggs lays out the reason why we ought to summarily reject outright the dismissal of design on a purportedly scientific basis:

What about the rest of (if you will) creation [beyond man]? That must have been designed, too, in the following analogical sense (if I’m going to be misquoted, it’s going to be here).

You’re asked to design a carnival game for kids, a sort of junior wooden pachinko device. Ball goes in at the top, rolls down a board hitting posts along the way, bouncing to and fro, finally coming to rest in one of four slots at the bottom, A, B, C, and D, which, although it’s not part of the analogy, correspond to certain prizes.

Before the ball is dropped nobody really knows which of the slots will have the ball. All sorts of things will cause the ball to land where it does, from the friction of the ball, board, and posts, the bounciness of and wear on the ball itself, the humidity and temperature of the air, even the gravitational field; and many more things comprising the Way Things Are operating on All There Is (the machine and its environment).

Nobody can track all these causes, yet they must be there, because otherwise how would the ball get where it’s going? One thing is clear, the ball can only land A, B, C or D. It cannot land E nor F nor any other letter because these slots do not exist by design.

Evolution is just like that. However changes occur to an organism, whatever mechanism causes genes to shift, the eventual organism must “land” in, and be caused to land in, some slot, or biological niche if you like. Viable organisms are like the slots of the pachinko game, and non-viable ones—the beasts that cannot live because their genes will not produce a living being in a particular environment—are like the slots that aren’t there.

No scientist knows, and more importantly no scientist can know, that the slots we see weren’t designed, weren’t planned for. And the same is true for the slots we don’t see. The reason is simple: whether the slots were designed is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Science can tell us what we’ll see given a set of rules (the Way Things Are), but science, as we learned, must be mute on the big question: why these rules?

No, evolution (or ecology) is not like a pachinko machine with various slots that animals fit into. Rather, in ecology there is constant competition for resources (food, shelter etc.) both between species and within species and over time those species that have a competitive advantage, and those individuals within a species whose traits give them a competitive advantage are those that we would expect to survive and multiply. And at the same time, ecosystems themselves are constantly changing which means the traits needed for success can change as well.

Take a field of grass or meadow, for example. There isn't one or even a few pachinko slots there for herbivores that eat grass. There are a near infinite number of herbivores that will happily eat grass and thrive in that ecosystem from grasshoppers and aphids to ducks, geese, rabbits, deer, and elk. Those herbivores that succeed will have BOTH the traits that best equip them to compete for grass with other herbivores (bottom-up regulation), AND the traits that best equip them to avoid predation from above (top-down regulation) will be the ones that we would predict will survive and thrive.

So in our particular meadow of grass, the herbivores that we would expect to survive and thrive would be those that can out-compete other herbivores for the grass resource while at the same time avoiding predation by carnivores higher on the food chain. Both of those things are completely situational and not fixed features of the ecosystem. Likewise, evolution would suggest that the grass population itself is evolving and changing in response to pressure from herbivores. And those grass species in the meadow (and individual grass plants) that have the traits to best survive pressure from herbivores are going to be those that survive and thrive in that meadow. So basic ecology would suggest that the herbivores themselves influence the ecosystem of the meadow through their feeding preferences.

This is why invasive species can be so damaging. In a natural ecosystem, plants, herbivores, and carnivores have all evolved together and keep each other in balance. So all parts of the system keep all the other parts in check. But if you drop some invasive species into the mix that doesn't have natural predators that evolved along with it, or that can out-compete native species for a resource then the ecosystem can go haywire. Kudzu in the south, invasive carp in the Midwest, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, and Himalayan blackberries in the Pacific Northwest are examples.

[AndersonD]

[Ken]

You folks do realize that Biblical scholarship and evolutionary science (or science in general) work in very much the same way. They are both a systematic process of inquiry.

Every book of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations has had a tremendous amount of research, debate, interpretation, historical research, and yes, THEORIZING about what the words are and more importantly, what they mean. Yet what Augustine thought a particular text meant is different from what Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, Menno Simons, Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, or theologians and Biblical scholars working today might have thought it meant.

Here on this very forum, people are constantly discussing and searching out the meanings of various texts, and are in constant disagreement. Not just about the actual literal meanings of the words as they are translated into English, but also the context, intent, and weight that each verse or text holds in relation to all the others.

Yet there is no prima facia proof that any of these texts are the accurate and inclusive words of Jesus, Paul, Abraham, or others. And there never will be unless someone invents a time machine and can go back to 28 AD to record the teachings of Jesus with a 4G high definition video camera. Someone who demands prima facia evidence that Jesus existed and actually said X or Y text completely misses the point. That isn't how Biblical scholarship works.

Does that mean Biblical scholarship is pointless and meaningless? No, of course not. And as time goes on I would suggest that our knowledge of the Bible increases over time due to the contributions of so many scholars working on the topic. New ideas are presented, discussed, debated, and accommodated or discarded as the case may be.

Science is really no different whether we are talking about atomic theory, relativity, evolution, genetics, disease research, or anything else. It is both a search for new information, and an attempt to make sense of the information that we already have. And each new piece of information brings the whole picture into slightly better focus.

[Falco Knotwise]

Statistician William M. Briggs lays out the reason why we ought to summarily reject outright the dismissal of design on a purportedly scientific basis:

What about the rest of (if you will) creation [beyond man]? That must have been designed, too, in the following analogical sense (if I’m going to be misquoted, it’s going to be here).

You’re asked to design a carnival game for kids, a sort of junior wooden pachinko device. Ball goes in at the top, rolls down a board hitting posts along the way, bouncing to and fro, finally coming to rest in one of four slots at the bottom, A, B, C, and D, which, although it’s not part of the analogy, correspond to certain prizes.

Before the ball is dropped nobody really knows which of the slots will have the ball. All sorts of things will cause the ball to land where it does, from the friction of the ball, board, and posts, the bounciness of and wear on the ball itself, the humidity and temperature of the air, even the gravitational field; and many more things comprising the Way Things Are operating on All There Is (the machine and its environment).

Nobody can track all these causes, yet they must be there, because otherwise how would the ball get where it’s going? One thing is clear, the ball can only land A, B, C or D. It cannot land E nor F nor any other letter because these slots do not exist by design.

Evolution is just like that. However changes occur to an organism, whatever mechanism causes genes to shift, the eventual organism must “land” in, and be caused to land in, some slot, or biological niche if you like. Viable organisms are like the slots of the pachinko game, and non-viable ones—the beasts that cannot live because their genes will not produce a living being in a particular environment—are like the slots that aren’t there.

No scientist knows, and more importantly no scientist can know, that the slots we see weren’t designed, weren’t planned for. And the same is true for the slots we don’t see. The reason is simple: whether the slots were designed is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Science can tell us what we’ll see given a set of rules (the Way Things Are), but science, as we learned, must be mute on the big question: why these rules?

No, evolution (or ecology) is not like a pachinko machine with various slots that animals fit into. Rather, in ecology there is constant competition for resources (food, shelter etc.) both between species and within species and over time those species that have a competitive advantage, and those individuals within a species whose traits give them a competitive advantage are those that we would expect to survive and multiply. And at the same time, ecosystems themselves are constantly changing which means the traits needed for success can change as well.

Take a field of grass or meadow, for example. There isn't one or even a few pachinko slots there for herbivores that eat grass. There are a near infinite number of herbivores that will happily eat grass and thrive in that ecosystem from grasshoppers and aphids to ducks, geese, rabbits, deer, and elk. Those herbivores that succeed will have BOTH the traits that best equip them to compete for grass with other herbivores (bottom-up regulation), AND the traits that best equip them to avoid predation from above (top-down regulation) will be the ones that we would predict will survive and thrive.

So in our particular meadow of grass, the herbivores that we would expect to survive and thrive would be those that can out-compete other herbivores for the grass resource while at the same time avoiding predation by carnivores higher on the food chain. Both of those things are completely situational and not fixed features of the ecosystem. Likewise, evolution would suggest that the grass population itself is evolving and changing in response to pressure from herbivores. And those grass species in the meadow (and individual grass plants) that have the traits to best survive pressure from herbivores are going to be those that survive and thrive in that meadow. So basic ecology would suggest that the herbivores themselves influence the ecosystem of the meadow through their feeding preferences.

This is why invasive species can be so damaging. In a natural ecosystem, plants, herbivores, and carnivores have all evolved together and keep each other in balance. So all parts of the system keep all the other parts in check. But if you drop some invasive species into the mix that doesn't have natural predators that evolved along with it, or that can out-compete native species for a resource then the ecosystem can go haywire. Kudzu in the south, invasive carp in the Midwest, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, and Himalayan blackberries in the Pacific Northwest are examples.

I am not going to argue this one. I just thought it was an interesting analogy. You’re right that his analogy didn’t seem to take into account the competitive/intentional aspects of the evolutionary process. He is still basically correct that science can never answer the big why questions.

The realities of God, freedom and immortality can never be explained or explained away by science.

[Ken]

Statistician William M. Briggs lays out the reason why we ought to summarily reject outright the dismissal of design on a purportedly scientific basis:

What about the rest of (if you will) creation [beyond man]? That must have been designed, too, in the following analogical sense (if I’m going to be misquoted, it’s going to be here).

You’re asked to design a carnival game for kids, a sort of junior wooden pachinko device. Ball goes in at the top, rolls down a board hitting posts along the way, bouncing to and fro, finally coming to rest in one of four slots at the bottom, A, B, C, and D, which, although it’s not part of the analogy, correspond to certain prizes.

Before the ball is dropped nobody really knows which of the slots will have the ball. All sorts of things will cause the ball to land where it does, from the friction of the ball, board, and posts, the bounciness of and wear on the ball itself, the humidity and temperature of the air, even the gravitational field; and many more things comprising the Way Things Are operating on All There Is (the machine and its environment).

Nobody can track all these causes, yet they must be there, because otherwise how would the ball get where it’s going? One thing is clear, the ball can only land A, B, C or D. It cannot land E nor F nor any other letter because these slots do not exist by design.

Evolution is just like that. However changes occur to an organism, whatever mechanism causes genes to shift, the eventual organism must “land” in, and be caused to land in, some slot, or biological niche if you like. Viable organisms are like the slots of the pachinko game, and non-viable ones—the beasts that cannot live because their genes will not produce a living being in a particular environment—are like the slots that aren’t there.

No scientist knows, and more importantly no scientist can know, that the slots we see weren’t designed, weren’t planned for. And the same is true for the slots we don’t see. The reason is simple: whether the slots were designed is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Science can tell us what we’ll see given a set of rules (the Way Things Are), but science, as we learned, must be mute on the big question: why these rules?

No, evolution (or ecology) is not like a pachinko machine with various slots that animals fit into. Rather, in ecology there is constant competition for resources (food, shelter etc.) both between species and within species and over time those species that have a competitive advantage, and those individuals within a species whose traits give them a competitive advantage are those that we would expect to survive and multiply. And at the same time, ecosystems themselves are constantly changing which means the traits needed for success can change as well.

Take a field of grass or meadow, for example. There isn't one or even a few pachinko slots there for herbivores that eat grass. There are a near infinite number of herbivores that will happily eat grass and thrive in that ecosystem from grasshoppers and aphids to ducks, geese, rabbits, deer, and elk. Those herbivores that succeed will have BOTH the traits that best equip them to compete for grass with other herbivores (bottom-up regulation), AND the traits that best equip them to avoid predation from above (top-down regulation) will be the ones that we would predict will survive and thrive.

So in our particular meadow of grass, the herbivores that we would expect to survive and thrive would be those that can out-compete other herbivores for the grass resource while at the same time avoiding predation by carnivores higher on the food chain. Both of those things are completely situational and not fixed features of the ecosystem. Likewise, evolution would suggest that the grass population itself is evolving and changing in response to pressure from herbivores. And those grass species in the meadow (and individual grass plants) that have the traits to best survive pressure from herbivores are going to be those that survive and thrive in that meadow. So basic ecology would suggest that the herbivores themselves influence the ecosystem of the meadow through their feeding preferences.

This is why invasive species can be so damaging. In a natural ecosystem, plants, herbivores, and carnivores have all evolved together and keep each other in balance. So all parts of the system keep all the other parts in check. But if you drop some invasive species into the mix that doesn't have natural predators that evolved along with it, or that can out-compete native species for a resource then the ecosystem can go haywire. Kudzu in the south, invasive carp in the Midwest, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, and Himalayan blackberries in the Pacific Northwest are examples.

I am not going to argue this one. I just thought it was an interesting analogy. You’re right that his analogy didn’t seem to take into account the competitive/intentional aspects of the evolutionary process. He is still basically correct that science can never answer the big why questions.

The realities of God, freedom and immortality can never be explained or explained away by science.

In any event, niches and ecosystem relationships is really more about the subject of ecology than evolution. Although the same driving forces are involved. It is a separate area of inquiry and stands on its own with our without evolution even though there are connections between the two. Food webs, trophic levels, interactions, and competition within ecosystems happen whether or not individual species are themselves evolving. And this is an area of science for which there are endless direct observations.

[AndersonD]

https://mynorthwest.com/3942486/rantz-s ... .%E2%80%9D

Is this your school district, Ken? Or is it fake news?