Evidence for Evolution

[ken_sylvania]

I sure wish I could generate random computer code and use it to finish jobs for clients.

The correct analogy would be AI. Which can indeed do work and accomplish tasks without the intervention of humans.

And which, interestingly enough, was coded by intelligent design. Never in a million years would GM-NAA I/O have turned into AI if all of the changes had to be randomly generated and then selected because they were more suitable for conditions.

[Falco Knotwise]

I don't know if it is a problem for science so much as simply an illustration of how our desire to categorize and name things is really just an artificial construct.

Plant and animals do tend to separate into different breeding populations and so they do generally tend to fall into our species categorization schemes. But we do need to recognize that it is still an artificial construct and there are plenty of exceptions. No matter how elaborately we define the various rules for defining what is a species, there are always going to be plenty of exceptions. Life doesn't always accommodate our desire to impose our own sense of order onto it.

Genesis 2:19

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

It seems to me God is portrayed here almost as a partner in the process of Adam naming the animals, and that the name truly signifies the essential being of the creature. This implies, to me, that it’s more than just a futile, human desire. That’s really a metaphysical assumption you’re introducing there, I think, and not a statement for science.

Well, if you go out to your garden and scoop out a teaspoon of soil it will likely contain over a billion different individual bacteria cells comprised of maybe 10,000 to 100,000 different individual species of bacteria, many of which have not actually been described and named by science except in larger categories (genus, family, etc.). If you do it in the tropics you might have upwards of a million different species of bacteria in your teaspoon of soil.

I somehow don't think that Adam and God sat down to name all of them, especially since the existence of bacteria wasn't discovered until the 18th century when microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Likewise, for larger animals that we can see? How about insects? They are mentioned in the Bible. There are estimated to be over 1 million species of insects on the planet. About 7,000 new insect species are discovered and described every year. You think Adam named them all when most of them exist nowhere near Mesopotamia where people generally think the Garden of Eden was located if you are reading Genesis literally.

Or birds which are specifically mentioned in Genesis 2. There are upwards of 20,000 different bird species on the planet. Most of which go nowhere near the middle east. And species distinctions are especially fluid with birds and there are lots of arguments to this day about species versus subspecies definitions of birds. For example, there are 18 different species of penguins, most of which never leave the coast of Antarctica. Do you think Adam cataloged and named them all?

Who said Adam had to name every last thing? The Bible doesn’t say that. I never said it.

I’m sure there are plenty of things Adam never saw or knew of. What conclusions are you drawing from that or expecting me to draw? Be explicit, cause I doubt anyone here has a clue.

[Ken]

I sure wish I could generate random computer code and use it to finish jobs for clients.

The correct analogy would be AI. Which can indeed do work and accomplish tasks without the intervention of humans.

And which, interestingly enough, was coded by intelligent design. Never in a million years would GM-NAA I/O have turned into AI if all of the changes had to be randomly generated and then selected because they were more suitable for conditions.

Yes but AI is still less complex than a single typical cell. So AI has a long ways to go before equaling the natural world. And when it gets to that point, AI will most certainly be able to evolve on its own without human guidance. The guiding forces will be different and won't be natural selection. But they will be there. AI will optimize computation speed, or energy efficiency, or evolve in response to other pressures. But it won't be random. And neither is evolution.

[Falco Knotwise]

The correct analogy would be AI. Which can indeed do work and accomplish tasks without the intervention of humans.

And which, interestingly enough, was coded by intelligent design. Never in a million years would GM-NAA I/O have turned into AI if all of the changes had to be randomly generated and then selected because they were more suitable for conditions.

Yes but AI is still less complex than a single typical cell. So AI has a long ways to go before equaling the natural world. And when it gets to that point, AI will most certainly be able to evolve on its own without human guidance. The guiding forces will be different and won't be natural selection. But they will be there. AI will optimize computation speed, or energy efficiency, or evolve in response to other pressures. But it won't be random. And neither is evolution.

You are starting to sound like Yuval Noah Harari. Are you into that sort of thing? Do you believe man is becoming god with his technology?

[Ken]

It seems to me God is portrayed here almost as a partner in the process of Adam naming the animals, and that the name truly signifies the essential being of the creature. This implies, to me, that it’s more than just a futile, human desire. That’s really a metaphysical assumption you’re introducing there, I think, and not a statement for science.

Well, if you go out to your garden and scoop out a teaspoon of soil it will likely contain over a billion different individual bacteria cells comprised of maybe 10,000 to 100,000 different individual species of bacteria, many of which have not actually been described and named by science except in larger categories (genus, family, etc.). If you do it in the tropics you might have upwards of a million different species of bacteria in your teaspoon of soil.

I somehow don't think that Adam and God sat down to name all of them, especially since the existence of bacteria wasn't discovered until the 18th century when microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Likewise, for larger animals that we can see? How about insects? They are mentioned in the Bible. There are estimated to be over 1 million species of insects on the planet. About 7,000 new insect species are discovered and described every year. You think Adam named them all when most of them exist nowhere near Mesopotamia where people generally think the Garden of Eden was located if you are reading Genesis literally.

Or birds which are specifically mentioned in Genesis 2. There are upwards of 20,000 different bird species on the planet. Most of which go nowhere near the middle east. And species distinctions are especially fluid with birds and there are lots of arguments to this day about species versus subspecies definitions of birds. For example, there are 18 different species of penguins, most of which never leave the coast of Antarctica. Do you think Adam cataloged and named them all?

Who said Adam had to name every last thing? The Bible doesn’t say that. I never said it. What point are you trying to make here? Be explicit, cause I doubt anyone here has a clue.

Maybe I misunderstood your point. I took you to mean that speciation or identification of the species was some sort of process in Genesis that involved God and Adam. I'm just pointing out how impossible that would have been. The natural world is far too vast and complex for any one person to even ever describe the tiniest fraction of life in one small location.

[AndersonD]

Hilary Belloc accepted evolution in a sense, but insisted that each species was a new creation.

That remains vague and philosophical for now, but I think it’s also what Eric Voegelin argued in substance. It remains a problem for philosophy but I’m inclined to agree with this intuitively.

I think many assumptions regarding evolution are wrong and shoddy but I am a "Creation" magazine subscriber. So, of course, that influences my views as does my background. Amish, Mennonites and Hutterites are Creationists and I appreciate that worldview.

What is the difference between intelligent design and creation science? Am I right that creation science starts out from the text of the Bible then seeks to find scientific evidence for it, but intelligent design seeks to infer an intelligent designer from the complexity and wholeness of organisms?

Scripture is an anchor for creation science and there are many assumptions/ discoveries that align with a young earth. Evolutionists and creationists have the same scientific data, just different worldviews. So an evolutionist cannot explain why we still see comets, for instance.

[Falco Knotwise]

Maybe I misunderstood your point. I took you to mean that speciation or identification of the species was some sort of process in Genesis that involved God and Adam. I'm just pointing out how impossible that would have been. The natural world is far too vast and complex for any one person to even ever describe the tiniest fraction of life in one small location.

No, I’d say speciation happens quite independently of Adam. Adam has no part in the creation of animals, only in naming them. Adam merely recognizes what God had already created. That’s how I’d put it.

[ken_sylvania]

The correct analogy would be AI. Which can indeed do work and accomplish tasks without the intervention of humans.

And which, interestingly enough, was coded by intelligent design. Never in a million years would GM-NAA I/O have turned into AI if all of the changes had to be randomly generated and then selected because they were more suitable for conditions.

Yes but AI is still less complex than a single typical cell. So AI has a long ways to go before equaling the natural world. And when it gets to that point, AI will most certainly be able to evolve on its own without human guidance. The guiding forces will be different and won't be natural selection. But they will be there. AI will optimize computation speed, or energy efficiency, or evolve in response to other pressures. But it won't be random. And neither is evolution.

Is AI less complex than the basic building blocks that supposedly combined by chance to create the first single cell?

[Josh]

I sure wish I could generate random computer code and use it to finish jobs for clients.

The correct analogy would be AI. Which can indeed do work, assemble code, and accomplish tasks without the intervention of humans.

AI is 99% useless for the tasks I need to do.

(One of which is working on an AI.)

[Josh]

The correct analogy would be AI. Which can indeed do work and accomplish tasks without the intervention of humans.

And which, interestingly enough, was coded by intelligent design. Never in a million years would GM-NAA I/O have turned into AI if all of the changes had to be randomly generated and then selected because they were more suitable for conditions.

Yes but AI is still less complex than a single typical cell. So AI has a long ways to go before equaling the natural world. And when it gets to that point, AI will most certainly be able to evolve on its own without human guidance. The guiding forces will be different and won't be natural selection. But they will be there. AI will optimize computation speed, or energy efficiency, or evolve in response to other pressures. But it won't be random. And neither is evolution.

I saw on Hacker News today that there’s a project underway to do a full simulation of a human brain, slated to go online next year.