Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

[logician]

Considering that unicellular life existed on earth for a half a billion years, it took a long time for a random event to produce mutlicellular life. Once multicellular life took off, though, it did so at a very fast pace compared to previous evolutionary speed.

 

[fantome profane]

I think that's a common misconception theists have about evolution, though. You're starting with the end product and trying to develop the process. Evolution is the other way around. When certain conditions are present, certain beings result.

Humanity is not an end product.

I think this is an overgeneralization, many theists have a much better understanding of evolution than this.

But other than that I thought this was a nice explanation and well put.

 

[logician]

I think this is an overgeneralization, many theists have a much better understanding of evolution than this.

Really, I haven't met any.

 

[Yerda]

Really, I haven't met any.

None? Where do you live?

I was taught evolution by a Catholic. She understood it better than many atheists I've encountered. Then again most atheists don't have a degree in biology. Right here on RF we have the likes of lilithu and Painted Wolf (I believe she is a theist) who have a very advanced understanding of evolution and science in general. I think Lunamoth is a bioscience graduate. Halcyon is another.

 

[UnTheist]

Halcyon is an Apatheist, tho?

 

[eudaimonia]

Chance can not answer the question of creation because chance is replicable and homogenous. His favorite experiment, though rudimentary, is to take a small container and make a sand painting, doesn't matter what it is, then pick up the container and shake it around. After the first shake, what do you notice? The second shake? Each successive random jumbling of the sand particles doesn't create a more complicated sand painting. It homogenizes.

This is a poor analogy.

A sand particle is fairly inert when in contact with more sand particles. However, this doesn't mean that the molecules that make up sand are passive. Bring them into contact with certain other chemicals -- an acid, perhaps -- and a chemical reaction takes place. Molecules can be very dynamic in their relationship with other molecules.

The dynamism of molecules can lead to sequences of chemical reactions -- sequences that may under the right conditions form loops. And if these sequences can sustain themselves over time by taking in energy, you may have something that resembles life. And if the sequences can replicate, you have a species of life.

The analogy completely fails to take this into account, because it treats molecules as passive entities, as sand may appear to be at the macro level, and in limited conditions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Anti-World]

I had to redo my responses so they're going to be much shorter this time.

"A sand particle is fairly inert when in contact with more sand particles. However, this doesn't mean that the molecules that make up sand are passive. Bring them into contact with certain other chemicals -- an acid, perhaps -- and a chemical reaction takes place. Molecules can be very dynamic in their relationship with other molecules.

The dynamism of molecules can lead to sequences of chemical reactions -- sequences that may under the right conditions form loops. And if these sequences can sustain themselves over time by taking in energy, you may have something that resembles life. And if the sequences can replicate, you have a species of life."

Basically. This doesn't account for the second law of thermodynamics.

"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Molecules, without an outside factor, naturally breakdown over time. More complex molecules and compounds *do not* create themselves without an outside energy source.

Lottery:
This does not contradict the idea that nature naturally deteriorates and homogenizes. Theoretically, due to random occurrence, every single lottery ticket could win the lottery. However, the lottery, again, is a good example of how randomness occurs in predictable and recurring ways. We don't have lottery numbers that are all 1's or 2's for a year, we don't have massive amounts of winners every year although it's theoretically possible to happen. Again, we see that even though the numbers are random and independent of eachother, they homogenize in the long run.

Next time I'm at home I'll post the authors name.

 

[Zeno]

Basically. This doesn't account for the second law of thermodynamics.

I know your post isn't actually talking about evolution. But in regards to the 2nd Law and misconceptions about evolution, here are some links.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html

 

[camanintx]

The dynamism of molecules can lead to sequences of chemical reactions -- sequences that may under the right conditions form loops. And if these sequences can sustain themselves over time by taking in energy, you may have something that resembles life. And if the sequences can replicate, you have a species of life."

Basically. This doesn't account for the second law of thermodynamics.

"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Molecules, without an outside factor, naturally breakdown over time. More complex molecules and compounds *do not* create themselves without an outside energy source.

Do you believe that life is an isolated system? If life uses an outside energy source, ie the sun, then how can the second law of thermodynamics apply?

However, the lottery, again, is a good example of how randomness occurs in predictable and recurring ways.

If it is predictable and recurring, then how can it be random?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Walking on the beach no one is going to see a perfect sand painting of, say, a turtle, completely by chance.

Fractals create beautiful images by chance, better than those which I can create if I tried myself.

 

[logician]

None? Where do you live?

I was taught evolution by a Catholic. She understood it better than many atheists I've encountered. Then again most atheists don't have a degree in biology. Right here on RF we have the likes of lilithu and Painted Wolf (I believe she is a theist) who have a very advanced understanding of evolution and science in general. I think Lunamoth is a bioscience graduate. Halcyon is another.

What fantôme profane was right on the mark, I haven't met any theists who have a "better" understanding of evolution than what he posted. And the vast majority are woefully ignorant on the subject.

 

[Yerda]

What fantôme profane was right on the mark, I haven't met any theists who have a "better" understanding of evolution than what he posted.

Fair enough. I have. I've met theists with a better understanding than myself, and I'm not exactly ignorant on the subject.

 

[s2a]

Next time I'm at home I'll post the authors name.

I'll look forward to that...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Before 'natural selection', either organic molecules in space or organic molecules in soups, then RNA, and then DNA. Of course, there are gaps in our knowledge, but they are being filled up.

 

[Anti-World]

The G.O.D. Experiments
Gary Schwartz, PhD

"If it is predictable and recurring, then how can it be random?"

I'm confident that was his point.

 

[camanintx]

The G.O.D. Experiments
Gary Schwartz, PhD

"If it is predictable and recurring, then how can it be random?"

I'm confident that was his point.

Natural laws are not random either. Just because we cannot write an equation predicting the outcome does not make something random.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm a thiest and I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp of Evolution.
(I should I'm paying enough money for it )

Anywho, humanity is not an end product, we haven't reached the end. Evolution doesn't move in a strait line. There are no 'winners' in Evolution, only species that prolong the inevitable.
A lot of people (thiest and nonthiests) have a very human-centric view of evolution and our place in it.

wa:do

 

[Ryan2065]

The sand example can work with throwing the sand... theoritically.

To calculate the chances though... That would take some time. You need to factor in wind resistance, the force you are throwing the particles at, the surface they are landing on, the friction between the surface and the sand particles, and also the way you are holding the particles before you throw them.

The odds you would get that picture are so high for all intents and purposes it is impossible for any one person to do. Now, if you had a family of people who threw the sand every day for a few billion years you might get somewhere =)

Also if you throw the sand one time and then pick it up and throw it again, the odds you get the same exact pattern from the first time are pretty much impossible (without outside forces)

 

[Quiddity]

The sand example can work with throwing the sand... theoritically.

To calculate the chances though... That would take some time. You need to factor in wind resistance, the force you are throwing the particles at, the surface they are landing on, the friction between the surface and the sand particles, and also the way you are holding the particles before you throw them.

The odds you would get that picture are so high for all intents and purposes it is impossible for any one person to do. Now, if you had a family of people who threw the sand every day for a few billion years you might get somewhere =)

Also if you throw the sand one time and then pick it up and throw it again, the odds you get the same exact pattern from the first time are pretty much impossible (without outside forces)

Yeah, it's called a miracle.

 

[Aasimar]

Yeah, it's called a miracle.

Funny that miracles are always highly subjective and unprovable. God cured my cancer, but he didn't regrow my arm. God saved my life but chose to ignore the orphan with abusive foster parents that got raped and murdered in the gutter. I wonder if the guy who got struck by lighting 10 times considered it to be a miracle that we was alive, while discounting the miracle of getting hit by lighting 10 times. If it's subjectively good, it's a miracle, bad, it's chance. The child who got raped and murdered probably doesn't consider the vast improbability that he was born to a specific set of parents who abandoned him and he just happened to be put into a home with a child rapist and murderer a miracle. If you want to see miracles, you will see them and ignore all other explanations.