CHYUII said: Final-Fan said: I think it's a serious mistake to claim it's "illogical" to consider something proven even if you didn't personally witness it. The evidence for evolution is so massively strong it's unreasonable IMO to not conclude that it or a mechanism extremely similar is occurring. When you say that even if we observed dogs evolve into a separate species, we STILL couldn't safely say that non-dogs could also evolve into a separate species or even that dogs could evolve into a different separate species. That strikes me as being hyperconservative to the point of silliness. It seems to me that I might just as well say that I don't know that all the other cars on the streets aren't driven automatically, and the drivers are just playing with the steering wheel, with the exceptions of all the cars I've ever been in. At any rate, when you ask for "clearer evidence" that seems disingenuous to me, as it appears to me that by your standard no amount of evidence would ever be enough. "As for life coming from non-life", evolution is not concerned with that question, as it obviously only covers the evolution of life once it did exist. Although if we can trace life back far enough to the simplest forms, that probably gives a pretty strong hint as to what it was and how it might have come to be. But most of all, I really wonder why you think ID even rates a "maybe". It's just such a terrible idea, not even really a scientific theory. I can only guess that you are as reluctant to consider it wrong as you are to consider evolution right (which is to say, incredibly). I've been having a (very) protracted debate on whether we can really "know" much of anything at all, but assuming that we believe the world around us exists more or less as we perceive it, I don't see any way evolution (or something extremely similar) might not be true. Welcome to the forums. Not checking your check, I think that you assume that I cut and pasted a lot of this but I did not. I gathered most of this together, while trying to research the websites that Highwaystar gave to me. He seemed to be needing a quick response so I dumped as much as I had down- More than likely the partial quote that I used was used in conjunction with the brief description I gave of Darwin’s explanation for the evolution of the human eye. I apologize if I misrepresented the intention of the author, who used it before me, with that one statement but since I included within the entirety of my comment the explanation of the Darwin’s evolutionary theory for the eye, I do not think that I too horribly represented the ideas of Darwin. I think though I am not sure (talking off the top of my head) Darwin was discussing the problems with complex organs that quote if from a section in his book. Behe later, through microbiology showed, that the eye can not be explained in step by step fashion.

Um ...
1.  You do not appear to be responding to the post you quoted.
2.  I believe you are responding to this post. 
3.  I do not know (although I may now check out of curiosity) if you even used that Darwin quote.  I was just using that as a well-known example of a misleading out-of-context quote regarding evolution.  I did not mean to imply that you had made that particular out-of context quote. 

I'm pretty sure that Behe has been shown to be wrong (that it can be, and has been, explained). 

BTW, irreducible complexity (the fact of all parts being necessary to the mechanism) doesn't disprove anything, if the system could have built up gradually and then (again gradually) had some parts change or disappear until it couldn't 'devolve' without totally breaking down.

Edit: you know what; nevermind the post I put last night.

.. Irreduceable compexity ...

"While he did not originate the term, Charles Darwin identified the argument as a possible way to falsify a prediction of the theory of evolution at the outset. In The Origin of Species, he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

puerto rico evolution.

You're responding to my post, right?  Do you understand why irreducible complexity (as I understand the term, and according to the definition I gave) in no way meets that standard of falsification? 

Am I wrong about how people use that term? 
(Michael Behe:  "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."  I guess I'm not wrong...)

""irreducible complexity" Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together"

Sounds like a logical claim of falsification... but the problem is that it's hard to prove that something cannot form step-wise. So i wouldn't say irreducible complexity doesn't meet the standard, but that we haven't yet observed the "totally useless" part. That is, we haven't seen the parts form while not being useful at all until put together.

Myself, I'm not that fond of the claim.

One part I think doesn't make sense is the assumption that useful mutations, and variations, are just random and/or causal. The earth is around 4.5 billion years old (from what they say); the probabilities of useful mutations occuring with that time scale amounts to it being almost impossible for creatures to have evolved to the extent is has...
When creatures develop mutations, it's usually an addition of information that's already known in the gene (such as developping a third arm) and new information is rare, even if you consider a long, gradual, process; but actually, we haven't proven that variations we see have mutated with any new information; the information could simply be old information known in the genes.
I think any theory, or part, should be assigned a probability percentage, and it's natural not to assume things that have too low probabilities. Macro-evolution has very low probability, and I don't think any logical scientist could say otherwise, at least not without sure observations for many parts of the claims. Though of course the probabilities would be debated.

And of course, whether consciousness can form is another aspect.
That consciousness is possible is not falsifiable (Since it's impossible to know if something has true consciousness or not besides yourself), so at least that part shouldn't be part of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution doesn't account for everything, even though it tries to. There's no reason why someone couldn't see evolution along with creationism(as long as you aren't stuck to the idea of "god" like in the bible) or even something else. Dunno yet what that something else would be, but that's not a problem; the world is filled with uncertainty.

From what you're saying (in the final paragraph) I suspect you're reacting more to fundamentalists' CLAIMS about what evolution explains more than the actual science itself. For instance, if you mean God created the simplest life and then it evolved (which He intended it to do) then that in no way contradicts evolution.

Even if you want to use "evolution" as an umbrella term for evolution, abiogenesis, origin of the universe, etc.: as far as abiogenesis is concerned, even if we prove that it COULD have happened by itself, there is no way to prove that it DID. I think the same would probably be true of the origin of the universe.

Going back to earlier parts of your post:

Irreducible complexity: The quoted statement does not, I think, account for the possibility that those parts were previously useful separately, but evolved to become (let's say) more effective working together, with the side effect that they were no longer of any use separately (which probably wouldn't even harm the organism's effectiveness).

Time factor: I'm pretty sure I've seen explanations of how that objection is not well-founded.
No new information: Ditto. Also, what do you mean exactly by "no new information"?
(If you want to debate these, I can't promise I'll be able to muster the energy but I'll try.)

Consciousness: The thing is, the other position is that you are saying that you are (your consciousness is) an exception to evolution. Absent some other mechanism by which consciousness could come to be, evolution is the default, as that's how all living things (including you) were physically developed, including your brain (so goes the theory).

Well if you're admitting that evolution doesn't take into account origin of universe, etc. then that's a good thing. A lot of actual scientists are arrogant enough to claim otherwise, so I guess some of what I'm saying is indeed more aimed against those kinds.

As for irreducible complexity. "the possibility that those parts were previously useful separately" can possibly be discovered in the future, and so I wouldn't rule out that certain things could possibly be irreducibly complex to the point of disproving its evolution, just like it could be otherwise... however at this point I don't think we have sufficient evidence, knowledge or the technology to determine that. It's not a very useful concept for now.

As for the time factor, i think it's just assumed by most that since we've come to evolve to this point, then it must be possible within that time frame.. but see that's wrong, because you shouldn't be assuming that evolution did indeed happen like if the theory of evolution is a fact. It's still debated among the more logical scientists as to what kind of probabilities there are considering the many different factors of occurence.. so it's hard to talk about that when they themselves have trouble with that.
I haven't seen all of the arguments against the time factor, so I may still be lacking too when it comes to this. But personally, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist(evolutionary biologist in this case) to think that the probabilities are low when you understand some fundamentals of occurences in evolution as assumed in the theory of evolution.

And yeh, I am espousing that there is a mechanism absent in the theory of evolution as far as the accountance of consciousness is concerned. But then again if you think that evolution doesn't account for everything and that possibly there might be something extra which science has yet to explain, then I don't really need to add much, besides to maybe consider the possibility that consciousness is also part of what we don't understand (yet at least)

@Wind Shavitor. No, no scientists are that arrogant. Because its just stupid.

Fundamentalist Christians (in particular, I haven't really argued with many other groups) seem to like to paint evolution as some ridiculous theory to explain everything. Its not, all evolution explains and has ever explained is the gradual change in the nature of life.

Its not meant to explain the origin or age of the universe (that's the field of cosmology) the age of the earth (that's geology) the origin of life (abiogenesis) or countless other things that it seems to heaped on its shoulders.

I think you will actually find if you ask evolutionists 'Do you believe evolution explains the origin of the universe" 99.99% of them will say no. You can safely insult the other 0.01% for not understanding what they're meant to believe in.



Your statements on timeframe are assertions. Can you provide any evidence for your point of view? Also I understand the theory of evolution more fully than most people and I certainly don't think the probability of life progressing to this point is very low at all. Taking into account the massive timescale and things like mass extinctions pushing along the way.


Oh and the study of consciousness is very incomplete, science doesn't really have an understanding of it yet.

Your response is pretty late...

Coincidentally, I've been academically studying science and philosophy for the past 4 months and my opinions have changed since last I was on this forum.

Understanding what I do now, I definitely wouldn't say that the theory of evolution tries to explain the origin of life; anyone, scientist and theist alike, who assert that the theory of evolution does so are going beyond its scope.
Science still tries to provide a materialist explanation for the origin of life, but it goes no further than being a light hypothesis, for now, and certainly doesn't do it via the theory of evolution.

That being said, science is by nature unable to provide truth, and can only do it's best to fit a paradigm, that scientists uphold, with nature.
There is some form of evolution, that is for sure, and science tries its best to try and provide clarification and predictions surrounding this phenomena, but by no means provide accurate answers to the mystery of life. That doesn't mean we have anything better that makes more sense, and theology provides no evidence that a "guiding hand" helped along.

But, science and religion alike both require a certain amount of faith in order to pursue anything we might want to know, and considering the different approaches of both fields, and that variety in directions gather a better chance of uncovering any sort of important notion, I see great significance in undertaking both science and theology as valid means of pursuing knowledge of different sorts.

So, in conclusion, I now support the theory of evolution, but do think it requires refinement, as many parts of it are a bit too far-reaching for what I usually consider rational, and some highly improbable.
Personally though, considering the limts of science, I find it rational to assume that some unkown element, force, or intelligent offset, is influencing and helping along evolution, for it to have reached the point that it has, as I do not think it possible for natural selection alone to have made creatures evolve to this point, and quite a a lot of scientists wouldn't find it too hard to understand why, though since there is no alternative that doesn't fall outside of science's current scope, it is pointless to discuss such a notion scientifically, within the current paradigm...
Which is why I love philosophy, because no such limits appropriate themselve; as long as the argument is rational and does not contradict logic, it is valid.

I have to say though, consciousness is a huge obstacle to the theory of evolution philosophically. Psychology has shifted its stance in trying to explain the mysterious element of consciousness and instead regards it purely as a bi-product of cognitive processing in the brain, ignoring any further detail into what it can't explain. In that sense, since science cannot touch certain aspect of consciousness, it is not part of science at this point, and the theory of evolution still holds perfectly fine, and ... that's why I've turned to philosophy of the mind, because I wish to continue discussing rationally consciousness, which science cannot do -- science can't prove 'experiencing' -- since it is a subjective experience.

Science does not provide all answers, but for what it's intended, it does a marvelous job. We should all support the theory of evolution, but keep in mind that science is not equal to reality.. it is equal to our best take on the empirical value of reality that we have available for our scrutiny.

:)