How Far-Fetched Is Evolution?

[Dr. Shane]

Often times creationists use probability models to show how unlikely evolution is. However being able to actually compute the probability of evolution is rather difficult. Figuring probabilities is an advanced mathematical science which involves the dreaded trigonometry. I took it in a business statistics class which was an upper level undergraduate class. All of our tests were open-book and 50% of the class still failed. I passed with a "C". I think it was the toughest class I took in college and I wasn't convinced I would finish college until I had passed it.

Calculating the probability of a single event is easy. One simple takes the number of possibilities divided by the number or possible outcomes. If we know that a store has 200 visitors each day and 100 of them make a purchase, we can easily figure out what the probability of a visitor making a purchase. However, what is the probability of 15 consecutive visitors making a purchase?

In order to calculate the probability of evolution we would have to operate on a number of unprovable assumptions. We have to assume we know what the conditions were so we know the possibilities that existed and thus the possible outcomes. I have read much on the topic and am convinced there is no means to calculate the actual probabilities of evolution. Whatever they may be, it was the problem of probabilities that led renown evolutionist-philosopher Anthony Flew to embrace the idea of a creator. Many other scientists and philosophers have become convinced of intelligent design because of the issue of probabilities.

On another thread here a link was posted to the Evolution of the Eye. Almost every step of the proposed process seems far-fetched. The first step being a light-sensitive spot of skin giving some sort of advantage. Just at that step we have probability problems. I have light-sensitive spots on my skin which actually give me a disadvantage of developing skin cancer. But it doesn't end there. Not only does the light-sensitive skin have to give the organism some sort of advantage, it then has to have random changes that deepen the light-sensitive skin which increases the advantage. In order for the eye to develop, a long series of random changes producing advantages have to occur in order for natural selection to allow for the evolution of the eye. Moreover, all this had to occur early on in the evolutionary scenario. This organism that evolved an eye must be a common ancestor to most every animal. Mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, amphibians and insects all have eyes. So the organism that first developed an eye would likely have been a common ancestor to them all.

An easier explanation is simply that all these creatures have a common designer. Certainly there has been a micro-evolutionary process that has taken place but the idea that all life can be traced back to a common ancestor is too much to believe. Reason tells me there must be a Creator and directs me to search the world's religions to find if there be one which could be true.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Thank you Shane, I have enjoyed these thoughts.

Stewart

[Gerr]

No sane person would ever entertain the thought that a Ferrari can come into existence by itself. Yet many people believe that something infinitely more complex like a human being came into being by chance. How farfetch is that?

[Guest]

Good point

[Lutz13]

No sane person would ever entertain the thought that a Ferrari can come into existence by itself. Yet many people believe that something infinitely more complex like a human being came into being by chance. How farfetch is that?

Or perhaps how male and female came into existence. What decided that I should be attracted to females? What made them so beautiful? That cannot be random. The sun in the sky. The water we drink. Feeling, tasting, hearing, seeing, smelling...Random chance? Seriously...

So I would say very far-fetched...

[Bravus]

Sigh.

[Guest]

Does that sigh mean you have finally seen the light, and are coming over to the side of those who fear God and eschewith evil? Good for you Bravus. God will put your great brain to good use now.

[BobRyan]

Often times creationists use probability models to show how unlikely evolution is. However being able to actually compute the probability of evolution is rather difficult. Figuring probabilities is an advanced mathematical science which involves the dreaded trigonometry. I took it in a business statistics class which was an upper level undergraduate class.

[BobRyan]

All -

Clifford Goldstein lists a few logical arguments regarding evolution vs the Bible at this link --

http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/the-darwin-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-3721

What do you think of them?

What list did you come up with after listening to that?

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

'Fraid not, Richard, but thanks for asking. Nope, that sigh signified me giving up. You guys have worn me down and worn me out. I haven't changed my mind, but I've given up. You are determined to be triumphant and congratulate each other, in ideas that have nothing at all to do with evolution. So go ahead, enjoy.

Sigh.

[Guest]

Ah, don't let it get you down. I was just messin' with you. I know there's a few people around here that agree with you about evolution.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually I am not entirely clear on why that exercise in statistics and possibly a bit of calculus would also require trig.

You're right. I typed trigonometry but meant calculus.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You guys have worn me down and worn me out.

Well, if you can't beat them, you can join them.

Kurt Wise is the man Richard Dawkins calls an honest creationist.

[teresaq]

Does that sigh mean you have finally seen the light, and are coming over to the side of those who fear God and eschewith evil? Good for you Bravus. God will put your great brain to good use now.

wow!!

[Guest]

wow?

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

No sane person would ever entertain the thought that a Ferrari can come into existence by itself. Yet many people believe that something infinitely more complex like a human being came into being by chance. How farfetch is that?

Or perhaps how male and female came into existence. What decided that I should be attracted to females? What made them so beautiful? That cannot be random. The sun in the sky. The water we drink. Feeling, tasting, hearing, seeing, smelling...Random chance? Seriously...

So I would say very far-fetched...

Exactly.

g

[jasd]

QR frame:

I am basically a Biblical recreationist – one who believes in an incredibly old earth having experienced catastrophisms in the multiples – whilst occupying more than its one, or present, orbit.

Given our difficulty even in interpreting Genesis 1 and 2, I am just a bit skeptical as to the mindset that can dogmatically and unequivocally assert this or that re the esoterics of what may or may not occur in an ‘evolutionary process’.

We are confronted with unanswerables and imponderables. Fact is, we haven’t sufficient knowledge or information to claim other than – the debate between what we take away from Genesis 1 and 2 and purported bio-electro/chemical evolution – is largely a rhetorical landscape.

‘Back-engineering’ logical sequences, one is constrained to ask, “What process created the Creator?” or, as this list is wont – the 'Intelligent Designer'?

Mind, that even Writ suggests that there are ‘barriers’ between ‘dimensions’ between realities. What happens/happened in realities other than ours and did bleed-throughs ever occur – during such as what we’ve characterized as punctuations in the equilibrium? or other?

What happens in a continuum where velocity nullifies time? We don’t know; however, our observable universe may be but an eddy in a thing so vastly larger or superior – that it is impossible for us to apprehend... (and, such velocities as mentioned in the immediately foregoing, suggest the appearance of absolute stillness... the ultimate “Be still, and know your Gd”)

Sticky wicket?

[olger]

ooHH great! Now we got a recycled planet, ala Odd Lots.

"sublunary terraqueous" on aisle 12 please...

g

[jasd]

Indeed! Question: how many times? and,

why should that prove objectionable?

[Guest]

What are you trying to say jasd?

[Gerr]

Quote:

What happens in a continuum where velocity nullifies time? We don’t know; however, our observable universe may be but an eddy in a thing so vastly larger or superior – that it is impossible for us to apprehend... (and, such velocities as mentioned in the immediately foregoing, suggest the appearance of absolute stillness... the ultimate “Be still, and know your Gd”)

Sticky wicket?

But enough information has been provided and also OBSERVED for me to discount the notion that something animate can arise out of something inanimate simply by chance given enough time. I am no mathematician, but the probability of that happening is a big fat ZERO!!!

[jasd]

>>...the notion...<<

Hmmm...

>>...that something animate can arise out of something inanimate...<<

It is demonstrable that viruses can morph between the states of the organic and the inorganic – the bio and the seeming mineral.

>>...simply by chance given enough time.<<

There is an inherent attraction which causes many different minerals to coalesce and structurally align and adhere. (remember, inorganic viruses...)

>>I am no mathematician, but the probability of that happening is a big fat ZERO!!!<<

I am no mathematician either; however, I quit being surprised by it when I first found out about non-Euclidean geometry (and by seeing what our Gov't presently does with numbers) :-(

Otherwise, I don’t have a brief with you – as, I have already noted – I belief in reCreationism as outlined in part in Genesis 1 & 2. Having said that,

try Googling ‘pictures or images anomalies Mars’ (and/or moon). Click on ‘tubes on Mars’ and afterwards, search for an aerial view of Waterloo Station, London, England.

Have you heard it said that sin was restricted to a quarantined Earth? The images of anomalies on Mars remind that we are ever- learning...

[Guest]

I believe in reCreation to. Absolutely.

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Isa 65:17

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. Rev 21:1

[jasd]

>>I believe in reCreation to. Absolutely.<<

Indeed, your example also. So, you propose that Gd creates and recreates, as I... Holy Writ provides us with that information - some of it is explicit and some - implicit.

Like, the first Hiroshima and the first Nagasaki were destroyed and recreated...

[olger]

God always looks back to what He had in the original creation and then looks forward to His "renewal of all things."

"Behold I make all things new" does not indicate a repetitive pattern but rather a one-time restoration from the effects of the experiment of sin.

og out