[_ Old Earth _] Permutation Problem for Evolution

[Barbarian]

Felix writes:
You seem to contradict on both threads. You seem to say that God USED nature and then disagree that is "not artificial".

Barbarian observes:
By definition, nature is natural. If you don't use words as they are used by others, you will be continually misunderstood.

Let me correct you:
If you don't use words as they are used by (non Christian who don't believe in God)

All English speakers use those words that way. Regardless of beliefs or lack of them. Check the dictionary.

Since you say "others": Do these "others" also believe that someone is USING nature for evolution?

Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. Kenneth Miller, biologist and textbook author. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of modern evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin... (long list)

By the way, theory of evolution does not even remotely include any higher intelligent beings using nature to "design" new creatures.

True. The evidence is consistent with a creator (as Darwin said) but it's not consistent with a mere "designer." Of course, no scientific theory has any supernatural component to it. Science is too weak a method to examine the supernatural.

 

[felix]

Felix writes:
You seem to contradict on both threads. You seem to say that God USED nature and then disagree that is "not artificial".

Barbarian observes:
By definition, nature is natural. If you don't use words as they are used by others, you will be continually misunderstood.

Let me correct you:
If you don't use words as they are used by (non Christian who don't believe in God)

All English speakers use those words that way. Regardless of beliefs or lack of them. Check the dictionary.

Since you say "others": Do these "others" also believe that someone is USING nature for evolution?

Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. Kenneth Miller, biologist and textbook author. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of modern evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin... (long list)

By the way, theory of evolution does not even remotely include any higher intelligent beings using nature to "design" new creatures.

True. The evidence is consistent with a creator (as Darwin said) but it's not consistent with a mere "designer." Of course, no scientific theory has any supernatural component to it. Science is too weak a method to examine the supernatural.

Word play tricks doesn't change anything. If God USED nature, it is "designed" not "evolved". If God MADE a mutation to occur, then it is not random.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Anyway, most biologist are ignorant of laws of mathematics.

When I was an undergraduate, a student couldn't get a degree in any biological science without completing calculus and statistics. And some required a lot more. For example, I've finished more math and statistics than most people with a science degree.

They need to learn what is permutation, probability, properties of randomness etc before including them in their theories.

That, and a lot more, is in undergraduate science programs. PhDs (who develop most theories) have a lot more statistics.

Before going to my competition, you must understand only a few truly realize the problem.

You, for example. You've conflated permutations and combinations, and you've assumed that a priori probabilities are applicable to events that have already happened.

If your professor was correct, biologists could not predict how a population will react to selective pressure. And they do that regularly. So again, reality takes out anyone's reasoning.

 

[Barbarian]

Word play tricks doesn't change anything. If God USED nature, it is "designed" not "evolved".

Nope. God is not a mere creature, who has to "design." He has no need to figure out anything. Creationists are very uncomfortable with a God as great as ours.

If God MADE a mutation to occur, then it is not random.

Wrong again. God is the Creator. He can use contingency just as he can use necessity. If you had more faith in Him, you wouldn't keep trying to limit what He can do.

 

[Vaccine]

If God USED nature, it is "designed" not "evolved". If God MADE a mutation to occur, then it is not random.

Hello felix! I agree with this. As soon as God enters the picture the term "evolution" no longer applies, design is more appropriate.

"Evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution).

NABT endorsement:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
http://www.oklascience.org/NABTstatmnt.html[/QUOTE]

 

[Barbarian]

Hello felix! I agree with this. As soon as God enters the picture the term "evolution" no longer applies, design is more appropriate.

"Design" is what a limited creature does, figuring out something. God is the Creator. Notice the ID creationists say that the "designer" is maybe just a "space alien." Not my God, thank you.

"Evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution).

True of weather, too. I don't see a point.

NABT endorsement:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
http://www.oklascience.org/NABTstatmnt.html

So your argument is that God isn't capable of using contingency in divine providence? Again, my God is perfectly capable of that. But then, He's the Creator.

Space aliens, not so much.

 

[Vaccine]

"Evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution).

True of weather, too. I don't see a point.

Hey Barbarian! It was in regard to this observation:

Barbarian observes:
As you learned earlier, natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. It is as predictable as gravity.

I was pointing out that is not what is being taught in schools, "UNpredictable" is the word the National Association of Biology Teachers used. The NABT is teaching a version of natural selection with no room for divine providence.

 

[Barbarian]

There's no room for divine providence in meteorology, biology, or astronomy, or metallurgy. Science is too weak a system for that. But notice, that none of these deny diving providence, any more than plumbing denies divine providence, even if plumbers don't try to exorcise the demons of blockage.

You see, it's possible for a plumber to accept divine providence, even if plumbing can't establish that for him.

If this puzzles you, then we've located the problem. If it doesn't puzzle you, then your question is answered.

 

[felix]

If God USED nature, it is "designed" not "evolved". If God MADE a mutation to occur, then it is not random.

Hello felix! I agree with this. As soon as God enters the picture the term "evolution" no longer applies, design is more appropriate.

"Evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution).

NABT endorsement:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
http://www.oklascience.org/NABTstatmnt.html

[/QUOTE]

You said it right. Some people think they believe in evolution without even knowing they actually believe in artificial selection having no idea of what evolution means. We can't wake a person who pretends to be sleeping...

 

[Barbarian]

See above. If you don't use words as they are customarily used, you will be constantly misunderstood, and you will constantly misunderstand others. Using "artificial" when you mean "natural" seems perverse to me.

Arguing that things like weather and biology are "artificial" pretty much removes you from discussion.

 

[felix]

See above. If you don't use words as they are customarily used, you will be constantly misunderstood, and you will constantly misunderstand others. Using "artificial" when you mean "natural" seems perverse to me.

Arguing that things like weather and biology are "artificial" pretty much removes you from discussion.

Only if you believe God has no control and not sovereign over weather and biology and plays dice for events.

If God has full control over weather and biology, are these events still "random"?

 

[Barbarian]

Only if you believe God has no control and not sovereign over weather and biology and plays dice for events.

You're problem is assuming that if God isn't actually pushing the clouds around, he has no control over the weather. And what makes you think He's too weak a God to use contingency to His purposes?

If God has full control over weather and biology, are these events still "random"?

Yep. If this confuses you, read St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica

 

[Barbarian]

You said it right. Some people think they believe in evolution without even knowing they actually believe in artificial selection having no idea of what evolution means.

You've confused the process with the result. What do you think "evolution" means? Hint: there were many theories of evolution before Darwin, but none of them were able to define it, because until Darwin's time, no one knew how heredity worked.

We can't wake a person who pretends to be sleeping...

Rise and shine. Let me know if you can figure it out.

 

[felix]

You said it right. Some people think they believe in evolution without even knowing they actually believe in artificial selection having no idea of what evolution means.

You've confused the process with the result. What do you think "evolution" means? Hint: there were many theories of evolution before Darwin, but none of them were able to define it, because until Darwin's time, no one knew how heredity worked.

We can't wake a person who pretends to be sleeping...

Rise and shine. Let me know if you can figure it out.

[MENTION=30546]Barbarian[/MENTION], I think this is going like a silly fight rather than having any constructive use.

If God is USING nature and biology, then it is NOT evolution. PERIOD.
I think you have no idea what evolution is. Nor have any idea of the mechanisms of evolution.
Sorry. Will no longer reply to your post. Please read and learn what evolution is before posting.

 

[Barbarian]

If God is USING nature and biology, then it is NOT evolution. PERIOD.

I know you want us to think so, but the fact is, you've misunderstood the nature of God and His creation. Please do a little reading about this; St. Thomas Aquinas lays it out very well in Summa Theologica but there are also Protestant theologians who can explain it to you, as well.

I think you have no idea what evolution is.

I have studied it for over 40 years, and have taught it in classes and seminars. If you were wondering, biological evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Nor have any idea of the mechanisms of evolution.

I have directly observed some of them. Perhaps you've been misled about what they actually do. Given your issues with God and His relationship to biology, you might want to read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, a devoted Christian and a very capable biologist. Or if Catholics aren't your choice, you could read The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins, an evangelical Protestant, and the director of the Human Genome Project.

If could be an opening to a richer and more rewarding relationship with God.

 

[Milk-Drops]

If God is USING nature and biology, then it is NOT evolution. PERIOD.

Evolution means change over time. nothing else.

I think you have no idea what evolution is.

The theory of evolution is that organism adapt and specialize to their environment. Speceation is then an end result of this specialization. That is what evolution is. Barbarian has not contradicted this. He just doesn't agree with your view.

Nor have any idea of the mechanisms of evolution.

Outright false. The Mechanisms of the theory of evolution are natural selection, the Bottleneck effect, founder effect, punctuated equilibrium, the Hardy Weinberg equation, Carrying capacity, Sexual selection, etc. Barbarian has demonstrated what all this means.

On the other hand, when ever you are asked to back up anything you state or provide sources, you outright ignore the request or change the topic. When that doesn't work you blame others for not understanding. You can't even provide your educational background, when Barbarian will out right tells us he has a Masters in biology.

What are you trying to accomplish? Running around on a forum and playing, is not going to disprove evolution. Those who took time to study it aren't going to be easily converted away from it with silly trick questions and false information. The only people you can convince, are people ignorant of the topic in the first place. Then if they actually study the said material, they'll learn that you are either lieing or uneducated on the very matter. This hurts both and your religion more then the Theories in Biology, Geology, and Cosmology combined.


What goal do you want to accomplish with this nonsense?

 

[Vaccine]

You can't even provide your educational background, when Barbarian will out right tells us he has a Masters in biology.

Hello Meatballsub, are you sure he didn't say systems and not biology?

Technically, it's a cipher, not a code. I have a master in systems, and our discipline, which was formerly called "operations research", was developed largely in military applications, including code breaking and breaking ciphers.

The theory of evolution is that organism adapt and specialize to their environment.

I have no problem with that.

Speceation is then an end result of this specialization.

However, that is a common misconception...

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.†Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Meatballsub, are you sure he didn't say systems and not biology?

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
Technically, it's a cipher, not a code. I have a master in systems, and our discipline, which was formerly called "operations research", was developed largely in military applications, including code breaking and breaking ciphers.

(Barbarian smiles)
You're both right, sort of. My specialty in systems was biological systems. Among my projects were human factors in work environments, prey-predator systems, and using dynamic programming to combine chemical and non-chemical pest control methods to minimize pesticide use. (which means healthier environment, and a much longer time for pests to become immune to the chemical agents).

Closest thing I got to a regular systems analyst, was to use queuing theory simulations to minimize downtime for mass immunization programs in the military.

Quote Originally Posted by Meatballsub View Post

Speceation is then an end result of this specialization.

Vaccine writes:
However, that is a common misconception...

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

Well, let's take a look...

Genetics. 1935 July; 20(4): 377–391.
Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky

Kenyon can be excused for not being aware of the documented cases of speciation. He got his degree in physics, and then a PhD in biophysics, so he would not, unless he set aside his work to look at organisms, have been aware of the findings in biology.

He is a creationist, of course, and so likely wasn't looking for such things. Likely, one of the reasons the state of Louisiana lost in Edwards vs. Aguillar, was that Kenyon's statement was shown to be false.

 

[Vaccine]

Hello Meatballsub, are you sure he didn't say systems and not biology?

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
Technically, it's a cipher, not a code. I have a master in systems, and our discipline, which was formerly called "operations research", was developed largely in military applications, including code breaking and breaking ciphers.

(Barbarian smiles)
You're both right, sort of. My specialty in systems was biological systems. Among my projects were human factors in work environments, prey-predator systems, and using dynamic programming to combine chemical and non-chemical pest control methods to minimize pesticide use. (which means healthier environment, and a much longer time for pests to become immune to the chemical agents).

Closest thing I got to a regular systems analyst, was to use queuing theory simulations to minimize downtime for mass immunization programs in the military.

Quote Originally Posted by Meatballsub View Post

Speceation is then an end result of this specialization.

Vaccine writes:
However, that is a common misconception...

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

Well, let's take a look...

Genetics. 1935 July; 20(4): 377–391.
Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky

Kenyon can be excused for not being aware of the documented cases of speciation. He got his degree in physics, and then a PhD in biophysics, so he would not, unless he set aside his work to look at organisms, have been aware of the findings in biology.

He is a creationist, of course, and so likely wasn't looking for such things. Likely, one of the reasons the state of Louisiana lost in Edwards vs. Aguillar, was that Kenyon's statement was shown to be false.

I know you're going to be disappointed:chokedup, but seeing as how that was an affidavit to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT where there are serious penalties for perjury, while you're just some random dude on the internet with prior commitments to evolution, I think I will trust Kenyon knew what he was talking about.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
Technically, it's a cipher, not a code. I have a master in systems, and our discipline, which was formerly called "operations research", was developed largely in military applications, including code breaking and breaking ciphers.

(Barbarian smiles)
You're both right, sort of. My specialty in systems was biological systems. Among my projects were human factors in work environments, prey-predator systems, and using dynamic programming to combine chemical and non-chemical pest control methods to minimize pesticide use. (which means healthier environment, and a much longer time for pests to become immune to the chemical agents).

Closest thing I got to a regular systems analyst, was to use queuing theory simulations to minimize downtime for mass immunization programs in the military.

Quote Originally Posted by Meatballsub View Post


Vaccine writes:
However, that is a common misconception...

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

Well, let's take a look...

Genetics. 1935 July; 20(4): 377–391.
Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky

Kenyon can be excused for not being aware of the documented cases of speciation. He got his degree in physics, and then a PhD in biophysics, so he would not, unless he set aside his work to look at organisms, have been aware of the findings in biology.

He is a creationist, of course, and so likely wasn't looking for such things. Likely, one of the reasons the state of Louisiana lost in Edwards vs. Aguillar, was that Kenyon's statement was shown to be false.

I know you're going to be disappointed:chokedup, but seeing as how that was an affidavit to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT where there are serious penalties for perjury, while you're just some random dude on the internet with prior commitments to evolution, I think I will trust Kenyon knew what he was talking about.

No it's as Barbarian stated. The man is a physicist. My studies were in biology. I did lab work where I directly saw speciation. I have a friend who is part of a research paper where their team discovered a new species of Salamander that split off from other native salamanders from the area. I've seen it for myself and worked on papers doing research. It would be like trying to convince me I don't have hands.