[_ Old Earth _] Professor John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

[lordkalvan]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

I fail to see how event A influencing event B affects the argument in any meaningful way.

Then you don't understand conditional probabilities which, briefly, state that the probability of B occurring given A is greater if A has already occurred than if A hasn't occurred at all. In other words, the occurrence of A influences the likelihood of B occurring at all.

Any movement from A to B has only 2 possible outcomes. B is going to be either viable or non-viable. There are no other options.

Let us grant this argument. Neither you nor Lennox has provided a reasoned basis for the fundamental assumption of his calculation, namely that B is equally viable or non-viable given the pre-occurrence of A.

You may, as Barbarian is valiantly trying to do, introduce 'partly viable' options, but they merely lengthen the process, and increase the number of steps from 2000 upwards.

I don't need to, I simply need to point to the false assumption that B is equally likely to be viable or non-viable in the pre-occurring presence of A, which it isn't.

With a corresponding increase in the improbability.

Actually, with an increase in probability of favourable outcomes. This is the mistake Lennox appears to be making.

So I really don't see any escape from the ruthless logic Lennox is applying.

Then you don't appear to be able to see any further than you wish to.

If he wasn't correct, then Dawkins would not have had to introduce the Head Monkey scenario which I mentioned above. His introduction of the Head Monkey is his vain attempt to shore up the tottering foundations of the theory, and a tacit recognition of the mathematical impossibility he is espousing.

Nope, the 'Head Monkey' you refer to is also known as natural selection, a relatively simple selection mechanism.

A good bit of special pleading always works wonders for a failing theory. A pity you guys can't see it.

We can, however, see doubtful conclusions based on faulty assumptions.

It was remiss of me not to have introduced this line of argumentation before, in the cases I have brought to the board. As of now, Barbarian's efforts to deflect the facts will have to face the statistical consequences of the claims he makes.

We'll see how he gets on with them.

Well, I dunno, there are so many threads littering this forum that you appear to have abandoned leaving questions and arguments unanswered that I rather wonder at the basis for the chutzpah you display here.

 

[Tri Unity]

Sorry, not my responsibility to research evidence for your unsupported assertions and claims - that would be your job and, in the absence of such support, your claims and assertions can safely be disregarded.

Try doing your own research in the future - I despise needing to spoon-feed educated men. You might want examine the teachings of Epicurus (341-270 BC), Democritus (460-370 BC), Leucippus (6th century BC), and according to Isaac Newton, the first person to develop the atomic theory was Moschus the Phoenician (Moses) at the time of the exodus.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number3/number3.html

http://www.hanrott.com/epicureanism/epicureanhistory.php

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, let's give that a test. Take a population of 100,000 organisms (much smaller than most species populations). Let's say the likelihood of a useful mutation is about 0.1 percent (one in a thousand). Let's say that the organisms are much less likely to have a mutation than humans, and say there are six per organism.

So we end up with 600,000 mutations per generation, of which 600 are useful.

I said irrelevant nonsense. Here's the proof.

You estimate that there are 600 useful mutations in a population of 100,000.

Therefore the probability of a useful mutation is 600 in 100,000

which works out at 1 in 166.

Lennox gives a probability of 1 in 2 for a viable new organism occurring, which is considerably higher than your estimate. Your estimate would yield a figure (for 2000 steps from the bottom to the top of MI) of

1 in 166 ^2000

Which is even worse for evolution, by a long, long way.

Quite simply, it cannot happen.

 

[lordkalvan]

Try doing your own research in the future - I despise needing to spoon-feed educated men.

Again, your responsibility to support your claims, not mine to expend time and effort determining whether there is any substance to them. Providing relevant citations and references is not 'spoon-feeding', unless you think that university professors who provide relevant reading lists are pandering to 'educated men' (and women) when they should rather despise their students. Thanks for the links, by the way.

You might want examine the teachings of Epicurus (341-270 BC), Democritus (460-370 BC), Leucippus (6th century BC)...

I suppose if you screw up your eyes and look at it sideways, you can attribute aspects of evolutionary theory to these philosophers, but to claim that they did Darwin's work before him is blatantly absurd. Epicurus, for example, believed the first living things on Earth appeared fully-formed from the chance assembly of atoms. 'Unfit' living things died off and the 'fit' survived to reproduce; not such a surprising observation from anyone capable of observing Nature in action. Epicurus made no reference at all to speciation, for example, perhaps one of the key features of evolutionary theory. One can pick through the works of ancient philosophers and find parts that seem to bear remarkable insights and other parts not so. Few would argue that evolution as a concept did not exist before Darwin (see, for example, http://www.aboutdarwin.com/literature/Pre_Dar.html, a site with which you may already be familiar), but Darwin's insight was to offer both a theoretical framework that explained evolution and evidence and argument that supported that theoretical framework. To suggest that this existed in any serious way before Darwin's work is simply to belittle that work in order to discredit it, a motive that seems to be the principle objective of your first link and something remarked on in your second (although generally rather than specifically with regard to the first).

...and according to Isaac Newton, the first person to develop the atomic theory was Moschus the Phoenician (Moses) at the time of the exodus.

Whoever Moschus may have been and, indeed, whether he existed at all as anything other than a figure of legend and what he may have invented, seems to be wholly a matter for speculation. Newton seems to have based his view on Strabo, who identified Moschus as older than the Trojan War, on which basis I suppose we should view the existence of Achilles, Ajax and Odysseus as equally likely actual historical characters performing the feats attributed to them.

 

[cupid dave]

Epicurus, for example, believed the first living things on Earth appeared fully-formed from the chance assembly of atoms.

'Unfit' living things died off and the 'fit' survived to reproduce; not such a surprising observation from anyone capable of observing Nature in action.
.

So essentially, Epi agreed with Abiogenesis as the starting point, though he seems to infer that this this kind of Spontaneous Generation ceased after accounting for all things living, even to this date in time.

He doesn't appear to be so much wrong, as he is just not adding the details of speciation.

 

[cupid dave]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

Posted by cupid dave
So the religious argument is that everyone of the species living today is the resulf of an individual Spontaneous Generastion that took place illioms of years ago when its first ancestor suddenly manifested?
And these also iclude all the now extinct species?


///


Are you asking me if this is what I believe? It isn't. There seem to be as many religious arguments as their are religions, even within those that are ostensibly the same. So I prefer to go with the evidence shorn of competing religious baggage. If God exists I am persuaded that s/he/it would prefer we use our curiosity-driven intelligence to do exactly this, rather than idolaters of Late Bronze Age legend.

We will some day appear to have been "idolaters of Late Bronze Age legend" we have called Science, when the advanced societies of the future look back at us struggling to separate Truth from misunderstandings.

I see no legitimate reason to exclude the writings found in Hebrew scriptures from those other scan and rare writings of Archimedes, Democratus, all the gfreat men on whose shoulders Newton stood.

My quetion stands for all posting here, since it seems as incrediable that modern life forms are the result of a Abiogenesis occurring billions of years ago and then evolving as it does likewise for a Spantaneous Generatio of esch individual life form without evolution.

Its a coin toss IMO, whether one buy into either of these arguments in terms of creduality, but I am convinced that science has a better case with evidence, hypothesis, and theory leading us to such conclusions.

I do not see how either case has any influence on what we read in genesis, because nothing in those writing contradicts either argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

So essentially, Epi agreed with Abiogenesis as the starting point, though he seems to infer that this this kind of Spontaneous Generation ceased after accounting for all things living, even to this date in time.

He doesn't appear to be so much wrong, as he is just not adding the details of speciation.

I have only read around the subject sketchily, but it is my understanding that there were a series of competing Greek philosophical ideas about life and its origins, and that elements of these ideas can be seen as foreshadowing future understanding. I don't have any problem with this view, but I do take issue with the idea that the greater and more refined understanding that we have of these phenomena today is in some way overshadowed because it was already developed by these early philosophers.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

We will some day appear to have been "idolaters of Late Bronze Age legend" we have called Science, when the advanced societies of the future look back at us struggling to separate Truth from misunderstandings.

I see no legitimate reason to exclude the writings found in Hebrew scriptures from those other scan and rare writings of Archimedes, Democratus, all the gfreat men on whose shoulders Newton stood.

My quetion stands for all posting here, since it seems as incrediable that modern life forms are the result of a Abiogenesis occurring billions of years ago and then evolving as it does likewise for a Spantaneous Generatio of esch individual life form without evolution.

Its a coin toss IMO, whether one buy into either of these arguments in terms of creduality, but I am convinced that science has a better case with evidence, hypothesis, and theory leading us to such conclusions.

I do not see how either case has any influence on what we read in genesis, because nothing in those writing contradicts either argument.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. My only concern with Genesis (and later books of the OT) is when particular ideologues seek to advance it as seriously opposing our understanding of history and the natural world simply because it is, allegedly, the literal word of God. To my mind it is legend and mythology and sits entirely appropriately in the wider context of contemporary ANE cultures. It may be inspired by God, but to argue seriously that, even if so inspired, it would be written down and understood in any way other than one that made sense to the culture recording it seems to be more the product of wishful thinking than anything else. So to some extent I am sympathetic to your arguments and intentions, I just think that too many of them rest on uncertain foundations, as I have tried to make clear elsewhere.

 

[lordkalvan]

I said irrelevant nonsense. Here's the proof.

You estimate that there are 600 useful mutations in a population of 100,000.

Therefore the probability of a useful mutation is 600 in 100,000

which works out at 1 in 166.

Lennox gives a probability of 1 in 2 for a viable new organism occurring, which is considerably higher than your estimate. Your estimate would yield a figure (for 2000 steps from the bottom to the top of MI) of

1 in 166 ^2000

Which is even worse for evolution, by a long, long way.

Quite simply, it cannot happen.

Except that Lennox's 'viability probability' is, as I have pointed out, largely baseless. You might as well say that, because Anglina Jolie can choose to either sleep with you or not some time in the next 12 months, each is equally viable, but if I were to offer you odds of 3000 to 1 against the former (I pay you $3,000,000 if she sleeps with you and you pay me $1,000 if she doesn't), would you take the bet? I mean, it's 50:50, isn't it?

NB This bet is only valid on the condition that you are not, in fact, Brad Pitt.

 

[cupid dave]

I have only read around the subject sketchily, but it is my understanding that there were a series of competing Greek philosophical ideas about life and it's origins, and that elements of these ideas can be seen as foreshadowing future understanding. I don't have any problem with this view, but I do take issue with the idea that the greater and more refined understanding that we have of these phenomena today is in some way overshadowed because it was already developed by these early philosophers.

Really tho' Lord, isn't it rather vain of the present generation to say something like you post above when we think about John Dalton who was by and lerge right concerning Atoms, though in the light of our follow up and attention to his basic idea dead wrong in so many ways that people today could pretend his insight was maundane and elementary enough to disparage him as the revolutionary and profound thinker he really was?

Isn't that the same thing as people today attempt to use against Freud and Carl Jung?
Is Newton someday to be relegated to such low status and disrespect as Gravity becomes better understood as curvature rather than a quality found by definition of Matter that states an attraction between separated units of it?


Where do you draw the line if such a line should even be drawn?

Everyone of the remarkable insights of the great men of science flew in the face of the common sense that abounded in their own day.
None of them received the praise of their own generation.

Such prophests are always without renown in their own times.
What they have in common is thinking outside the box.

 

[cupid dave]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

I don't really have a dog in this fight. My only concern with Genesis (and later books of the OT) is when particular ideologues seek to advance it as seriously opposing our understanding of history and the natural world simply because it is, allegedly, the literal word of God. To my mind it is legend and mythology and sits entirely appropriately in the wider context of contemporary ANE cultures. It may be inspired by God, but to argue seriously that, even if so inspired, it would be written down and understood in any way other than one that made sense to the culture recording it seems to be more the product of wishful thinking than anything else. So to some extent I am sympathetic to your arguments and intentions, I just think that too many of them rest on uncertain foundations, as I have tried to make clear elsewhere.

You only say this because you are focused upon the Physical Science criticism coming from people denigrating the scriptures, while you ignore or have not refected upon the fact that the Bible is about Human Behavior, or more exactly, about changing it.

If you would get past the attmpted criticism of Physcial Science, even by granting my own arguments for such sake, you would realize that to this very moent, Human Behavior is basically the same, motivated by Subconscious intentions, urges, drives, etc, and hardly different from the human behavior of mankind in the past.

A quick look at the preface to the Encyclopedia of Human Behavior woukd inform anyone that the 8 editors apologize for the lack of progress in thier own chosen field of inquiry, noting that though this disciplin is the oldest of sciences, it has made few advances which have outlived the author and advocate for them.

I can think of no other book on Human Behavior which first demonstrated the ability to gather a world wide classroom before it was to be read comprehensively such as to effect the very changes in Human Behavior its editors intended.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

You only say this because you are focused upon the Physical Science criticism coming from people denigrating the scriptures, while you ignore or have not refected upon the fact that the Bible is about Human Behavior, or more exactly, about changing it.

Well, the NT may be, but the OT appears to be little more than a compendium of entirely typical creation mythology, nation-building propaganda, self-serving history, rules for social control by a politico-religious elite, some weird natural history, and a collection of other myths and legends.

If you would get past the attmpted criticism of Physcial Science, even by granting my own arguments for such sake, you would realize that to this very moent, Human Behavior is basically the same, motivated by Subconscious intentions, urges, drives, etc, and hardly different from the human behavior of mankind in the past.

Okay...

A quick look at the preface to the Encyclopedia of Human Behavior woukd inform anyone that the 8 editors apologize for the lack of progress in thier own chosen field of inquiry, noting that though this disciplin is the oldest of sciences, it has made few advances which have outlived the author and advocate for them.

I can think of no other book on Human Behavior which first demonstrated the ability to gather a world wide classroom before it was to be read comprehensively such as to effect the very changes in Human Behavior its editors intended.

To which I can only ponder what point you are driving towards?

 

[Free]

I've decided not to try reason with the Evolutionists (bio/cosmo) here. They think anyone who disagrees does so only out of ignorance, not out of a different perspective.

It goes both ways:

That's only showing your ignorance.

Funny Asyn... you have here the very same evolution cheer-leaders with their pom poms who were trying to discredit any and all evidence to the contrary on another thread too. It is doubly funny that the atheists and the theistic evolutionists sing the same choir. That is saying a great deal!

Do I understand that you are a faithful believer in the creation account of Genesis?

And this of course is just begging the question.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionists don't believe that nature needs to take 500, or some large number, changes to leap to the next viable form.

One will do it. This has been directly observed. And reality trumps anyone's reasoning.

They believe believe that every step, of a single mutation, along the way between any two organisms is viable on its own.

That has also been directly observed. Would you like to learn about that?

They have no proof that there are no valleys between various forms.

Let's test your assumption. You name any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. Here's your chance.

 

[Barbarian]

I fail to see how event A influencing event B affects the argument in any meaningful way.

The fact that each generation has only the options left standing by natural selection matters a great deal. This is why you keep walking into walls here; you don't know anything about biology.

Any movement from A to B has only 2 possible outcomes. B is going to be either viable or non-viable. There are no other options.

But that doesn't mean the likelihoods are 50-50.

You may, as Barbarian is valiantly trying to do, introduce 'partly viable' options, but they merely lengthen the process, and increase the number of steps from 2000 upwards.

For the sake of argument, I let your assumption stand. And as you learned, in a population, the process of random mutation and natural selection quickly increases fitness.

So I really don't see any escape from the ruthless logic Lennox is applying.

He's taken an old statistician's joke seriously. Not all likelihoods are 0.5. And, of course, evolution isn't about a single organism. It's about populations of organisms. Feel free to look at the math I showed you. It's quite correct.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, Async is indeed up to his usual stuff. In this video, John Lennox tells Richard Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/20-voices-of-belief/

Third interview in.

Nice try Async.

 

[Tri Unity]

BTW, Async is indeed up to his usual stuff. In this video, John Lennox tells Richard Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/20-voices-of-belief/

The fallacy of evolution does not rest on the opinion of Lennox. Evolution would be a contrived faith built on pseudoscientific wordplay regardless of who exposed the lies.

 

[Barbarian]

The fallacy of evolution does not rest on the opinion of Lennox.

The point is that Async once again misrepresented what someone thinks of evolution.

Evolution would be a contrived faith built on pseudoscientific wordplay regardless of who exposed the lies.

I know you want to believe that, but you have the problem of explaining away the evidence. For a Christian, there's no conflict between God and evolution.

 

[lordkalvan]

The fallacy of evolution does not rest on the opinion of Lennox.

Nor in yours.

'Evolution would be a contrived faith built on pseudoscientific wordplay regardless of who exposed the lies.

A wide variety of religious ideologues have been endeavouring to do this for over 150 years with singularly little sign of success. Maybe this should tell you something?

 

[lordkalvan]

BTW, Async is indeed up to his usual stuff. In this video, John Lennox tells Richard Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/20-voices-of-belief/

Third interview in.

Nice try Async.

And in this video -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWsca2-BgDU

- Dawkins exposes a blatant exercise in quote mining of himself by Lennox, which should give some pause for thought.