Has Natural Selection Met Its Match?

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

I think the only way you can account for us being here and having this discussion without a Creator God is with multiverse theory and the anthropic principle. You need an infinite number of universes to overcome all the probabilities weighted against our existence.

May the multiverse theory go the way of the oscillating universe theory.

[CreepingJesus]

I could type myself to death here but I won't..

This stuff's all been sorted long since.

It's all here.

Not enough intermediate forms.

not enough for what?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Lots of irreduceably complex systems

Shown here to be crap

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Radiometric dating not all that reliable.

The main proponent of that idea is exposed as a charlatan....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wood...hronology.html

Uniformitarian view of sedimentation not proven.

well..... it certainly seems to be a favourite target of flood geologists - can you believe that in the 21st century we've got loonies clinging to diluvianist geology?

However uniformitarian sedimentaion's a generally accepted mechanism among people whose judgment isn't clouded by mythology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD200.html

Abiogenesis not adequately explained.

Yes it is!

This was fine for me.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
"we can be almost certain that evolution by natural selection is a fact. "

Not enough intermediate forms.

The fossil record is intact enough to reveal the various stages of development through which species have gone in the evolutionary process.We can observe that through each subsequent evolutionary stage many species evolve physical characteristics which improve their chances of survival and therefore we can deduce that "natural selection" is occuring-those creatures of any given species which are best adapted to survive in their environment,will survive and will pass on their genes to subsequent generations.



Lots of irreduceably complex systems.Uniformitarian view of sedimentation not proven. Abiogenesis not adequately explained.

Nice sounding phrases which are designed to confuse the issue-nothing more.I don't know what relevance sedimentation has to the question of natural selection-perhaps you could enlighten me?Abiogenesis is the hypothetical process through which living organisms arise from inanimate matter and again it isn't really relevant to Darwinism and natural selection-you find it to be inadequately explained only because you lack a knowledge of biology.Amino acids are the building blocks of life and given the right conditions they can form simple bacterial organisms which through time can evolve and develop into more complex organisms.Hypothetical,but supported by a wealth of scientific evidence and certainly far more convincing than any competing theory-especially the one which states that an omnipotent God waved a magic wand and magically created all life on earth.It's a nice idea but not very scientific is it?


Radiometric dating not all that reliable.

Or more truthfully Radiometric dating not all that reliable when one is dealing with dates before thirty odd thousand years ago.Radiometric dating is in fact very accurate when dealing with relatively recent fossil evidence however it is of limited use when one is studying very old fossils.






All we can really know is that the earth is old and that progressively more complex organisms have appeared on it throughout its history. Punctuated equilibrium is basically just a fancy word for saying as much.


What we know from reading the above is that Fear doesn't really know what punctuated equilibrium is.It is a theory which Darwinian scientists,in particular the late Stephen J Gould,proposed to explain the apparent evolutionary spurts over a comparitively short period of time which certain species have undergone-it doesn't in any way challenge the idea of natural selection.Although the species evolve very rapidly in a short time span they are still constantly adapting and evolving and natural selection is the means of determining which species survive and which become extinct.We know that species throughout the world survive because they have physical adaptations which allow them to survive.We know that those creatures which are best fitted for survival pass their adaptations on to their offspring thus ensuring the survival of their species.Creationists etc. who basically don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to a discussion about ecology or biology might be unwilling to accept the idea but amongst evolutionary biologists there is no question-Darwin was right,evolution by natural selection definitely does occur.

[CreepingJesus]

I think the only way you can account for us being here and having this discussion without a Creator God is with multiverse theory and the anthropic principle. You need an infinite number of universes to overcome all the probabilities weighted against our existence.

You're misunderstanding the mechanisms of evolution here.

Our existence is only one of an infinite number of possible permutations of recombinant genes and a combination of environmental factors.

It was "all the probabilities weighted against our existence" which shaped our very existence.

Now..

I assume you've encountered this problem before but it's worth reiterating, because I've never had a satisfactory answer to this

Your argument would see to be that things require a creator god by virtue of the fact of their existence.

That logic demands a creator for the creator god.

And an infinite precession of creators.

Your creator god had to come from somewhere.

So where does the spiral end?

[CreepingJesus]

Andy;

Good stuff again.

Ref punctuated equilibrium.

It is a theory which Darwinian scientists,in particular the late Stephen J Gould,proposed to explain the apparent evolutionary spurts over a comparitively short period of time which certain species have undergone-it doesn't in any way challenge the idea of natural selection.

It's worth remembering that when Gould originally put forward his ideas and the debate began with Dawkins et al as to the significance of punctuated equilibrium in the grand scheme of things, creationists world wide got the wrong end of the stick and started publishing headlines like "Evolution in disarray!" "Scientists Discredit Darwin"

AS I remember it Gould was claiming it as a new idea and Dawkins reckoned it was such an integral part of existing Darwinist thought that it didn't merit all the hullabaloo, and that was the extent of the argument.

I still meet creationists who cite that debate (when was it? fifteen? twenty years ago?) as an illustration of cracks in evolutionary theory.

They do insist in clutching at straws!

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
The fossil record is intact enough to reveal the various stages of development through which species have gone in the evolutionary process.

But we don't see much gradation between the species; just jumps and starts between them.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
I don't know what relevance sedimentation has to the question of natural selection-perhaps you could enlighten me?

The way we date fossils is, to a large degree, dependent upon how we interpret strata. If strata were deposited one at a time over millions of years, that would fit perfectly with evolutionary theory. However, if, say, 3 strata could be deposited at once in a flood, that would complicate matters.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Abiogenesis is the hypothetical process through which living organisms arise from inanimate matter and again it isn't really relevant to Darwinism and natural selection-you find it to be inadequately explained only because you lack a knowledge of biology.

It is relevant to the topic of whether or not life could have arisen and developed without an intelligent designer behind the process. I find abiogenesis inadequately explained because, even after widdling down numbers produced by creationists a great deal, the scientists on CJ's favorite website were still left with the fact that it is incredibly improbable. Of course, if there were many universes, it would have to happen in some of them.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Or more truthfully Radiometric dating not all that reliable when one is dealing with dates before thirty odd thousand years ago.Radiometric dating is in fact very accurate when dealing with relatively recent fossil evidence however it is of limited use when one is studying very old fossils.

And evolutionary theory deals with very old fossils, which is why radiometric dating is not all that reliable with regards to the subject at hand.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
What we know from reading the above is that Fear doesn't really know what punctuated equilibrium is.It is a theory which Darwinian scientists,in particular the late Stephen J Gould,proposed to explain the apparent evolutionary spurts over a comparitively short period of time which certain species have undergone-it doesn't in any way challenge the idea of natural selection.

Punctuated equilibrium is Darwinist apologetics. Darwin's theory would predict that changes would occur at a uniform rate. Punctuated equilibrium attempts to explain why they don't, without shedding the central tenets of Darwinism.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

But we don't see much gradation between the species; just jumps and starts between them.


Firstly it should be remembered that any material from a living organism will almost certainly decay rather than be fossilised and only in certain favourable conditions will bone etc. be preserved as fossils and only in exceptional circumstances will soft tissue be preserved.Therefore we cannot reasonably expect there to be a fossil record which is complete,nevertheless there is sufficient fossilised evidence available to make conclusions about the mechanisms involved in species evolution.Classical Darwinists would have a problem explaining the various "jumps and starts" in the evolutionary process through which some species have gone yet punctuated equilibrium is a theory which many Darwinists adhere to and it provides an explanation for the sometimes erratic nature of evolution.

The way we date fossils is, to a large degree, dependent upon how we interpret strata. If strata were deposited one at a time over millions of years, that would fit perfectly with evolutionary theory. However, if, say, 3 strata could be deposited at once in a flood, that would complicate matters.

I think your point would only be relevant to fossils which were found in one particular type of rock-sedimentary,i.e rock which is formed by successive layers of sediment which through time become compressed.I'm not a geologist but I am aware that the various types of rock such as igneous and metamorphic are formed during processes which stretch over hundreds of millions of years.A flood is a very short lived phenomena which cannot have any great bearing on the process of rock formation.

It is relevant to the topic of whether or not life could have arisen and developed without an intelligent designer behind the process. I find abiogenesis inadequately explained because, even after widdling down numbers produced by creationists a great deal, the scientists on CJ's favorite website were still left with the fact that it is incredibly improbable. Of course, if there were many universes, it would have to happen in some of them.

How life actually comes into existence was a mystery to Darwin-something which he freely admitted-and the little speculation that he did make on the subject was in fact completely wrong,but in any case it wasn't really relevant to his theory of evolutiuon by means of natural selection.I personally have no difficulty in accepting that given certain conditions simple lifeforms can evolve from amino acids,because there is ample scientific evidence to support this idea.

And evolutionary theory deals with very old fossils, which is why radiometric dating is not all that reliable with regards to the subject at hand.



Paleontologists and biologists are well aware of the limitations of radiometric dating of extremely old fossils,yet evolutionary change occurs within species even over relatively short time spans such as 30 000 years and therefore it is of some use.It is not always a necessity to establish the age of any given fossil,we are after all dealing with processes which can take place over eons of time.We can look at various strata of rock and,having an awareness of the geological processes which have formed that rock,we can make reasonable estimates of the time scale we are dealing with.We can look at fossils of the same species from different strata and compare any physiological differences which exist which can provide us with a wealth of evidence about the mechanisms involved in the evolutionary process.

Punctuated equilibrium is Darwinist apologetics. Darwin's theory would predict that changes would occur at a uniform rate. Punctuated equilibrium attempts to explain why they don't, without shedding the central tenets of Darwinism.



There are classical Darwinists such as Dawkins and there are those such as the the late Stephen Gould who held differing viewpoints on various aspects of natural selection however they all operate within the same framework of Darwin's original theory which has withstood everything which has been thrown at it for over 150 years.They debate about the whys and wherefores and the timescales involved but none of them dispute that natural selection is a fact.Punctuated equilibrium isn't apologetics-it is an attempt by scientists who have used proper scientific methods to explain what seemed to be an anomaly within Darwinist theory.These scientists have provided hypotheses which can be tested and which are based on a rigorous examination of the available evidence-that is sound scientific practice not apologetics.