Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following:

Continue reading here.

Comments
The question is, which is more likely to have occurred, and why?
The second, because it (and not the first) corresponds with the anatomical, genetic, fossil, and geographic evidence.David Kellogg
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Mark Frank has asserted that it is more likely that a bird came into existence one way (life arose from non-life, then that rudimentary life evolved over billions of years of RM&NS to eventually generate a bird (among other things)than another way (a whole bird, without parents, spontaneously manifests from inanimate matter).
Well -- the evidence shows that first earth had non-life, and then it had rudimentary life, and then larger, more complex forms, and birds only after land animals came after water-dwelling animals. At the most general level, it seems much more likely that birds came into existence as part of this general pattern rather than all at once. All the evidence supports that view. I'm not sure what you're asking other than that. There's zero evidence that birds emerged as birds from inanimate matter and mountains of evidence that all life is related.David Kellogg
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
We have already established that it is possible (meaning, no violation of known natural law) for a bird to manifest whole, without parents, spontaneously out of inanimate matter. We have agreed that it is possible that a bird could have also come about in the following manner: life arose from non-life material, then eventually evolved over billions of years through RM&NS into, among other things, a bird. The question is, which is more likely to have occurred, and why?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
David Kellogg, #127: Mark Frank has asserted that it is more likely that a bird came into existence one way (life arose from non-life, then that rudimentary life evolved over billions of years of RM&NS to eventually generate a bird (among other things)than another way (a whole bird, without parents, spontaneously manifests from inanimate matter). I'm asking him - or anyone else - to support that assertion. Can you?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
I don't mean those creatures exactly, but I thought we had a lot of the same DNA, and if our DNA just expressed differently, we could produce similar creatures just by a different arrangement of active and inactive sequences? In other words, if I went in and just started switching on and off DNA haphazardly, would I more often get a human, or more often get something completely unrecognizable as a human?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Mr. Murray,
how likely it is for life to emerge from non-life, and then evolve over billions of years into a bird
Life didn't evolve "into a bird." It evolved into a whole bunch of things including a whole bunch of birds. Birds don't come around for a while. First there's just microscopic organisms. Then (much later) there are some larger water-dwelling creatures. Then (later still) some creatures come which dwell on land. Then (later still) birds. Then mammals. Mr. Murray, do you have a scientific model for how this happened. Did each of these emergences (and many others I've not mentioned) represent design events?David Kellogg
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Mr Murray, Nakashima states: “This is simply not the case.” If no mechanical reason is offered why a creature must produce a taxonomically similar creature, I’m not sure how common descent can be defended as a conclusion. We see humans producing humans, so a kind of common descent exists there - humans producing humans. But, why do humans produce humans? It is simply not the case we have the DNA (unexpressed) to create bears, fruit flies, potatos, etc. All that we have the DNA to produce are slightly different humans.Nakashima
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
#124: Could you please direct me to the computer simulations, or the research, or perhaps just an abstract, that show how likely it is for life to emerge from non-life, and then evolve over billions of years into a bird, compared to the likelihood of a bird simply manifesting whole out of inanimate material?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
#121 and #122 So, at least some kind of life must have been able to manifest from non-life (according to this line of reasoning). Then the question becomes, is it more, or less likely for rudimentary life to evolve from non-life, and then evolve over billions of years into a bird - rather than a whole bird just manifesting from inanimate matter all at once? I don't know why you insert "according to this line of reasoning". Is there some part of the line of reasoning that you challenge? The answer to your question is that is far more likely to happen through evolution over billions of years rather than spontaneously. This is where computer simulations are relevant. They demonstrate how simple mutation and selection can produce results that are complex and would never have appeared in one go. I really don't see where your line of questioning is going. You must know what I am going to say.Mark Frank
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
What I'm looking for is a difference between the statistical possibility between (1) and (2), not an assertion of the process supposed to have achieved one over the other. In other words, is #2 more likely than #1 to have occurred? If so, why? How is that assessment of "more likely" arrived at?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
#119: I have no reason to commit to a belief about either proposition, so I have not done so. I think the evidence indicates that all birds have parents, and that there was a time when no birds are known to have existed. It's not something I'm committed to, though. However, this generates certain logical difficulties. Obviously, not all living creatures had a living parent, or else we'd have an infinite regression problem. So, at least some kind of life must have been able to manifest from non-life (according to this line of reasoning). Then the question becomes, is it more, or less likely for rudimentary life to evolve from non-life, and then evolve over billions of years into a bird - rather than a whole bird just manifesting from inanimate matter all at once?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
#120: I'm not sure how that answers my question. Could you please clarify?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
#118 Natural selection.Mark Frank
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
#117 OK I will rephrase it to: Do you believe that 1)Every bird has a parent and (2) once upon a time, there were no birds? MarkMark Frank
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
#116: Okay, so it's a theoretical possibility. Now, please describe for me the significant difference in probability between the following two (at least in broad terms to start), using our known universe as the container for such probability: 1) a whole bird, without parents, spontaneously manifests from inanimate matter; 2) Rudimentary life emerges from inanimate matter, then through billions of years of random mutation and natural selection events, evolves into a bird.William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Mark Frank says: "We have observed millions of animals including birds being born. " Regardless of evidence, I never commit to absolute positions, because I'm all too aware of the potential for humans to be in error. Also, I have never empirically observed even one bird being born, so I'd not only be accepting evidence on authority and by testimony (which is fine), but I'd also have to be accepting something I have no personal experience of as a fact (not so fine). Being an empiricist, I prefer to gain my factual knowliege by direct experience, even if I examine it and testimony rationally. Note, you did ask if I accepted that: (1)Every bird has a parent (absolute) and (2) once upon a time, there were no birds (absolute). Sorry, but I never commit to absolute views, even god and soul.William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
#115 Does the spontaneous generation (from inanimate matter) of a living bird (with no parents) violate any known physical law? Not that I am aware of - but it isn't going to happen.Mark Frank
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: Let's refine the question, then. Does the spontaneous generation (from inanimate matter) of a living bird (with no parents) violate any known physical law? If not, would it then be safe to say that while theoretically possible, such an occurrence is so unlikely that there is no significant, realistic expectation that it could have occured, or will ever occur, in our universe?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Nakashima states: "This is simply not the case." If no mechanical reason is offered why a creature must produce a taxonomically similar creature, I'm not sure how common descent can be defended as a conclusion. We see humans producing humans, so a kind of common descent exists there - humans producing humans. But, why do humans produce humans? But, that's not even the common descent in question; the common descent in question is supposed to bridge the gap between phyla and class and species and family, back to a common ancestor. If there is no mechanism that prevents a dog from producing an entire litter of, oh, say bird-like creatures, then "common taxonomy" is not evidence of "common descent". Also, if parallel evolution, or convergent evolution can produce similar taxonomic features, how is "common taxonomy" evidence of "common descent"? Couldn't life have begun several times in different locations, have just generated similar taxonomic structures? Isn't there something that regulates the expression of genes, which is why we don't get all sorts of willy-nilly genetic expressions?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
#98 William Murray My question wasn’t answered - or, if it was, I didn’t understand it, so I have asked for a clarification. I’m not presenting a “false dichotomy”. Is it possible, or impossible, in our universe, for a bird (as described above) to spontaneously generate out of inanimate matter? It is either possible or impossible .. correct? Notice my question used the term “could”; it seems the question as asked bothers you. Could such a bird come into existence in our universe, yes or no? If you wish, you can add how unlikely it would be, as it seems Nakashima has done. The question does bother me because it is not as precise as you think. I don’t want to write an essay about modal logic but I will try to give you a flavour. When you say something is “impossible” this is always relative to an explicit or implicit unless clause. For example, It is impossible - for me to come to dinner (unless I cancel my tickets to the opera) - to get from Hampstead to Battersea in 15 minutes (unless there is no traffic) - for a bishop to move to a different coloured square (unless you change the rules of chess) - for a human to run a 3 minute mile (unless certain physiological changes happen) You say “physically impossible” but that is not precise enough. Usually we can deduce the appropriate unless cause but when we ask “impossible” questions about events totally out of our normal experience then you need to be explicit about the unless clause.. Having written this I strongly suggest stopping the discussion unless you have considerable experience in this field. As far as your question is concerned, the answer is that I don’t know if every bird has a parent, and I don’t know if there was a time when there were no birds. I have no predilection either way This really surprised me and made wonder how seriously to take your comments. The evidence for both propositions is extraordinarily strong and not dependent on religion or evolutionary biology. For example: We have observed millions of animals including birds being born. Every single one had at least one parent (a few animals are asexual at some stages). The process is well understood. No one has come close to suggesting an alternative process for creating animals. The atmospheric conditions on the early earth are well established through other branches of science. Animals including birds absolutely require oxygen to function. There are no fossils of birds earlier than about 200 mya.Mark Frank
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Joseph:
Ya see evo morons no one said that the design had to be perfect. And even if it started out perfect no one is saying it had to remain that way.
Well, numerous ID supporters on this site keep on saying that ID says that there should be no junk-DNA. Are there people morons?Hoki
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Nakashima said: "I think that once you are specific about happening in this universe, the extremely unlikely does become the impossible exactly because of things like proton decay" Okay, then it is impossible. What is the natural law that such an event would violate? Does it have to do with "proton decay", as you said?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Mr Murray, Why, then, don’t we produce such creatures regularly as offspring, since the potential for them - and all kinds of creatures - lies in our unexpressed DNA? This is simply not the case.Nakashima
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Mr Murray, Are you deliberately obfuscating the answer? Is it possible, but extremely unlikely, or not possible at all? I'm sorry, it is not a very precise thought experiment. I said it wouldn't happen. Why is the distinction you are trying to make important? I think that once you are specific about happening in this universe, the extremely unlikely does become the impossible exactly because of things like proton decay. You're left waiting for a duck shaped virtual particle to materialize out of the vacuum, only to be annihilated by the anti-duck. Even the observer will have evaporated before then.Nakashima
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Nakashima, Asserting that common taxonomy = heritable descent is not the same as making a logical case for it. Don't humans have the DNA necessary to produce offspring that were much like monkeys, potatoes, bears, flies, etc? Don't we share much of the common DNA with those entities? Why, then, don't we produce such creatures regularly as offspring, since the potential for them - and all kinds of creatures - lies in our unexpressed DNA?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
It's rather frustrating when simple answers are avoided out of fear of where the answer might lead. It is either possible, however remotely, or impossible for a bird to manifest whole from inanimate matter. If it is possible, one can certain admit that and then add the caveat that it is extremely unlikely. If you are going to make the case that it is extremely unlikely, and I'm thinking that is what you are doing, then perhaps it is your claim that the odds against it far exceed the number of quantum fluctuations in the history of the universe? That one would require a random generator far, far larger than the random space available in the history of our universe to fund a reasonable basis for thinking such a thing might have happened?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Mr Murray, In fact, I imagine that if we found a planet full of alien life, we would set about categorizing them according to large-scale taxonomic similarities; why should such meaningful categories exist at all, if it is all based on random mutations generating anything at all, and natural selection only selecting against that which is deleterious (and not even all of that)? Do beneficial and neutral mutation results ALWAYS generate ordered and categorical taxonomies as a rule? I agree that we would set about to categorize this alien life - that is our nature. Whether we would be successful is another story! Our life has a taxonomic arrangement because of common descent, not random mutation. If we visited another planet and found a large number of life forms grouped into a much smaller number of species, and the species grouped together by a small number of distinguishing features, that would be evidence (before you did any genetic analysis or dug up any fossils) of heritable variation and common descent. Not iron clad evidence, but very strong. On the other hand, if you found a large number of life forms in a number of categories within a few orders of magnitude of the number of life forms (a trillion creatures in 10 billion forms) and no consistent categories across multiple features, that would be strong evidence for heritable variability without common descent. Bottom line: taxonomy = common descent. You could have random, beneficial, neutral mutations, whatever, and HGT and viruses that made hash of common descent. (At a certain level of detail and evidence. Unless the planet had several independent origins of life, which still have living descendents, even male + female + virus1 + virus2 + bacteria3 = genome_of_baby is still common descent, just very hard to trace.)Nakashima
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Nakashima: Are you deliberately obfuscating the answer? Is it possible, but extremely unlikely, or not possible at all?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Mr Murray, Nakashima: so it is a physical impossiblity in this universe, or just extremely unlikely? I think that even if you gave me the entire the mass of the universe ase a bird making experiment, it wouldn't happen. I think that if you killed a bird (so that it was "inanimate") and waited around for it to come back to life, the heat death of the universe would occur first. You could use the mass of the universe converted into ex-parrots and the protons would decay out of their bodies before even one came to life.Nakashima
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Adele, We seem to be having a communication problem. Is "recessive" by definition the same as "useless"?William J. Murray
June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 7

Leave a Reply