Virgin birth of Jesus

[James Brown]

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

There was supposed to be a special reason why it was impossible or at least very difficult for evolution to arrive at an 'all parts required' situation, but there is no such reason. The proposed reason was based on overlooking standard evolutionary processes and making analogies to manufactured items. Comparing Behe's mousetrap to Venus' flytrap confirms the reasonable suspicion that analogies and arguments based on manufactured items lead to underestimating nature. Since IC can occur in the ordinary course of events we have a known process, evolution, which is acting in the present and which given time is sufficient to produce the adaptations that Behe finds perplexing. This is like the raising of the Rocky Mountains; a known process acting in the present is sufficient, given time, to produce the result. Of course there is no way to predict all the details in either case, nor is it necessary.

 

[Sarpedon]

Likewise the odd random shaped bone is no big deal. But there are many species with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. The complexity of linking over two thousand components to form movement, I believe needs some intelligent help.

Every step in the process is there, in front of you, if you care to look. Virtually every stage in evolution has left something behind that is analogous. We evolved from worms. There are still similar worms around to look at. We evolved from fish. There are still fish around to study. For every question, the answer is there, if you take the time.

Let me tell you the true story about the moment where evolution became real to me, so obvious and clear that there was no more doubt in my mind. I grew up in a medical family, with both my parents being RNs. As such, they gave me health and human anatomy books from a young age, and I studied them well. I knew every organ, its function, appearance, and position when I was quite young. Then, in the seventh grade, I took my first real biology class, and dissected my first frog. With the lesson, we received a worksheet showing what we were looking for, but I didn't need it, because when I opened up the frog, I saw the same organ layout that I already knew so well from my human anatomy books. Sure, the liver was bigger, the lungs were smaller, and so forth, but I could not help but be struck by what I saw. From then on, there was no question of me thinking that I wasn't related to a frog: I had seen it with my own eyes. Evolution was not part of the lesson of that class: it was merely the inescapable conclusion of what had been presented. And ever since then I can't help but shake my head at the parade of people who try to tell me to not believe my own eyes, but to believe some priest who wants me to believe what he says, and to give him 10% of my money.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can go along with that, but without intelligent direction, the peak of evolution might just be random shaped glass blobs.

Here you go again demonstrating that there's some critical concept you haven't grasped. Evolution doesn't have peaks. There's just constant never ending change. Humans are the way they are now because this is how we looked back when we almost were pushed out of existence. And then we spread.

It's also important to grasp that we're top predators. That's nothing to be happy about. We're like the house buyers getting sub prime mortages on a second mortage on a second mortage. Because we're so high in the chain means that we're supremely sensitive to environmental changes. We're better at coping than other primates. But that's not saying much.

A popular way to measure a species comparative success rate is by biomass. Add all humans up and our combined weight is our biomass. Turns out we got nothing on bacteria, earth worms, ants and nats. All superior species to us when it comes to survival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

When deciding which species is superior it's important to figure out what it is your measuring. Humans are remarkable in lots of ways. But then again, so is every species in their way.

 

[Learner]

That's a complete misunderstanding of evolution. It's an arms race. Depending on your competition different traits are selected for. There's no benefit to having good functions that aren't used. So evolution is good at producing a bunch of one-trick-ponies. And then once in a blue moon a creature comes right from the left side with a new completely different thing and wipes all the competition out at once, and hey presto you have a new model that evolution works from. Not necessarily better. Just different. Trilobites is a good example. They were completely dominant in the seas. Then something came up and they just vanished. On top of that we have an ever changing environment that complicates matters.

I could accept to some point your above quote which does sound sensible by the "evolution" concept. It may not just stop there perhaps, from another aspect which is not contradictory to the your mentioned concept for example the shark. I have seen and heard few explanations that the shark is thought to have 'developed' into an ultimate predator. Other species have developed camouflage of the surroundings like plants, rocks or mimicking other different species. The processes for these developments within the evolution concept would suggest these species have gained further advantageous improvements.

A good example is humans and neandethals. The latest theory is that they were better than us in every way except in two very critical ways:
1) They were smarter than us so their brains used more energy. They were also stronger. That means they needed more food. When food is scarce that's an advantage to humans.
2) They were specialised for spear hunting. Their bodies were assymetrical, with the right hand much stronger. This meant that they were reluctant to use other weapons. Humans aren't specialised for anything. That's our special power. So we switched to atl-atls when fighting neanderthals.

That's the theory of how we out-competed them. So trying to argue that we were superior to neanderthals is dubious. In some ways yes. In most ways no. If food hadn't been scarce they would have won.

Survival of the fittest, doesn't mean strongest. It means fitting, as lego bricks fit.

There's no improvement. Only change. Constant change.

I can sort of agree and believe the same thing as I came across an interesting talk (in a video I think), although I can't remember his name to credit but according to him, neanderthalls were incorrectly and unfairly portrayed as non intelligent and quite inferior to humans for so many years.

Humans I would say obviously more from a Christian POV, that we seem to specialise in survival even when we're not trying so hard. Man v floods , volcanoes , dinosaurs , beasts , neanderthalls , deseases (becoming immune) , and all sorts of other undesirables. We are still here or forever lucky depending how one sees it.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Evolution does have a direction. When humans were suffering under bubonic plague our direction of evolution was whatever we needed to be to not die of bubonic plague. Most people in Europe, Africa and Asia are immune to that disease now. The rests didn't get to reproduce.

I may not of given clarity or good example but was in a way saying what you say above. "Direction"

 

[Learner]

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

I think its realised today that the big mistake then for either side of the argument was to think in the first place that "evolution" at least in part that is verifiable is opposite or contradictory to creation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I could accept to some point your above quote which does sound sensible by the "evolution" concept. It may not just stop there perhaps, from another aspect which is not contradictory to the your mentioned concept for example the shark. I have seen and heard few explanations that the shark is thought to have 'developed' into an ultimate predator. Other species have developed camouflage of the surroundings like plants, rocks or mimicking other different species. The processes for these developments within the evolution concept would suggest these species have gained further advantageous improvements.

It's not the ultimate predator. But they are one of those successful compromises that have stuck around when others have died out. There's quite a few of those. But sharks are top predators. That means they are extremely vulnerable if there's any disruption in the food chain. So they're hardly any kind of pinnacle of evolution.

Could it perhaps that you've been watching a lot of nature shows featuring sharks? Humans think sharks look scary. That means we project all kinds of nonsense onto them. Sharks aren't that bad. I've been diving in shark reefs, with huge sharks. They're mostly just like any fish in the sea.

It's interesting to note how extremely new to the scene humans are. Evolutionary success is typically measured in how long a species survive. Come again in a million years, and then we can have a sober discussion regarding how well humans are doing. I personally don't think the human species will survive another hundred years.

Humans I would say obviously more from a Christian POV, that we seem to specialise in survival even when we're not trying so hard. Man v floods , volcanoes , dinosaurs , beasts , neanderthalls , deseases (becoming immune) , and all sorts of other undesirables. We are still here or forever lucky depending how one sees it.

Hmm... this is a scientific discussion. Religion isn't science. Why would a Christian point of view even be a thing? What possible value could a Christian point of view have when discussing evolution? I'm just wondering?

 

[James Brown]

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

I think its realised today that the big mistake then for either side of the argument was to think in the first place that "evolution" at least in part that is verifiable is opposite or contradictory to creation.

If we allow for the miraculous, then couldn't we say the same thing about any scientific theory? Gravity is either the warping of space-time by massive objects, or it's invisible angels pushing everything together. Fortunately for those who want to believe in angels, the scientific theory doesn't contradict the angelic theory.

 

[Learner]

It's not the ultimate predator. But they are one of those successful compromises that have stuck around when others have died out. There's quite a few of those. But sharks are top predators. That means they are extremely vulnerable if there's any disruption in the food chain. So they're hardly any kind of pinnacle of evolution.

They are at least very well addapted to its environment with streamlined bodies and special skin developed adopted by man making swim suits with the intention of increasing speed in the water, not forgetting there's the sharks built-in senses with the sensitivity for potential prey miles away.

Could it perhaps that you've been watching a lot of nature shows featuring sharks? Humans think sharks look scary. That means we project all kinds of nonsense onto them. Sharks aren't that bad. I've been diving in shark reefs, with huge sharks. They're mostly just like any fish in the sea.

Not arguing against this as there were people who study sharks on these documentaries saying the same thing as you; people misunderstanding these creatures.

It's interesting to note how extremely new to the scene humans are. Evolutionary success is typically measured in how long a species survive. Come again in a million years, and then we can have a sober discussion regarding how well humans are doing.

I hope so and would be looking forward to it to discuss in Gods new world.

Hmm... this is a scientific discussion. Religion isn't science. Why would a Christian point of view even be a thing? What possible value could a Christian point of view have when discussing evolution? I'm just wondering?

I'm just adding "putting it down to God" from the same resulting data we have between us regarding man's survival against the odds.

 

[Eric H]

Hmm... this is a scientific discussion. Religion isn't science. Why would a Christian point of view even be a thing? What possible value could a Christian point of view have when discussing evolution? I'm just wondering?

Hmm...The thread title is the virgin birth of Jesus, so religion might be in there somewhere!!!

 

[DrZoidberg]

They are at least very well addapted to its environment with streamlined bodies and special skin developed adopted by man making swim suits with the intention of increasing speed in the water, not forgetting there's the sharks built-in senses with the sensitivity for potential prey miles away.

Sure, but literally every other creature is just as well adapted to it's niche it occupies. That's what happens with evolution. The ones that aren't, are dead.

Hmm... this is a scientific discussion. Religion isn't science. Why would a Christian point of view even be a thing? What possible value could a Christian point of view have when discussing evolution? I'm just wondering?

I'm just adding "putting it down to God" from the same resulting data we have between us regarding man's survival against the odds.

What? Why? This would be true even if God does exist. Gods existence or non-existence has no bearing on a scientific discussion.

Let's say a miracle has happened at some point. God intervened to save us from a calamity. In the scientific data it would either be something inconclusive or we'd just make up a new rule to account for that behaviour. Either way God is best ignored in this discussion. It cannot add anything intelligent. At best it can make an adult discussion into a childish one.

It should also be mentioned that science has so far never in our long history been able to register a miracle on any scientific instrument ever. How about waiting with inserting God anywhere into any discussion, until that event has occurred?

I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm saying it's an uninteresting discussion.

 

[credoconsolans]

It's almost as if there might actually be some truth to the idea of miracle pregnancy.

Or it's the easiest 'shock your audience' plot line. Since humans think alike, why wouldn't different cultures come up with the same fantasy story?

- - - Updated - - -

Every year my Latin group keeps Saturnalia as a normal Roman family kept it. Jesus, it's boring! Who said Constantine was doddering? - he was a very smart dictator indeed - what I was saying was that the Empire was on its last legs unless it could contrive some sort of popular support. I think you inherit the Eighteenth Century fantasy that paganism was other than a lot of silly superstitions, an alternative to an organised belief. It was nothing to encourage any sensible person, which is why it was ditched. Read 'Julian' to see off that notion, and its asuthor tends to believe that too.

You didn't do it right. My archaeology group does the same. We have a blast. Lot of great food and drinking and candles. Io Saturnalia!

 

[credoconsolans]

Let's be honest, the method God came up with wasn't the smartest or most efficient.

There are billions of us in the world.

Now.

How many were there BEFORE the Germ Theory of medicine was invented? Diseases were rampant, child mortality was 10-30%. Women dying in childbirth was 1-4%.

And also, there seem to be a LOT more bacteria and fungus and mold on the planet than sex reproducing animals.

BTW, evolution doesn't do perfect, evolution does 'good enough'.

 

[Learner]

Now.

How many were there BEFORE the Germ Theory of medicine was invented? Diseases were rampant, child mortality was 10-30%. Women dying in childbirth was 1-4%.

And also, there seem to be a LOT more bacteria and fungus and mold on the planet than sex reproducing animals.

BTW, evolution doesn't do perfect, evolution does 'good enough'.

You'd probably link a lot diseases by a particular way of living and usually in dense populated areas with the lack of proper sewage disposal back then. There's famine in other areas some due to wars however for example, nomads moved with the seasons in other places of the world and were/are quite healthy.

What is not perfect with the continuation of life by the evolution concept ?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Now.

How many were there BEFORE the Germ Theory of medicine was invented? Diseases were rampant, child mortality was 10-30%. Women dying in childbirth was 1-4%.

And also, there seem to be a LOT more bacteria and fungus and mold on the planet than sex reproducing animals.

BTW, evolution doesn't do perfect, evolution does 'good enough'.

You'd probably link a lot diseases by a particular way of living and usually in dense populated areas with the lack of proper sewage disposal back then. There's famine in other areas some due to wars however for example, nomads moved with the seasons in other places of the world and were/are quite healthy.

What is not perfect with the continuation of life by the evolution concept ?

Back-ache? Humans often get back-ache because of stupid design. Myopia? Because we've evolved from fish we have fish eyes that are optimised for working under water. But we're not fish. So our eyes suck. Our olfactory system is evolved for four legged animals with their nose close to the ground. We have all the same receptors as dogs, but they're just in the wrong place, so they're mostly useless.

We're not designed for jack shit. Life is just one of those chemical reactions that will spring into existence from nowhere now and again, and since it's a self perpetuating mechanism it will keep going. And evolve. All of humanity is basically like the mould in the back of your fridge? It's just there. It's not perfect. Because to judge perfection you need some sort of standard to compare against. There is no standard to judge an organism that is inherently pointless.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Perfect" is one of those words you find a lot of in religion, words that have no use except to communicate a subjective take or feeling about something, like the word "beautiful."

Religion is filled with those words, words that can be defined but never objectively quantified. They're not really abstractions, as with many abstractions you can get back to the object word from which the abstraction originates. They're more like poetic devices that come with a writer's or speaker's license to communicate.

 

[Learner]

Back-ache? Humans often get back-ache because of stupid design. Myopia? Because we've evolved from fish we have fish eyes that are optimised for working under water. But we're not fish. So our eyes suck. Our olfactory system is evolved for four legged animals with their nose close to the ground. We have all the same receptors as dogs, but they're just in the wrong place, so they're mostly useless.

You'll always get back-ache regardless of design simply by not being aware of repetitive habits that could cause back pain much later. Incorrectly lifting heavy things , continuous bad posture , bad diets resulting in some form of osteoporosis, injuries from falls and accidents .. any of these things for example can cause back-ache.

We see great artists that paint real life pictures so realistic, one could think these pictures were photographs. This does say volumes about the eyes being good with 'attention to detail' like the very skilled craftsman like painters for example jewellers, watchmakers, etc...unless you are comparing with birds of prey that see from great distances or creatures that see in the dark.

We're not designed for jack shit. Life is just one of those chemical reactions that will spring into existence from nowhere now and again, and since it's a self perpetuating mechanism it will keep going. And evolve. All of humanity is basically like the mould in the back of your fridge? It's just there. It's not perfect. Because to judge perfection you need some sort of standard to compare against. There is no standard to judge an organism that is inherently pointless.

We are quite adaptable to different environments. Nothing to judge by ..... well ... there is the 'self perpetuating mechanical organisms' as you have highlighted sounding like a pretty 'perfect' system for continuation of life. A seemingly clever design that is ever evolving by the 'evolution concept' imo.

 

[bilby]

You'll always get back-ache regardless of design simply by not being aware of repetitive habits that could cause back pain much later. Incorrectly lifting heavy things , continuous bad posture , bad diets resulting in some form of osteoporosis, injuries from falls and accidents .. any of these things for example can cause back-ache.

Only because the spinal column can't stand the stresses those things put on it. And the reason for that is poor 'design'. The spine evolved in quadrupeds, to be supported at both ends, and to act as a tensile structural element, supporting all of the thoracic and abdominal contents. But bipedalism is recent, and the 'design' hasn't evolved to be strong enough to avoid damage when supported at one end, and used as a compressile column, which is a totally different engineering environment.

A spine made up of solid vertebrae, linked by muscles and ligaments, and with soft disks of cartilage between each segment, makes an excellent flexible tensile support. But it's awful in compression - the muscles and ligaments have no compressile strength, and the disks take all the load - and are simply not tough enough for the job. So we get slipped and displaced disks, we get erosion of the vertebrae where they are pressed together, and we get muscular pain, as the muscles in the back are overloaded by the job of holding the vertebrae apart against the force of gravity - none of which are problems for quadrupeds.

These observable characteristics of the spine make perfect sense, if bipeds evolved recently from quadruped ancestors. But an intelligent designer would surely have come up with a totally different design for a biped spine than the one he used for the completely different engineering problem of the quadruped spine.

Any structural engineering student who proposed to use the same basic design for a vertical column supported at the base, as he used for a horizontal beam supported at both ends, would be laughed out of his first-year exams.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You'll always get back-ache regardless of design simply by not being aware of repetitive habits that could cause back pain much later. Incorrectly lifting heavy things , continuous bad posture , bad diets resulting in some form of osteoporosis, injuries from falls and accidents .. any of these things for example can cause back-ache.

If you have to read the manual, it's not a good design. We shouldn't have to care about this. It should just happen. BTW, our bad backs is the result of taking a four legged creature and turning it into a two legged creature. For a two legged creature you want a pyramid shaped weight distribution. Penguins are built like that. We don't. Our arms are way too big. Because of our massive arms we need a swiveling torso (or our swinging arms would pull us out of balance all the time). That means a very thin waist that can't support shit = bad backs.

It's just awful design.

We see great artists that paint real life pictures so realistic, one could think these pictures were photographs. This does say volumes about the eyes being good with 'attention to detail' like the very skilled craftsman like painters for example jewellers, watchmakers, etc...unless you are comparing with birds of prey that see from great distances or creatures that see in the dark.

I suggest reading up on Gestalt Psychology. We can take in from all our senses about 16 000 bits of data a second. That's almost nothing.

Here's a famous picture of what 16 000 bits look like. This is the types of images that actually make it into the brain.



Nearly everything you see is your mind fetching stuff from memory. That's why witness psychology is so fucked. When you're traumatised nearly everything you actually see is stuff your mind makes up.

That's also why believing is seeing. If you believe something you will see it. That's why religious witnessing is so worthless. If we can't measure it in a lab it probably didn't happen.

BTW, the bottle neck isn't the senses themselves. They collect all the data we could possibly want. The problem is transporting the data into the brain. The brains architecture just isn't good enough. So it has to trim the input before it makes it into the brain proper.

Also, our vision sucks. We can only see colours that correspond to the ripeness of fruit. Any colours beyond that (which is most of them) we are blind to. Animals who can see in the infrared band can see through walls. Wouldn't that be handy? Not to mention the ability to see dangerous radiation. Which is an actual thing in our modern world. But which wasn't necessary for monkeys living in trees. And since we're jury rigged monkeys we have to put up with that shit.

The tiny little band of light we can see out of all the colours that are our there.

We are quite adaptable to different environments. Nothing to judge by ..... well ... there is the 'self perpetuating mechanical organisms' as you have highlighted sounding like a pretty 'perfect' system for continuation of life. A seemingly clever design that is ever evolving by the 'evolution concept' imo.

We're only adapted to this planet IF it's environment stays the same. And we stay on land. Nearly everything in the universe will kill us in an instant. We're also blind to any dangers not directly relevant to tree living monkeys, it's not even funny. We're hard wired to be inordinately terrified of snakes and spiders. We should be afraid of things like traffic and smoking. Nope.

Do you know why we think farts smell horrible? Back in the day we have methane lakes on land. Invisible to the eye and if we strolled down into one of them there wouldn't be any oxygen and we would die. Those methane lakes are all gone now. We do we still have an aversion to this? Dogs don't. It's just a useless holdover from way back, that's annoying. Wouldn't it be nice if people just could fart and it wasn't a thing?

 

[Eric H]

That's also why believing is seeing. If you believe something you will see it. That's why religious witnessing is so worthless. If we can't measure it in a lab it probably didn't happen.

The creation of the universe has not been seen in a lab, so what does that mean?

The first life from no life has not been seen in a lab, so what does that mean?

The evolution from no eye to an eye, has that been measured?

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's also why believing is seeing. If you believe something you will see it. That's why religious witnessing is so worthless. If we can't measure it in a lab it probably didn't happen.

The creation of the universe has not been seen in a lab, so what does that mean?

Yes, it has. By people like Lemaitre, Hoyle, Penrose and so on. An explosion of the magnitude of the Big Bang left plenty of evidence. That evidence can be collected and then we draw conclusions. All of which can be independently verified. That's what it means that it can be tested in a lab. The evidence for Big Bang is like the evidence for Theory of Evolution. We're awash with mountains of extremely strong independently verifiable evidence.

The first life from no life has not been seen in a lab, so what does that mean?

This is a good example. It means that science says that it's not sure. Science as a whole is always honest about these things. We do have plenty of theoretical models for how it could have happened. Abiogenesis isn't impossible. But later life gobbled up the evidence. So we'll never be able to prove it. It's not indipendently verifiable, and it'll most likely never be. That's all it means. It doesn't mean God did it. It doesn't mean it couldn't have happened spontaneously. It just means we can't verify it independently.

I recommend the TV series Cosmos. It's a great summary of what science knows, why we know it, and what science doesn't know. You seem to have a pretty shaky grasp of what science is.