Good responses from your friend, DaveB. I always say that science, is concerned with the “how”. While theology and philosophy, are concerned with the “why”.
“Look to the future, because that is where you’ll spend the rest of your life.”-- George Burns
I’m going to have a number of questions as we go along here. I am in no way an ‘expert’ in any area of evolution theory (ET) but, I do read a number of people who ARE. Some are pro-ET, some are not. What they have in common, as far as I can tell, is deep knowledge of the science.
So my first question would go something like this: if a fish were to develop little proto-arms and legs, mustn’t the fish have the Genes for that? And if so, where did those genes come from? This seems like a good place to start - a gene must be available for natural selection to ‘select’.
If I’m wrong on this, I need to know.
Second question - evolution would only be possible because of mutations in genes, correct? For a new organ, appendage or whatever, an existing gene must mutate in a way favorable to the eco-niche the organism inhabits. But therein lies a problem that I cannot find an answer for - the problem being that mutations are 1) extremely rare and 2) almost never beneficial to the organism.
Birth defects are a good example. The vast majority of mutations - we’re talking way over 99.99%, cause a LOSS of information in the cells, not more - and if on the extremely rare chance it adds information, again it not usually beneficial.
So - apparently man has evolved from an extremely simple organism - a cell, basically - that for some reason mutated, and mutated beneficially. Infinitesimally small chance of that. From that point, millions or billions of infinitesimally small chances must ‘happen’, each beneficial, in response to the passive action of natural selection.
Now I know that is just basic stuff - but it bothers me that there is no GOOD answer other than the old old answer of - TIME. Lots and lots and lots of time. How much? Perhaps exponentially longer than the Earth has been here. For evolution to be ‘true’ in some sense, time is always the factor that must be pointed to.
Yes, I have more sophisticated questions, which I’ve gotten from sophisticated books, etc. - but I cannot accept a fog of sophistication until some basic answers are provided.
But I’d appreciate help on this ‘small stuff’ first.
And looming over all this is THE basic question:
WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
Fair enough questions Dave; mine would be these…
There seems to be a given level of sophistication to life that without said sophistication (on whatever level) life itself cannot function and indeed does not function. In light of this I pose these questions, which stand alone or could be multiplied numerously across the human form.
1) Before the heart became a fully functioning supportive organ doing what the heart does — what was it / what was it doing prior to reaching maturation / and what supported it to survive and evolve to where it came to do what it currently does?
2) Before blood became the fully functioning life sustaining force doing what blood does — what was it / what was it doing prior to reaching maturation / and what supported it to survive and evolve to where it came to do what it currently does?
3) Before the lungs became fully functioning supportive organs doing what lungs do — what were they / what were they doing prior to reaching maturation / and what supported them to survive and evolve to where they came to be doing what they currently do?
4) Before the central nervous system became the fully functioning life sustaining network it is — what was it / what was it doing prior to reaching maturation / and what supported it to survive and evolve to where it came to do what it currently does?
5) Before the bone marrow became the fully functioning life-give substance for blood, fat, cartilage and bone — what was it / what was it doing prior to reaching maturation / and what supported it to survive and evolve to where it came to do what it currently does?
Now consider the same logical questions relative to the eye, ear, kidney, liver, bowel, brain etc, etc, etc. How is it not a logical proposition to accept an Originator as oppose to the randomness of chance in explanation of these?
Great questions davo, and I’ve been thinking along those lines.
When we get to that stage in the forum I may use your wording of the questions if you don’t mind.
BTW - Berserk - I’m not saying that YOU are making a fog - just that when I am hit with so many ‘facts’ at a time - Miller’s talk - it can be overwhelming though exciting. I just want to back up a bit and make certain of the foundation.
Miller argues that we humans are here because God created a universe in which genetic mutation was programed into life. Without “flawed” genes, no new species could evolve. For Miller all the right elements and the perfect positioning of earth vis-à-vis the sun, etc. all point to Intelligent Design, but not the version of ID championed by evangelicals. (On this see the video). The evidence for the merger of chimp gene #2 to produce the reduced 23 human pairs of genes is a compelling case in point. In my view, the machinations of genetic mutations illustrate what is intended by the reference in Proverbs 8:30-31 to creation’s “divine play.”
For me, the missing factor in evolutionary theory is the role of life/consciousness itself. Science has virtually no grasp of what conscious is or how it works. I believe God evolves higher life forms through purposes mediated by the unknown laws built into consciousness.
I get that and Miller explains that well @ the 53min 30sec mark forward; a way of looking at it I hadn’t previously considered — that point makes some sense. I just haven’t seen/heard any convincing explanation to the thoughts I raised above… unless you have some?
Ah so. I will take another gander at the video. Much of what I have read has revolved around the ‘Goldilocks Zone’, that near-perfect set of necessities in a galaxy, solar system, planet that make our kind of life - carbon-based - even possible.
For an exhaustive and eye-opening list, see the following pdf.
Well, since I follow the Eastern Catholic (1, 2) / Eastern Orthodox, Holy Foolery (1,2) tradition. I have to ask this question. At what point did God and/or evolution, inject humor into the equation? What does humor come from?
I wonder, as I ponder my theory…that the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, is the most probable - end-times tribulation scenario. Are zombies humans, that have de-evolved? And will they develop, a sense of humor?
In order to provide food for reflection…let’s view some examples of humor, from today’s Sunil Bali newsletter.
While cooking I accidentally rubbed some herbs in my eyes … now I’m parsley sighted.
I was delighted when the Tax authorities wrote to me and said that my tax return was ‘outstanding’; especially since I don’t even remember sending it in.
A man has been shot with a starter pistol, police thinks it’s race related.
A doctor on his morning walk , noticed a wrinkled old lady sitting on her front step smoking a cigar, with a huge smile on her face. “I couldn’t help but notice how happy you look! What’s your secret?” asked the doctor.
“Every day I smoke ten cigars, drink a bottle of wine and eat pizzas and burgers. I’ve never done any exercise since the day I left school,” replied the old lady.
“That’s absolutely amazing! You must have inherited some great genes. May I ask how old you are?” asked the doctor.
"Thirty-four," she replied.
As to the ‘goldilocks’ zone - here’s an email from a friend of mine:
(the reason this is important is that, in addition to all the huge questions about the evolutionary model, there is the ID model, one mode of which, as Berserk points out, is subject to attack. The goldilocks zone facts are, I think, unsurmountable in presenting one aspect of an ID theory that actually is true.
Dave,
Goldilocks -zones- are fairly simple I think, being the zone near a particular star where a planet could orbit and host liquid water. This depends on the brightness of the star of course, but immediately becomes subject to the factors of the particular planets atmosphere. It must be dense enough to prevent the water all boiling off to vapor, for example. Plus all the other “greenhouse” parameters.
The subject almost immediately becomes the question of what additional factors are necessary for a planet, in a reasonable goldilocks zone, to support life. These are calculable because Carbon is the only candidate capable of producing the complexity necessary for anything to be reasonably called “life,” such as the ability to operate physically & chemically through the 2ond law (eat, for example) and to reproduce, etc. Carbon has intrinsic limitations. It cannot be fashioned into life in a too hot environment, too “poisonous,” too cold, etc. So certain limitations can be determined.
This is where the known list gets much longer. I’ll try to list some from memory;
Necessary “type” of star. (Proper light & other radiation source)
Proper gases in the atmosphere, in proper proportions. (Including fluorine, which can only be manufactured in a binary white dwarf system. [!] )
Right amount of water
Atmospheric density. (Mars’s atmosphere is about half as dense at 15 feet altitude as at the surface)
Molten Iron core resulting in magnetic field preventing solar wind from stripping away atmosphere. See Mars,
Speed of rotation and angle of inclination to the plane of the ecliptic.
Outsized moon, closer than likely, to stabilize orbit, in its own precise orbit, otherwise the spinning planet’s inclination drifts.
One or more giant gas planets positioned so as to effective sweep space gravitationally preventing debris bombardment of the life supporting planet.
Stable orbits in entire system.
Plate tectonics (“recycling”) must operate.
Type of galaxy
Position from center of galaxy (Another list of goldilocks requirements); i.e., where drift is minimal. Position where protection from center of galaxy cosmic radiation is provided (gas clouds, debris, dark matter, etc.). Safely outside galaxy arm. (Also provides that we can see out to practice astronomy. This “window" will close in a few thousands of years)
The list is quite a bit longer than this, maybe approaching 200, and everything must occur simultaneously and persist for long periods of time. In the 80’s a Ph.d astronomer calculated, using the then known 43 parameters, that the likelihood of a life supporting planet occurring by chance in a universe this size was one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. What would be the odds if 200 parameters were calculated? There is a book from the 70’s or 80’s called “Rare Earth” which lists some of these things, and one much more recent called ‘Improbable Earth.”
The “Drake Equation” is effectively zero.
@Berserk - I’ve been hoping that you would expand on your statement about consciousness. It seems to me that you have put your finger on an extremely important point.
Disclaimer im a bit busy. Will watch the video later. So if it a swers these questions please forgive.
But my biggest question is infinite regression. Life can be traced back to a single source but at some point where does that come from? What was or is outside space and time and “nothingness” for lack of better words that set it fourth into motion. What made and flicked the first Domino?
Personally that’s where I think God will always come into the picture. Science can explain how but not why or from what? And God being outside space and time and matter cannot be proved from methods that use space and time and matter to prove their theories or explainations.
To me thinking all of this complexity being just random chance and chaos doesn’t make sense. The fibonocci sequence comes to mind here though I dont know if i spelt it correctly 
Though random chance may be a possibility it seems to be the least plausible.
Zombies are scary enough. Imagine them all telling dad jokes as they lurk towards you.
Shudders in disgust
(1) Miller believes in ID in this sense: God set in motion the space-time continuum with all the laws and potentials to produce life as we know it. There is no special act of creation for each new species, except in the sense that God’s original act of creation established patterns of genetic mutations that must inevitably produce ever more complex life forms until the evolution of humanity. All the microscopic, macroscopic, and cosmic variables needed for such a grand order are far too improbable without a Supreme Creative Intelligence.
(2) The best neuroscience about the mind-body problem implies that mind states depend on brain states, but also exist apart from brain states. In other words, consciousness is more basic than physical reality and in some way produces it. Therefore, if we understood the laws of consciousness, we would better understand how genetic mutation produces ever more complex life forms until it produces us. But individual human consciousness is grounded in a collective unconsciousness (so Carl Jung), which in turn is somehow also one with God consciousness.
Thanks B! That quoted phrase is especially intriguing; I find Jung intriguing in many ways, though I am leery of the claims (not by you) of his followers, which I find excessive.
BTW, a wonderful presentation of Jung’s thought can be found in an excellent novel by Robertson Davies, called “The Manticore”. Fascinating.