|No, what I meant was that I thought "natural" in natural selection limited the theory to being driven by random genetic mutations. I didn't think scientst were open to the selections being made by God.|
Not when they are doing science, because science cannot work with the supernatural. We have no way to measure, observe, detect, or even determine the existence of the supernatural, therefore we have no way to test any hypothesis which is based on supernatural forces or on the intervention of supernatural entities. The supernatural simply has no place in science because science cannot work with it.
That does mean that science requires everyone to renounce personal belief in the supernatural, contrary to what IDists falsely claim. Science only requires that supernaturalistic hypothesis not be used in scientific work. Therefore, a scientist can very well work with natural selection while at the same time independently holding a personal belief that his god might have nudged it at the right times to bring about the world that we see before us.
My point was that, since your theology should have taught you that God had created the universe, along with the Laws of Nature, that the fact that the world runs in accordance with those very Laws does not necessarily leave God out of it. For decades I have seen creationists claim that if evolution is true, then God does not exist. And for decades I have seen former creationists become atheists when they discover that their creationism is indeed wrong, just as their creationism had taught them to do.
But when that happens, it's not science and evolution that had turned them into atheists, but rather it was their own theology that had demanded their deconversion. Therefore, the question to ask is not whether science and evolution necessitate atheism, but rather whether those creationist theologies are correct in requiring atheism.
BTW, the probabilities you have been raising have nothing to do with natural selection, nor is natural selection driven by mutation. You need to study more and to learn what evolution is and how evolutionary theory says it works. Until you have learned how evolution works, you will be unable to devise a mathematical model that can even begin to describe it.
Here's an extremely rough and incomplete outline:
1. A population exists. That population's gene pool (the genomes of all its members) contains a degree of variability; ie, its members are not genetically identical to each other. This is genetic variability.
2. Members of the population go about their daily business of trying to survive. They may or may not be aided (nurtured) by their parents or other kin. In general, those who are better able to survive will have a better probability of surviving to the point where they can reproduce. This is natural selection; it acts to lessen genetic variability.
3. The population reproduces. This creates offspring who are very similar to their parents, the survivors, and so they generally possess those traits that had helped their parents to survive. Yet they are also slightly different from their parents, so some may not have all the survival traits of their parents while some may have slightly better survival traits. This is reproduction, which also helps to increase genetic variability.
The probability "problem" you pose only deals with increasing genetic variability, not with natural selection. Any viable probability model you devise for evolution will need to deal with both aspects.
|But I just wanted to comment that some people have written in this thread that there is no hope for using probability against TOE, but you wrote that there is some hope, if the models are sound and you do the math. |
Actually, what I've been advising is that the only hope you could possibly have of succeeding in your endeavor is if you were to do what no other creationist has ever done: devise a valid model that does accurately model evolution and do the math.
However, I am quite sure that such a model will demonstrate to you that probability does not provide any argument against evolution. That is why I had tried to prepare you to examine your reasons for trying to disprove evolution in the first place, that being your theology.
|And one other point about probability is that it is most powerful when used over a large number of trials, right? Like a string of 10 coin tosses could easily give a 70 or 80% heads result. But a million tosses would give a 50/50 result. Works for casinos, that's for sure. So with natural selection, if probability is going to be brought to bear, it would be better to use it in that way. |
No, probability works for any number of trials. It is for the larger numbers of trials that we should see the anticipated probability distributions appear. And since the probability distributions of their games do favor the house -- however slightly in some cases -- , that is indeed how casinos make a living. It is in the smaller numbers of trials that one might be able to "beat the odds", but in the long run the house always wins.
The thing with using probability to model evolution is that we need to do so accurately. Which involves populations and generations.
Gotta run now.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 57 by InGodITrust, posted 08-22-2009 5:01 PM|| ||InGodITrust has not yet responded|