Answering Gashler

Explaining evolution to creationists (without music)
Mike Gashler, 1 Aug 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDzIgjFib1I

1:40 Count me into the rare number.

I happen to be not just YEC, but YEC engaged in Apologetics.

Hence a professional interest in material to refute - or accept within its right limits depending on what the content should be ...

MikeGashler

Cool. I hope you find my content useful. If you find it helpful, here's a list of my usual responses to common apologetic arguments:
https://gashler.com/mike/blog/arguments_for_god/

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler Thank you!

Some may be getting answers soon!

A few days later:

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, @MikeGashler - but that is not a list of apologetic arguments, in some cases it's a list of bad behaviour, and you are making the arguments for God usually very imprecise. Plus it's longer than a Gish gallop.

Cosmological argument or argument from degrees excepted.

I've defended the cosmological already, maybe time for defending an argument from degrees ...

6:09 If you could in omnipotence (limited to your own human needs, no need to make you God) decree that all grass blades got shortened at 1.5 dm height and the superfluous cut off grass assembled itself at whatever place you wanted for compostation, it would not be very intelligent to use the lawnmower. Unless you needed it as physical exercise, which God immortal doesn't.

Mike Gashler

Agreed. That would indeed be better.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler Which is where your insistence on God using trial and error breaks down.

7:15 Now, you do pretend that new useful genes originate as products of random mutation on older DNA, either genes useful in a different way or junk DNA, right?

8:11 There is the immense problem of getting sufficient mutations into genes meant for the retina and sufficient of them, before selection could start nudging into the direction of retina = good, lack or retina = less good.

Mike Gashler

@hglundahl Sometimes, I think people tend to ascribe magical properties to processes they do not understand. In this case, we understand natural selection a lot better than we understand intelligence, so there is a bit of a tendency to suppose intelligence "just works" without actually having to do any work. But I think intelligence has to find its solutions through a process of exploration. In essence, I think the process of solving problems in a brain is really not all that dissimilar from evolution.

If we accept that hard problems have to be solved by an exploratory process either way, then I think it's a bit easier to see why we might suppose nature might be able to find a solution to something even highly intelligent human scientists struggle to understand. It's not exploration vs. magic. It's exploration vs. exploration. Evolution uses large populations to search for candidate solutions to difficult problems. And humans use brains capable of rapidly contemplating many different thoughts to search for candidate solutions.

Now, if there were a brain capable of simultaneously exploring an infinite number of candidate solutions, then of course it would be able to outperform evolution at finding evolutionary pathways to challenging problems like that. So I cannot rule out the possibility that God is the answer. But if there were some kind of competition between nature and a panel of scientists to discover a continuous evolutionary pathway that forms something complex like the human retina, I'm really not sure the scientists would win. I think sometimes, nature may be better at finding solutions than we are. So I'm perfectly content to say that I have no idea how the retina evolved, and yet I still believe evolution might have pulled it off. This certainly wouldn't be the first case of evolution finding a solution to something scientists failed to immediately understand.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler "I think the process of solving problems in a brain is really not all that dissimilar from evolution."

God is not thinking by a brain, or discursively.

That would be anthropomorphological.

I think you missed the point that the creation of genes by mutations takes more "exploration" than natural selection will allow.

"But if there were some kind of competition between nature and a panel of scientists to discover a continuous evolutionary pathway that forms something complex like the human retina, I'm really not sure the scientists would win."

The alternative to nature working by evolution is anyway not scientists.

"This certainly wouldn't be the first case of evolution finding a solution to something scientists failed to immediately understand."

Evolution on all views, like including how even YECs consider the muntchak evolved from other deer, better equipped for vegetarian life? Or Evolution on the view of those preferring it to God?

9:18 The things you are going over now are actually common ground for evolution and YEC.

11:31 You are great at explaining why cows make much milk, but not why mammals started making milk.

Or why sheep have much wool, but not how mammals came to have hair.

Mike Gashler

@hglundahl True. Alas, I don't know why mammals produce milk and hair. I mean, I can obviously identify some utility for those things and then wave my hands and say that's why evolution did it. But I couldn't possibly identify a specific evolutionary pathway for forming those things without making things up that I don't really know. Likewise, you could say that's why God did it. But I don't imagine either of us could really explain how it was done specifically.

A. Charles

@MikeGashler problem is, what is the conclusion when there is no naturalistic explanations of the origin of the anatomy and physiology of milk production.
Cause these are the reasons why some people turn the other way and declare atheism/evolution to be false.

It's either nature made it or an intelligent entity, and we have access to nature's tools so we can test claims about natural things

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler God imagined what milk and wool could do.

That's specific enough with omnipotence and omniscience.

Wool and milk come from genes, and either of them arguably from more than one gene, and any of the genes would on your view have come about by more than one mutation from previous genes not at all involved in either milk or wool.

In other words, the specificity needed for evolution is sth which mutations cannot produce - up to when they are conceivably favoured by natural or other selection.

Mike Gashler

@Philalethes101 I do not know whether science has a physiological explanation for milk or hair. I imagine it does. But if you told me it does not, I would probably not put up much resistance, because I do not actually know. However, if you told me that science will never have a physiological explanation for milk or hair, I would be very reluctant to accept that. People have been identifying gaps in science and saying "this proves God" for a long time. In many cases, science has eventually filled those gaps. I don't see anything fundamentally supernatural about milk or hair. It is true that nature is an open book, so to speak. But it's a pretty complex book. The reason we don't yet fully understand brains is because they are so complex, not because they are supernatural. I think the evolution of milk and hair are probably like that.

Mike Gashler

@hglundahl I failed to understand your concluding paragraph. But everything else you said sounds right on to me.

I can order groceries with essentially no physical labor. I just decide what I want, and then my will shall be done. I imagine omnipotence would be like that, except with everything.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler Omnipotence differs insofar as for groceries, you are depending on someone else.

"In other words, the specificity needed for evolution is sth which mutations cannot produce - up to when they are conceivably favoured by natural or other selection."

OK, ten thousand mutations concurring in one direction needed before the direction becomes so clear that natural selection can begin to favour it?

Is THAT a clearer wording? Ten thousand being a round number, btw, not an exact calculation.

"The reason we don't yet fully understand brains is because they are so complex, not because they are supernatural."

The reason we don't understand why brains produce consciousness is that consciousness is supernatural, not a natural consequence of the brain.

"I think the evolution of milk and hair are probably like that."

In other words, bowing down to the fact of complexity, you refuse to think things through.

Mike Gashler

@hglundahl About the groceries, I am happy to accept that my analogy was poor. That's just me trying to understand.

About the mutations, I can agree that there are cases where many simultaneous mutations are necessary in order for the population to take a step in a positive direction. And the more of them it takes, the more statistically unlikely it is for nature to find a pathway. (I think that's what you are saying, right?) Well, that's all true. And consequently, evolution does not always advance in a steady manner. Sometimes, it seems to get stuck for a while, then eventually bursts out of a local optimum. I'll also admit that if anything takes ten thousand simultaneous mutations, that would never happen. It's just too improbable. But nature is very good at finding routes around such things--often much better than intelligent scientists. Evolution has solved a lot of problems that still stump evolutionary scientists. So I tend to put more faith in the idea that evolution could find a way than I do that an intelligent designer could find a way. (...unless, of course, there was an omniscient designer. One like that could do anything! But I don't currently happen to believe there is one like that, and if there was I imagine his designs would be near-optimal, which does not seem to be a property of the things we actually observe.)

About brains, it sounds like we have a true disagreement here. That's fun! Perhaps we can debate that sometime too. At the moment, however, I'm struggling to find time for all the threads I've gotten myself tangled up in.

About thinking things through, that's a little harsh. I love trying. I was only admitting that my abilities have limitations. If you still see value in exploring this topic further, I'm game.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler "And the more of them it takes, the more statistically unlikely it is for nature to find a pathway."

The retina of a fish that's blind in Mexico has ten genes. Two of them are slightly mutated, which make the retina dysfunctional.

Any of them are very unlike genes for other things.

So, each gene needs the loci it has, and the retina needs all ten.

Thousand loci per gene = 10 000 mutations.

500 loci per gene = 5000 mutations.

I think the safe bet is not "nature can find a way around that" (you haven't the least documented that) but "that never happened by mutations plus natural selection."

"unless, of course, there was an omniscient designer. One like that could do anything!"

Well, denying God you made a fool out of "mutations and selection" ...

Mike Gashler

@hglundahl Yeah, we agree that eyes are complex. In my opinion, that poses as much of a problem for evolution as it does for intelligent design. Either way, a solution had to be found.

I suppose the difference between us must be that I don't believe intelligence is magical. I think brains have to search for solutions, just like evolution does. So complexity doesn't really seem like evidence of intelligence to me. It just seems like evidence that something needed to do a lot of searching to find an effective pathway. I imagine a big enough population might serendipitously stumble across a solution just as fast as a really smart guy might find one. I think the processes they go through are actually similar.

Sorry that sounds foolish to you. I guess that's all I have to offer. Thanks for the conversation!

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler You will admit a well studied mature man with good sleep and other factors boosting creativity will usually have an easier time finding a solution quickly than the factors being opposite.

This becomes very insignificant compared to an infinite intelligence which does not depend on brains.

Refusing to consider this solves the problem is refusing to take ID on its own terms.

Meanwhile, you are forced to credit "nature" with similar magic, far beyond what the factors you study and accept as natural warrant.

Mike Gashler

@hglundahl Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I personally experience that a lot because I design optimization algorithms. I understand precisely how my optimizers work. After all, I wrote them myself. Every step they perform is one of my own design. Yet, the things they accomplish after many iterations often surpass what I know how to do manually.

Evolution is a lot like that. Genetic algorithms, which simulate Darwinian evolution, are so simple that my undergraduate students have no difficulty coding them up. In fact, they're so very simple that I even believe evolution occurred entirely on its own in nature, without any intelligent intervention. Yet, I've been trying for decades to implement an artificial brain, and the problem continues to elude me. I couldn't make an eye no matter how much you paid me. I couldn't even build a lizard or a mouse. They're just too complicated for my meager talents.

I used to think I was pretty good at Chess. I taught each of my children how to play the game, and each of them has ranked in local Chess tournaments. There's an algorithm called Alpha-Beta-Pruning that can play zero-sum games, including Chess. It only takes a few lines of code to implement it. I understand the algorithm very well. I teach my students how it works. Yet, it creams me at Chess every time I attempt to battle it. Somehow, letting it explore the decision space causes strategies to emerge that boggle my limited mind. In theory, I should be able to perform the same steps in my head, but I lack the memory and patience to do what a computer can do. Thus, to my feeble mind, it seems like magic. It's not--I know that--but AI definitely feels magical sometimes.

A. Charles

@MikeGashler As scientist, we know the chemistry of life and have a good understanding of what is required for something to be called a living cell.

We also know what molecules can and can't do, it's with that knowledge that evolution is deemed to be impossible.
So the Arthur C. Clarke's statement is a non starter as it is the experts that see it's impossibility not those that haven't studied it.

LoneTech

@MikeGashler As complex as eyes are, we have found them formed to a considerable number of degrees and directions, ranging from single cell light sensitivity to complex optics, mechanics and arrays. No large steps are required among variations we can observe today, and there certainly are variations among humanity as well, for instance in how many colours we can detect, and some of far less relevance, like iris coloration. Some of us have non-functioning eyes.

Mike Gashler

@Philalethes101 Living things are made of molecules, right? Are you suggesting there is supernatural intervention in every reproduction event? Or are you merely suggesting there must have been supernatural intervention to get the process started? I feel that the topic has switched from evolution to abiogenesis. But this video does not take a position on whether or not God exists. It merely claims that natural evolution occurs. There is no scientific knowledge about molecules that denies that living things reproduce, that mutations occur, or that creatures with better genes have a survival advantage.

A. Charles

@MikeGashler both abiogenesis and good old evolution are not possible in light of what we know about how life works. They are just stories without any details of the fundamental processes that life is based on, they can't include it cause if they did, the whole thing break down.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler "Living things are made of molecules, right? Are you suggesting there is supernatural intervention in every reproduction event?"

Have you heard of Robert Carter? He made a video about the four dimensional genome.

After hearing the video, and knowing the 19th C. had a debate between vitalism and materialism (life requires sth beyond the materials available in non-living things and it is a thing, not just an arrangement or no, it just requires those materials), I consider he made a case for vitalism again.

So, kind of yes.

Note, I have many differences with him, so I am not saying it because I'm usually an admirer of his.

15:57 You have given a good point about why there are no overt Canaanean worshippers or no native speakers of Sumerian (barring very secretive conspiracies to raise children secretly as Zuist).

But it cannot cover why language came to be in the first place or why people started to turn to God or gods.

You are also simplifying very overmuch the way things disappear in society - like no intelligent design (non-accumulative) in actually killing things off.

If the Gaeltacht is small and the native speakers of Sumerian non-extant, it's because Gaels and Babylonians shifted to English and Aramaic and later Arabic.

But the reason why Cuba doesn't speak Arawak is not a matter of simple choice.

Speaking of "evolution" in such contexts obfuscates the moral difference between mutation and deliberate annihilation of a given social phenomenon.

Mike Gashler

@hglundahl I'll admit over-simplifying explanations is a bad habit that I am prone to do. It has the beneficial effect of helping my students take the difficult first-steps toward understanding, but it can also backfire when they inevitably realize that my teachings cannot be trusted to be complete. It also reflects a degree of laziness on my part, since I often haven't even put in the effort to understand the finer details for myself.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@MikeGashler Thank you very much for this honest admission, and I'll admit that was lazy of you ...