Re: [asa] Improbability of Homo Sapiens?

I'm thinking that this discussion seems to be predicated upon an
expectation that evolution would have to result in US - in our
particular form and functionality - as being the only satisfactory
outcome of an evolutionary creation process. But as you note, both the
tempo and specific directional changes are intrinsically variable. That
would seem to be the whole idea.

Yet, the character of the evolutionary process is that it generally
moves in unpredictable (too complex for us) directions wherein the rule
is if there is new benefit in the present configuration AND context, the
propagation is favored. That generally (given enough time) moves the
process erratically toward more capable (and presumeably complex)
"configurations. BUT, it does not move necessarily (unless God makes it
so in ways not accessible to us) toward a particular, predermined
configuration like us. [I'm guessing that the physical configuration is
perhaps irrelevant to a being who transcends the limitations that define
properties like shape!].

In fact, we have fossil evidence of the course of evolution heading down
a variety of branches (reptilian, for example) that were at some point
truncated by cataclysm. Nonetheless, though a setback to that particular
path of evolutionary course of development, the process simply continued
from its new state(s), starting with lower forms, and proceeding down
new evolutionary path(s), segment by segment, as dictated by critical
natural selection events or circumstances. For that reason, the
developmental creatures would per force be unlikely to resemble the
corresponding product of any previous evolutionary path EXCEPT in ways
that are both strongly beneficial and are somehow convergent to similar
morphologies (bi-pedalism?). Following this reasoning, entities at
similar points in evolutionary paths, but in different times and places
throughout the universe (even with identical starting points!), would
seem to be likely to share at most a few critical similarities.

OK. That said, ultimately (in an attempt to be even handed in this
response) this reasoned conclusion may or may not reflect reality
correctly. The actual outcomes depend upon the specifics of the complex
behaviors implicit in the materials and operational rules of Creation
(of which we can accesss only a part). We know a little about the
marvelous structured consequences of a modest set of starting conditions
and small number of operating rules (the chaos and complexity stuff). So
if we have learned anything from those discoveries, we cannot with
certainty say that the full set of conditions and rules in play in
Creation would not converge everywhere, wherever in the universe the
conditions permit, to populations more or less identical to our human
selves.

JimA

David Opderbeck wrote:

> The part they leave out is that once life starts, and knowing that
> life forms evolve, over time new creatures more adapted will come into
> being. The probability is high that better adapted creatures will
> evolve over time given natural selection. The probability is low that
> you can predict what life forms will eventually come into being.
> Creationists confuse probability with predictability.
>
> This seems flawed to me. It seems to adopt the stance that evolution
> equals some sort of steady, linear progress. I thought that notion
> had been discarded years ago. The fact that organisms will adapt to
> selective pressures, that some extremely rare mutations may confer a
> survival advantage, and that genetic drift may cause changes in a
> lineage, says nothing at all about the probability that such a process
> will result in creatures like us who are able to reflect and converse
> about these mechanisms.
>
> Any one of a zillion contingencies could have affected the course of
> evolution such that nothing like us ever arose. Given everything that
> had to happen just right, it's more likely that the earth today would
> be nothing but an algae swamp -- or even more likely, another barren,
> lifeless icy space rock.
>
> It seems to me very like the probability that this sperm cell would
> fuse with this egg cell on this day and would produce a viable baby to
> be raised by these parents in this time and place under these
> circumstances to produce this person. We are "fearfully and
> wonderfully made," and we are each the product of God's providence, as
> the Psalmist said (Ps. 139). It seems to me no less appropriate to
> see God's providence in evolution.
>
>
> On 2/9/07, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net
> <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Every time a woman's egg is conceived some 30 million sperm cells
> compete to be the lucky guy. The chance that any one will be
> successful is so small, why bother making the effort. (That's why I
> don't play the lottery.) Yet if conception occurs, one was
> successful. And whenever a particular sperm cell wins the race it
> effectively beats the odds. So it is unlikely any chosen cell will
> win the race to conceive, but the likelihood is high that one will.
> Creationists like to say that improbable events necessitate Godly
> intervention. The part they leave out is that once life starts, and
> knowing that life forms evolve, over time new creatures more adapted
> will come into being. The probability is high that better adapted
> creatures will evolve over time given natural selection. The
> probability is low that you can predict what life forms will
> eventually come into being. Creationists confuse probability with
> predictability.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you drive a car for 30-40 years the likelihood is high that you
> will run into somebody. That's probability. The likelihood is low
> that you will know in advance who that other driver will be. That's
> predictability.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dick Fischer
> >
> > Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
> >
> > Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> >
> > www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Johan Jammart
> > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:41 AM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: [asa] Improbability of Homo Sapiens?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quote
> >
> >
> >
> > In 1986 the consensus among such biologists that the evolutionary
> path from primitive Cambrian chordates, e.g. Pikaia, to homo sapiens
> was a highly improbable event. For example, the large brains of humans
> have marked adaptive disadvantages, requiring as they do an expensive
> metabolism, a long gestation period, and a childhood lasting more than
> 25% of the average total life span. Other improbable features of
> humans include:
> >
> > * Being the only extant bipedal land vertebrate. Combined with
> an unusual eye-hand coordination, this permits dextrous manipulations
> of the physical environment with the hands;
> > * A vocal apparatus far more expressive than that of any other
> mammal, enabling speech. Speech makes it possible for humans to
> interact cooperatively, to share knowledge, and to acquire a culture;
> > * The capability of formulating abstractions to a degree
> permitting the invention of mathematics, and the discovery of science
> and technology. Keep in mind how recently humans acquired anything
> like their current scientific and technological sophistication.
> >
> >
> > Few questions here that are important for my theological reflection
> (as it is my domain of interest) as it seem that the evolution to homo
> sapiens seems improbable.
> >
> > What if homo sapiens did not arise from evolution?
> >
> > 1) Is other form of intelligent life (like human intelligence)
> improbable with the evolution?
> >
> > 2) Is the evolution of humanoids improbable?
> >
> > 3) How could God knew that evolution would bring creature that will
> be able to have relationship with Him? Of course He is omniscient but
> in His omniscience He had to choose a process that would bring
> intelligent life.
> >
> >
> > Blessings,
> >
> > Johan
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as
> the body of the message.
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> <http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html>
> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 9 17:19:59 2007