From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develop?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:05:39 GMT

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.085456.2032@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>You're missing the point, the Bible does not tell us where Adam's body
>came from.  It may well have been "evolved" to that point before his
>time during those billions of years.

If you loosely interpret the Bible, the I suppose you can wing it, but
if you read it literally (for example, with no knowledge of the current
world), then you'd get a much different answer.  The Bible is nothing more
than a collection of the early Jewish Mythology.  You will find many similar
stories in the myths of other religions.  Remember, a myth is just a religion
that has been outgrown or disbelieved.

>The fossils do not show gradual transitions that demonstrate to me
>that "evolution" was undirected.  The theory of evolution seems to
>explain how life got the current state, but it is a little sketchy.

We have but a small sample due to fossil evidence.  Remember, it is quite
a coincidence for something to become fossilized.  There is not enough
data to show "gradual transitions."  Anyway, such transitions are probably
short-lived, anyway.  Evolution is "driven" by survival.  The spcies that
survive for a long enough period of time to make it statistically likely
that a fossil of it should be found are most likely the species that are
very good at surviving in the then current environment.

I mean, to give a simple example, surely you have heard of that white moth
/ black moth story.  As the pollution caused the trees to darken (or
whatever), the black moths became the best at surviving.  Were there
grey moths?  Was a slow transition between the two pigments observable?
No.  SUddenly, the black moths were better at surviving, so the black
ones survived.  This is how it would work with a species transition,
but the changes would be more substantial.  Still, I think the transition
would be rapid enough so that fossils of a "transition" animal are unlikely
to be found.

>>Anyway, I suppose I cite the anthropic principle.  If all of the evidence
>>points to the fact that humans evolved within the last 15 billion years or
>>so, then this time period must have been long enough to allow this to happen.
>>It is all really simple, or am I missing something here?

>Again, all the evidence is sketchy.  Much extrapolation and
>interpolation went into the evolution theory.

The evidence may be sketchy, but it is all very good evidence.  Can you
provide evidence (other than the fact that we have not observed it) that
states that evolution could NOT have happened?  Until we find such evidence
and as long as the theory continues to fit so remarkably with the evidence
that we do have, I think evolution will hang around.

>>What do you mean by "someone outside this universe"?

>God.

And I suppose you have evidence of the existence of such a thing?

>>You feel that without outside intelligent intervention, the universe could
>>not have evolved to its present state?  Where is the hitch?  That is, what
>>link do you think is unbelievable?

>I certainly do.  I see no believable "proof" that it has.  Try
>reconstructing every minute of the past year with only one day's worth
>of information in five minute increments spread out over the year.
>Your theory of the past year will fit the data samples but may not
>explain the actual path you took to get to today.  Now try that for
>someone you meet today and you may see what I mean.

I don't see the problem.  Why does the eact path from A to B matter so
much?  Obviously, if something goes from A to B, then it did it somehow.
Why is there a need to see a transitory animal.  If you saw a transitory
species, how would you know that it was one?  It would jsut look like 
another speicies.  See, you are asking for the impossible.  You want a
fossile of every animal that ever lived in order to show the exact
path of evolution.  We don't need this.  The data that we have is
sparse, but it covers a large enough are of time to show general trends.

>The point of my observations and comments is to say that the theory of
>"evolution" does not eliminate the possibility of a God and that the
>probability of success is greatly increased by having an outside
>influence.  Look at the experiments being conducted to "prove"
>evolution.  They are outside influenced to produce any of their
>successes.  They strongly suggest that life can be evolved if someone
>insures perfect conditions.  I find it hard to believe that
>"evolution" occurred without assistance from the evidence provided by
>those who do.

Yes, very specific conditions must have occurred in order for life to 
have begun spontaneously.  But remember, as far as we know, we are the
only place in the universe that fosters life.  Again, I cite the
anthropic principle.  You see, life seems like an unlikely thing (although
some would argue this).  But then, why can not the Earth be the place where
this unlikley even occurred?  It certainly seems that the conditions on
Earth are just perfect for life.  We have the correct type of star, and
we are just the right distance from it.  Is it a coincidence that these
condition are present?  Of course not.  These conditions are a requirement
for life, so why are you so surprised to find them on the Earth?

See, you seem to want some intelligent being to be present in order to
shift the probabilites to make the idea of life more plausible.  This
is not necessary.  If the chances for life to develop are, say,
a billion to one, then would it be so surprising to find life on every
billionth suitablt planet that you check?  Why cannot the Earth be one
of these billionth planets?

See, let me tell a story.  There once was a con artist that had a very
brilliant idea.  He sent out 10000 letter, predicting the outcome of
an upcoming sporting event (he prediected that one team would win in 
half the letters, and the other team in the other half).  No, to those
5000 people to which he sent the correct prediction, he sent another
letter, again predicitng the outcome of another event (half and half
again).  Then, to the 2500 people who received correct predictions,
he'd make another.  Now, this would continue on down the line.  The people
who recieved incorrect predictions would jsut think that the guy was a
phony.  However, there would be a number of people that would recieve
correct predictions each time.  They would think that the guy was
pychic or something, and might even be inclined to send him some money.
Now, if you were one of the people who recieved ocrrect predictions all
the time, you might feel that it is very unlikely that the guy would
get them right just by random guessing.  You might feel that this guy
must be supernatural if he is able to make predicitions with such
accuracy.  It would be VERy improbably that the guy would guess right
10 times in a row.  However, if you realized that you were not the only
person he was sending these letters to, and that you were the only 
person out of 10000 that received correct predicitions every time,
then you would realize that it was not so unlikely.  The only unlikely
thing would be that you were the person to which he happened to send the
correct predictions.

So, it is not unlikley that life exists.  However, it is unlikely that it
just happened to exist on the Earth.  But it had to happen somewhere, and
since there is life on Earth, then this must be the place where this
extremely unlikely phenomenon occurred.

I hope you understand what I am saying.
keith