RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

gluadys -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/17/2008 4:08:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

gluadys,

Good point though:
quote:

DNA can code for what amino acid is needed next in a protein, but it doesn't dictate the availability of right vs. left oriented amino acids. Rather, one will work and the other won't as the protein is constructed.

"If it works, it works." Some come out "left," some come out "right" but the unusable ones are trashed perhaps?


Nope. They are still there in the ambient environment. They are just not used in construction of a protein because they don't fit.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/18/2008 12:30:14 PM)

Okay, but what do they do in the ambient environment? Are they a matter of evolutionary indifference or could they sometimes lead to dysfunction?

Also, are you aware of some of the hypotheses regarding prions? I had been aware that prions may represent a non-genetic affector of biological systems at the molecular level, but I just recently read in that Wikipedia article that it is a possibility that they may also represent a form of "protein-based" inheritance. This, of course, would just represent a new dimension to evolutionary considerations -- but I am led to wonder, if proteins can do this...

Hmm, I have a precise way to express one of the things I wonder about: Lamarckian evolution. If genetic inheritance and evolution can be viewed as the process of the code of an organism testing itself against the environment through the mechanism of relative reproductive advantage across successive generations, then there is obviously some point where "the rubber meets the road." Natural selection states that within a lifetime of an organism, there is only one direction in which genetic information can travel, from genes to expression. The feedback occurs only across successive generations. However, given that proteins may be capable of inducing changes in one another, might there be a possibility for a "back channel" or reversal of the typical flow of information within a given lifetime. Even if this back channel is not capable of directly changing DNA, perhaps it could resort to a process of "selecting" certain genes for mutation, that is, altering the surrounding structure of the DNA so that the nucleotides are relatively more exposed to mutagens. Certainly, the cell affords some protection to the DNA, and why couldn't the cell control the extent of this protection? Or perhaps certain gene sequences could be marked for deletion at the most convenient time, following a real-time feedback mechanism. What I am basing this on is that -- perhaps -- the information transcribed (wait, what is the technical term?) onto proteins is not "lost" due to subsequent changes in structure, but can be retranslated backward -- and the original "sense" of the DNA retrieved. That is, might protein folding represent an invertible function, to use the terms of mathematics?

None of this has anything to do with the truth of the TOE or whether or not it is compatible with Creation, I suppose.


Still, the question would remain, Why would God change anything that He made? Wouldn't He know what to do to get it right the first time? But, perhaps, the alternative is that not only did God commission us (through Adam) to name the animals and all objects of his Creation, but that He wished for us to name the processes as well? I suppose the real question is, What does God need with process? Can't it all just happen at once? Then, if so, why did He clearly deem it to His glory to create the world in six days rather than one nanosecond? Process is therefore -- or arguably -- implicit in Genesis. (And, if "one nanosecond," wh not less -- isn't " a day" a much nicer chunk of time to consider?)

That is, God commissioned Adam to name what he saw in the present, but merely by giving the revelation of Genesis, He is expressing that an interest in the past of the Earth and the changes that took place during Creation over the face of the waters and so on, will also lead to further apprehension of His glory.

If God is infinitely Creative, why would He stop with Creation after six days? I don't question His wisdom in taking a day to rest, but might Creation still be unfolding? When God creates a caterpillar, isn't His glory only compounded when it is seen to later change? If the TOE leads one to believe that God may have started with the simple forms of life first -- would it be an insult to His glory that He didn't immediately jump to the complex? OR, in enabling us to investigate questions of process, isn't He only granting us a deeper understanding -- that is, with greater detail -- of His Creation and thus His glory.

If the Universe could be said to have flashed into existence with the utterance of the Word, did it take an independent utterence for each object in the Universe? Why then did God commission US to name the animals rather than givin gus the words Himself. No, He gave us the Word; all other words were for us to create, as a commission granted to beings made in the Speaker of the Word's image. Thus, the process which was detail as occurring over six days in Genesis was for our understanding -- a constraint God placed on Himself, if one is inclined to think of it as a limitation to process. Similarly, as Jesus reminded us, the Sabbath was created for man rather than man for the Sabbath -- His rest on the seventh day was, therefore, an integral part of the process that is there to benefit us, and to heighten our appreciation of the glory of God. If it was out of a constraint of fatigue of God for Him that He rested, how then could Jesus say, the Sabbath was created for man? It would seem, alternatively, that the Sabbath is not only a requirement of nature, but God himself.

The six days, it seems, could be viewed as a commission to participate in reductionism. How can we understand God's creation of the Universe ex nihilo? Obviously, we can't. However, since we are made in His image, we are given to understand what we can -- the history and process of the mortal Universe it there for us to contemplate. If it was that God began with the creation of light -- then this was not out of necessity but rather to show that if we understand the basic elements of the universe, we can go on to understand the complex -- the animals, and even our own flesh. If the creation story is a narrative, it is because it has an internal logic to it -- the simple precedes the complex, even though ALL of creation was present in the mind of God at the moment that He breathed the Word -- and who's to say if not before then?

If we cannot understand beyond the scope of mortality, God still made us in His image, and I would suppose tha would include that we are granted the ability to understand our sphere -- that is, that the creation itself, though not the primary power that is Creation, is intelligible.


I know I am preaching to choir, gluadys, but perhaps others will read this.



gluadys -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/18/2008 4:34:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Okay, but what do they do in the ambient environment?


Same thing as any other chemicals do. They are just not part of a protein.

quote:

Are they a matter of evolutionary indifference


Pretty much. Perhaps a cell would have a different use for them than making proteins, but that wouldn't have anything to do with heritable traits or evolution. You are into biochemistry here, so you would have to look at the various chemical reactions that occur in a cell---apart from reproduction and apart from making proteins per the instructions coded in DNA. The cell is a dynamic system, very active chemically, but biochemistry is not something I have even begun to study.


quote:

Also, are you aware of some of the hypotheses regarding prions?


No. I have heard the word "prions" and I know they have something to do with protein, but that's about all.


quote:

Hmm, I have a precise way to express one of the things I wonder about: Lamarckian evolution. If genetic inheritance and evolution can be viewed as the process of the code of an organism testing itself against the environment through the mechanism of relative reproductive advantage across successive generations, then there is obviously some point where "the rubber meets the road." Natural selection states that within a lifetime of an organism, there is only one direction in which genetic information can travel, from genes to expression. The feedback occurs only across successive generations. However, given that proteins may be capable of inducing changes in one another, might there be a possibility for a "back channel" or reversal of the typical flow of information within a given lifetime. Even if this back channel is not capable of directly changing DNA, perhaps it could resort to a process of "selecting" certain genes for mutation, that is, altering the surrounding structure of the DNA so that the nucleotides are relatively more exposed to mutagens. Certainly, the cell affords some protection to the DNA, and why couldn't the cell control the extent of this protection? Or perhaps certain gene sequences could be marked for deletion at the most convenient time, following a real-time feedback mechanism. What I am basing this on is that -- perhaps -- the information transcribed (wait, what is the technical term?) onto proteins is not "lost" due to subsequent changes in structure, but can be retranslated backward -- and the original "sense" of the DNA retrieved. That is, might protein folding represent an invertible function, to use the terms of mathematics?


I think you need to take this up with someone who is knowledgeable in biochemistry and molecular biology. I have lost track of what you are trying to say.

quote:

None of this has anything to do with the truth of the TOE or whether or not it is compatible with Creation, I suppose.

True.


quote:

Still, the question would remain, Why would God change anything that He made?


I assume God is not a Greek philosopher who identifies perfection with static being. Certainly the God of the Bible is a being who is dynamic, not the static, impassible Absolute of Plato. Why would God not create dynamism, change in what he makes? Movement is so much more interesting and creative than immobility.

quote:

Wouldn't He know what to do to get it right the first time?


The question assumes a static and unchangeable essence as goal to which the creator aspires. What if the ideal is a dynamic, functioning, interrelated universe of existences? What if God is less interested in product than in process?

quote:

But, perhaps, the alternative is that not only did God commission us (through Adam) to name the animals and all objects of his Creation, but that He wished for us to name the processes as well?


Indeed, why not? Naming in the biblical frame of reference is a signifier of control. Being able to name and describe a process is also a key to human use/control of the process.

quote:

I suppose the real question is, What does God need with process?


God does not need anything, so we can never attribute anything to God's need of it. Look rather to what God desires and above all to what God loves.


quote:

If God is infinitely Creative, why would He stop with Creation after six days? I don't question His wisdom in taking a day to rest, but might Creation still be unfolding?


Of course creation is still unfolding. A Christian understanding of creation does not see creation as a single event that stopped long ago, but as a 'creatio continuo" a continuous process of creation. Since, according to many, the Genesis sabbath day has never ended either, we have a continual unfolding of creation within the sabbath of God's rest. So God both rests and creates continually.

quote:

When God creates a caterpillar, isn't His glory only compounded when it is seen to later change? If the TOE leads one to believe that God may have started with the simple forms of life first -- would it be an insult to His glory that He didn't immediately jump to the complex? OR, in enabling us to investigate questions of process, isn't He only granting us a deeper understanding -- that is, with greater detail -- of His Creation and thus His glory.


Absolutely

quote:

If the Universe could be said to have flashed into existence with the utterance of the Word, did it take an independent utterence for each object in the Universe? Why then did God commission US to name the animals rather than givin gus the words Himself. No, He gave us the Word; all other words were for us to create, as a commission granted to beings made in the Speaker of the Word's image. Thus, the process which was detail as occurring over six days in Genesis was for our understanding -- a constraint God placed on Himself, if one is inclined to think of it as a limitation to process. Similarly, as Jesus reminded us, the Sabbath was created for man rather than man for the Sabbath -- His rest on the seventh day was, therefore, an integral part of the process that is there to benefit us, and to heighten our appreciation of the glory of God. If it was out of a constraint of fatigue of God for Him that He rested, how then could Jesus say, the Sabbath was created for man? It would seem, alternatively, that the Sabbath is not only a requirement of nature, but God himself.

The six days, it seems, could be viewed as a commission to participate in reductionism. How can we understand God's creation of the Universe ex nihilo? Obviously, we can't. However, since we are made in His image, we are given to understand what we can -- the history and process of the mortal Universe it there for us to contemplate. If it was that God began with the creation of light -- then this was not out of necessity but rather to show that if we understand the basic elements of the universe, we can go on to understand the complex -- the animals, and even our own flesh. If the creation story is a narrative, it is because it has an internal logic to it -- the simple precedes the complex, even though ALL of creation was present in the mind of God at the moment that He breathed the Word -- and who's to say if not before then?

If we cannot understand beyond the scope of mortality, God still made us in His image, and I would suppose tha would include that we are granted the ability to understand our sphere -- that is, that the creation itself, though not the primary power that is Creation, is intelligible.


I know I am preaching to choir, gluadys, but perhaps others will read this.


Let's hope so. A lot of good thought went into this.



SamSpick -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/18/2008 4:44:17 PM)

quote:

Still, the question would remain, Why would God change anything that He made?

It's deeper than that though: why would God create anything considering that the very act of creation is a change? Why change anything when everything is already perfect? How is it possible for God to act to create without desire to act? Yet how is is possible for God to desire when everything is perfect?



SamSpick -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/18/2008 5:23:46 PM)

quote:

If the Universe could be said to have flashed into existence with the utterance of the Word, did it take an independent utterence for each object in the Universe? Why then did God commission US to name the animals rather than givin gus the words Himself.

Perhaps it is better to consider the universe as a single unified process of which all so called "objects" (including you and I) are dynamic and temporary patterns within it's ongoing development? Could we then say that only one utterance is required?

Then again, an "utterance" seems to be a concept which is predicated by notions of causality. Now if, as according to contemporary science, time itself had a beginning at the "moment" of the big bang, how can we speak of "utterances" or indeed any cause of the universe? Since there is no such thing as "before" the universe, I suggest that there can be no cause to speak of.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/18/2008 6:05:28 PM)

SamSpick,
I don't quite understand what you are saying. Perhaps I will come to through further dialogue.

However, I do have specific questions here:
quote:

"objects" (including you and I)

and here:
quote:

Then again, an "utterance" seems to be a concept which is predicated by notions of causality.


I would not call people objects; why do you? And I would not claim a priori that "utterance" is a factor of a cause. After all, the universe is not apparently causal -- doubts have of course been raised by science itself.

This is also interesting:
quote:

It's deeper than that though: why would God create anything considering that the very act of creation is a change? Why change anything when everything is already perfect? How is it possible for God to act to create without desire to act? Yet how is is possible for God to desire when everything is perfect?


Was God bored? It's a fair question. I don't think actions need to be backed by desires though. I think truly arbitrary, that is to say, random, actions are possible. I sense that we may be headed for a funny philosophical debate. It would be interesting, but I ought to confess that I am ready and willing to use logic, but my beliefs are probably not founded on a consistent rational basis or system, but rather paradox. I don't really think I know what I am talking about.



Method -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/18/2008 10:03:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Of course, and why evolution would produce a less efficient and less prolific organism than the one that proceeded it would seem to be one of those things evolution isn't very good at explaining.


Because multicellular organisms are effecient enough, even if less effecient. Their lower effeciency is offset by new strategies which lower competition with unicellular organisms.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/19/2008 9:55:17 AM)

It is perhaps strange to realize, but evolution and natural selection really do not have efficiency as a criteria.

Gene pools change only by relative reproductive success. I'm sure some organism could be both less efficient in terms of conversion resources to energy and more reproductively successful -- if only that organism is capable of garnishing enough resources.

If, eventually, the ecosystem is wrecked by such organisms, then you will have quite a die off. It is following considerations like these that evolutionary theorists have found the usefulness of game theory, depicting scenarios of greater complexity, but of course still representing a reductive model of the actual world, in order to investigate what strategies are predicted to exist in nature. Efficiency may be the result, but it is a more distal one from the criteria of reproductive success that represents the mechanism of evolution.



Method -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/19/2008 3:45:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

It is perhaps strange to realize, but evolution and natural selection really do not have efficiency as a criteria.


Evolution as a whole does not have effeciency as a goal, but the strategy that a vast majority of bacteria use is based on effeciency. The first to get the food and metabolize it wins. They are very, very good at this, as are other unicellular organisms like brewer's yeast. Not only can brewer's yeast outcompete but they release a metabolic poison which prevents other types of organisms from growing (yummy ethanol ;)).

quote:

If, eventually, the ecosystem is wrecked by such organisms, then you will have quite a die off.


Some biologists have argued that the Permian extinction (also called the Great Dying) was caused by H2S released by bacteria in the oceans. The dominant form of life after the Permian extinction was fungus. Not a good time to be a vertebrate.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/21/2008 2:31:22 PM)

Thanks for the response Method,

I appreciate your illustration of instances where efficiency is important. As you could see, I was merely speculating that efficiency may be overridden by a strategy that could be called "scorn" -- take ALL or most of the resources, regardless of how efficiently one uses them. Which of course led to further questions. Anyway, just speculating.

Thanks also for the info on the Permian die-off.



SamSpick -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/25/2008 4:22:23 PM)

hellohellohi,

quote:

but my beliefs are probably not founded on a consistent rational basis or system, but rather paradox. I don't really think I know what I am talking about.

It both astonishes and pleases me to hear somebody here actually say that. Truth is none of us do, and IMO that's a fine place to be.

quote:

I don't think actions need to be backed by desires though.

If an action is not preceeded by a desire (or a 'will' if you like) to act, then isn't such an action mindless and essentially random? I don't think the result could be called 'designed' if that's the case. Now since the action we're talking about is the creation of the universe, I suspect many an atheist would agree with you on that very specific point.

quote:

I would not call people objects; why do you? And I would not claim a priori that "utterance" is a factor of a cause. After all, the universe is not apparently causal -- doubts have of course been raised by science itself.

Well, the form of a person needs a name; presumably Adam (as the story goes) called himself "man" (and all like shaped things) just as he called the four legged mooing thing over there chewing "grass" a "cow?" As you say though, not all object forms came into existence at the same time so how could Adam have named them all? However, unlike you, I have come the see the universe as a single and perfectly unified unfolding existence and thus, if I assume a creating entity, only a single command of desire and design was needed to call it into existence. No need to create everything within it as separate acts of creation, just it's nature as a whole.

I accept what you say about causality and science but what is your position on this? Do you accept causality or not? And do you confine your acceptance or denial of causality to within this universe or this and "beyond?" It bothers me that when we talk about God creating ex nihilo by a simple utterance, that we are necessarily taking causality as a prior assumption and worse than that, applying this notion to some sort of realm "beyond" the universe. Essentially we end up speaking about the cause of causality which to me is illogical. Maybe you think (as I do) that the creation account including the fall of man is allegorical?

quote:

I sense that we may be headed for a funny philosophical debate

I agree; philosophy is hilarious. You get to spend five years going around in circles only to finally disappear up your own rear end. Marvelous.

LOL. (I think)



Aristocrat -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/25/2008 10:10:39 PM)

quote:

Though, it would seem quite odd that genes that wanted to survive would produce kittens at all, when the most effective mechanisms of propagating genes is a bacterium.


I'm not sure I understand you. Are you calling bacterium a mechanism? Further, are you speaking of asexual reproduction or sexual reproduction of bacteria.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/30/2008 11:11:40 AM)

quote:

I accept what you say about causality and science but what is your position on this? Do you accept causality or not? And do you confine your acceptance or denial of causality to within this universe or this and "beyond?" It bothers me that when we talk about God creating ex nihilo by a simple utterance, that we are necessarily taking causality as a prior assumption and worse than that, applying this notion to some sort of realm "beyond" the universe. Essentially we end up speaking about the cause of causality which to me is illogical. Maybe you think (as I do) that the creation account including the fall of man is allegorical?



SamSpick,

Thanks for your response.

I appreciate the concerns you raised here. I also hope people don't concern themselves with things that are defined ahead of time as unknowable. However, isn't God also defined as unknowable in some sense?

My position is that God is a person, knowable only in the way that people are knowable. This can be seen, as you have begun to speak to, in the difference in the naming of things and the naming of people, or personalities. A "man" is a category of thing, surely, but Adam was a person, allegorical or textual or not. Etc.

I believe Christianity is the realization that God is a person with a name. I think everything objective is nothing more than those things which can be given names arbitrarily. Let me clarify, however: Certainly, the act of naming a baby is arbitrary or MIGHT be, but what has been given a name? When the category "fox" is established, we know very well ahead of time the traits that are associated with the name we choose. However, when a person is named, we do not know what their traits will be, or just who it is we have named. The naming of God is similar to the latter. We may have a sense that what we are naming has a unique set of properties, but these properties are only accessible through subjectivity if the referent is itself a subjectivity.

I could care less about objectivity, to be honest -- except as insofar as this is simply a synonym for the concept "curiosity," which I can understand as the fulfillment of the commission to name all things.

What were we talking about tho?



SamSpick -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (7/7/2008 4:33:24 PM)

quote:

My position is that God is a person, knowable only in the way that people are knowable. This can be seen, as you have begun to speak to, in the difference in the naming of things and the naming of people, or personalities. A "man" is a category of thing, surely, but Adam was a person, allegorical or textual or not. Etc.

The point of view I'm trying to explain is that the form of *man* and the *person* of Adam are both integral patterns within the singular existence and ongoing process of creation. THis is an alternative view to the belief that the universe was first created and subsequently Adam created within it. Rather than many acts of successive creation, just one: that of the singular, indivisible yet evolving universe of which we are part.

Anyway, I was more interested in your answer to this:

quote:



I don't think actions need to be backed by desires though.


If an action is not preceeded by a desire (or a 'will' if you like) to act, then isn't such an action mindless and essentially random? I don't think the result could be called 'designed' if that's the case. Now since the action we're talking about is the creation of the universe, I suspect many an atheist would agree with you on that very specific point.


Thanks.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (7/7/2008 5:01:59 PM)

Yes, I meant that I think some actions are essentially random. I think that is the power of animal agency, to take random actions. Desires, indeed, may be based in biology, but what we do does not have to be. However, I don't think agency is magical either. I just think that the question of what is agency is the capability of random-action generation.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI