Evidence for macro-evolution

[sfs]

Our last two posts are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, they really are.

Corrupting information which specifies a particular function CAN create a 'new' function.
Again as in the example of a bear losing pigment in it's fur. The non pigmented/white fur provides a useful new 'function' as camouflage in the arctic.

Which is very much not what I wrote about. I wrote about genuinely new functions.

And crucially an evolutionary dead end; additional random corruption will never restore the original functions; pigment in the bears fur or a complete new exhaust system- the entropy works in one direction only, towards decay, degradation, regardless of whether that degradation happens upon an advantage in certain niche environments along the way.

As I already wrote, we have abundant empirical evidence that both random mutations to existing proteins and completely random peptides can and do yield novel molecular functions -- e.g. protein binding of new substrates, catalysis of new reactions. You believe that random mutations don't produce new functional information, but you belief is simply wrong. I'd be happy to walk you through some of the studies if you're interested.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That logic rules out the whole Bible then, doesn't it?

Or most of It.

Only when taken as literally as you take it. Definitely with how you take it.

 

[sjastro]

Theres synthesis going on there, but not of info.

Since the human body is an open thermodynamic system, the entropy change ΔS = S₂ - S₁ can decrease where one needs to know the change in the number of microstates W of S₂ and S₁ which is information according to the formula S = k.log W where k is Boltzmann’s constant.

An example of W relevant in this thread involving molecular biology is the number of ways proteins can fold in a cell; the more microstates a protein can adopt, the higher its entropy.

​

This is currently an important area of research using AI in combating genetic related diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

AlphaFold - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Astrid]

Since the human body is an open thermodynamic system, the entropy change ΔS = S₂ - S₁ can decrease where one needs to know the change in the number of microstates W of S₂ and S₁ which is information according to the formula S = k.log W where k is Boltzmann’s constant.

An example of W relevant in this thread involving molecular biology is the number of ways proteins can fold in a cell; the more microstates a protein can adopt, the higher its entropy.

​

This is currently an important area of research using AI in combating genetic related diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

AlphaFold - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Better response than my quip warranted!

The info synthesis I was referring to is of the in-brain
kind.

 

[BCP1928]

Since the human body is an open thermodynamic system, the entropy change ΔS = S₂ - S₁ can decrease where one needs to know the change in the number of microstates W of S₂ and S₁ which is information according to the formula S = k.log W where k is Boltzmann’s constant.

An example of W relevant in this thread involving molecular biology is the number of ways proteins can fold in a cell; the more microstates a protein can adopt, the higher its entropy.

Which is proportional to its information content, if you wish to conceptualize it that way

​

 

[AV1611VET]

Only when taken as literally as you take it.

But it's okay for you to take "no evidence"* literally?

* That is, meaning it did not happen?

Definitely with how you take it.

If you take your science literally, okay if I take the Bible literally?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But it's okay for you to take "no evidence"* literally?

* That is, meaning it did not happen?



If you take your science literally, okay if I take the Bible literally?

AV.exe has stopped working. Please reboot him.

 

[dlamberth]

That logic rules out the whole Bible then, doesn't it?

Or most of It.

Yep.
Religion does not belong to the rational domain. It's a kind of life that does not belong logically, rationally or scientifically. Logic can not know religion like a felt life, as a life conscious of itself. At best logic can know religion only as an object, as the exterior manifestations of what is essentially an inner life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep.
Religion does not belong to the rational domain. It's a kind of life that does not belong logically, rationally or scientifically. Logic can not know religion like a felt life, as a life conscious of itself. At best logic can know religion only as an object, as the exterior manifestations of what is essentially an inner life.

Thank you for an honest answer.

For the record though, since you're trying to distance logic from religion, how do you define:

Theo-logical

And how do you address those who tell you that Jesus is the "Logos" mentioned in John 1?

 

[dlamberth]

Thank you for an honest answer.

For the record though, since you're trying to distance logic from religion, how do you define:

God can not be approached through logic. It's like Love which also can not be approached through logic.

Theo-logical

That's the outward study of religion which is not the same as the inner life as lived and experienced by a Lover of God.

And how do you address those who tell you that Jesus is the "Logos" mentioned in John 1?

To live that as a reality a person needs to have an inner felt feeling of Jesus, which is not based on logic.

 

[Astrid]

God can not be approached through logic. It's like Love which also can not be approached through logic.

That's the outward study of religion which is not the same as the inner life as lived and experienced by a Lover of God.

To live that as a reality a person needs to have an inner felt feeling of Jesus, which is not based on logic.

For clarity, you feel that logic, cause and effect,
physics / chem / biology have zero to say
about the nature of love?

Is there anything about the things of a
clear physical /material / mathmstical nature
that is revealed by any religion or religious thought?

Is there some reason I am missing, why one of
the many ineffableinner feeling ( same pla e all feeling are) should have primacy in one's conception of the nature of all reality?

 

[AV1611VET]

God can not be approached through logic.

I'm not talking about approaching God.

I'm talking about explaining God to others.

It's like Love which also can not be approached through logic.

I'm not talking about approaching God.

I'm talking about explaining God to others.

That's the outward study of religion ...

Using the Bible.

You know ... that Book that someone here described as not containing logic, if taken as I take It?

... which is not the same as the inner life as lived and experienced by a Lover of God.

Yes.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

That's not what I'm talking about though.

To live that as a reality a person needs to have an inner felt feeling of Jesus, which is not based on logic.

But to use the Bible as one's Standard for faith and practice, and to ultimately be judged by It, is a vital necessity for what is called "progressive sanctification."

 

[dlamberth]

I'm not talking about approaching God.

I'm talking about explaining God to others.



I'm not talking about approaching God.

I'm talking about explaining God to others.

Using logic, you will fail.

Using the Bible.

You know ... that Book that someone here described as not containing logic, if taken as I take It?

The Bible is not a book of logic. The way I see it, if the Bible is approached in a logical way, a person is missing knowledge of the inner life experiences and will come up short in their own knowledge.

Yes.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

That's not what I'm talking about though.

Trusting God is not a logical thing one does. That's the stuff of the Heart.

But to use the Bible as one's Standard for faith and practice, and to ultimately be judged by It, is a vital necessity for what is called "progressive sanctification."

Progressive Sanctification clearly is not a logical progression. And it's so personal it cannot be shared with others. But it can be seen in others in their compassion, empathy, love and in their service to those hurting and in need. That's what I see as the vital necessity. Those who live in that state are not at all bothered by the judgment of others. That's just a spiritual truth.

 

[dlamberth]

For clarity, you feel that logic, cause and effect,
physics / chem / biology have zero to say
about the nature of love?

I'm looking at the personal "experience" of Love. To approach Love as the "nature of Love" is looking outside of Love like it's an object or an something external to a person. Love is felt and lived. It's internal.

Is there anything about the things of a
clear physical /material / mathmstical nature
that is revealed by any religion or religious thought?

There's nothing physical that I can think of, though many have tried to bring the spiritual and physical together.
But....in the same breath...
Only because of what to you is the woo-woo spiritual world I live in, there is a place where the physical and spiritual can be brought together as One. But that's more in the realm of the mystics, which is a very different trajectory than what we have here in this forum. And totally outside of your list above.

Is there some reason I am missing, why one of
the many ineffableinner feeling ( same pla e all feeling are) should have primacy in one's conception of the nature of all reality?

Your just being a Human Being. Each of us has different capabilities. Your good just the way you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Using logic, you will fail.

Using mans' logic ... yes ... I will fail.

The Bible is not a book of logic.

But it contains theological truths that are absolutely necessary to worship God in the way He wants to be worshiped.

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The way I see it, if the Bible is approached in a logical way, a person is missing knowledge of the inner life experiences and will come up short in their own knowledge.

Paul says it well ...

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Trusting God is not a logical thing one does. That's the stuff of the Heart.

We do both.

We both trust God from the heart, and worship Him, using His Word as a template.

It's our Manual, our Guidebook, our Standard for faith and practice.

Progressive Sanctification clearly is not a logical progression.

It is a theological one.

And since theology is a form of logic, it is indeed a logical progression.

And it's so personal it cannot be shared with others.

Au contraire.

We call that sharing our "testimony."

But it can be seen in others in their compassion, empathy, love and in their service to those hurting and in need.

As it should.

That's what I see as the vital necessity. Those who live in that state are not at all bothered by the judgment of others. That's just a spiritual truth.

No comment.

 

[dlamberth]

Using mans' logic ... yes ... I will fail.



But it contains theological truths that are absolutely necessary to worship God in the way He wants to be worshiped.

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Containing Theological Truths are not the same as actually living them. There's guidance in Theological Truths, yes, but to actually live them is something else all together. A person can talk about the truth Love, for instance, and never actually know Love. We see it all the time.

Paul says it well ...

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:



We do both.

We both trust God from the heart, and worship Him, using His Word as a template.

It's our Manual, our Guidebook, our Standard for faith and practice.

And not at all based on logic.

It is a theological one.

And since theology is a form of logic, it is indeed a logical progression.

I'll keep saying this, Logic Progression is a very different thing than is Progressive Sanctification. One is about religion, the other IS religion.

Notice that the Sermon on the Mount is about what a person needs to do.
The Nicene Creed is what a person needs to believe.

One is of the Heart as something given by God. The other is logic as given by man.
It's the Heart stuff where God becomes alive in a person.

Au contraire.

We call that sharing our "testimony."

No one can really share heir deepest whole heart inner experience. That's where religion truly happens, in ones heart. A person can point towards it, talk around it, write poetry about it, sing about it, but those who are listening will never really be able to grasp the full extent of that deep inner religious experience.

 

[sjastro]

Which is proportional to its information content, if you wish to conceptualize it that way

Things become somewhat more complicated when a thermodynamic system undergoes a change in entropy; the information becomes the number of possible protein folding pathways available when going from the initial state to the final state and is not necessarily proportional to the number of microstates which represents all possible configurations.

The mathematics is based on the use of Markov State Models as briefly explained in this video.

 

[AV1611VET]

Containing Theological Truths are not the same as actually living them.

And the Bible contains theological truths.

Such as the Flood being real.

Remember the Flood?

That's what started this whole conversation.

Notice that the Sermon on the Mount is about what a person needs to do.
The Nicene Creed is what a person needs to believe.

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, without rocking the boat.

The Nicene Creed can take a long hike on a short pier.

 

[Astrid]

I'm looking at the personal "experience" of Love. To approach Love as the "nature of Love" is looking outside of Love like it's an object or an something external to a person. Love is felt and lived. It's internal.

There's nothing physical that I can think of, though many have tried to bring the spiritual and physical together.
But....in the same breath...
Only because of what to you is the woo-woo spiritual world I live in, there is a place where the physical and spiritual can be brought together as One. But that's more in the realm of the mystics, which is a very different trajectory than what we have here in this forum. And totally outside of your list above.

Your just being a Human Being. Each of us has different capabilities. Your good just the way you are.

" Good just the way you are" is the
most impossible thing to ever hear from
a Chinese mother.
Just tossing that in.

For the rest, let's drop it.

 

[BCP1928]

For clarity, you feel that logic, cause and effect,
physics / chem / biology have zero to say
about the nature of love?

When we are in love we don't care.

Is there anything about the things of a
clear physical /material / mathmstical nature
that is revealed by any religion or religious thought?

None whatever. That's not what religion is for. Religion is for the experience of it.

Is there some reason I am missing, why one of
the many ineffableinner feeling ( same pla e all feeling are) should have primacy in one's conception of the nature of all reality?

It's a ritual high. All religions do it. Buddhists meditate, Sufis whirl around in a circle. Western religions, especially Liturgical Christians favor a kind of theatrical performance to induce a heightened emotional state. If you don't get buzzed at church you're going to the wrong one. The nature of objective reality is irrelevant, as it is not being inquired into and will still be there after the service is over.