• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Are we evolving?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Sinful2B, Mar 13, 2008.

  1. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    Hi Skaloop

    Sorry, didn't notice your post until now.
    I wonder about a changing evolutionary state that becomes more selective by human design, as in genome manipulation and the inevitable withdrawal from a natural evolutionary cycle.
    It comes down to a question of extent within both fields.
    Again, apologies for missing your post.
     
  2. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Haha, indeed. He'll sometimes respond to a point without sound like a crazed loon, so there may be hope yet...

    There is no other kind. Evolution only applies to populations of replicators, and thus far we have only found biological systems which replicate.

    Yes. Change in a system is not evolution, but rather change in the allele frequency in a population of a replicating systems. Those three requirements must be fulfilled before it can be called evolution.
    Dirt, for instance, does not replicate, and so does not evolve. Some argue that the universe itself is one individual in a population of universes, and that black holes are a means of replication: black holes create new universes with properties akin to those of the 'parent' universe. Thus, universes evolve. Indeed, there would be a selection pressure towards favouring those universes with more black holes.
    I particularily like that idea, since it is more parsimonious than the 'many-worlds' hypothesis, and solves the teleological argument.

    But I digress.
     
  3. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private

    No, not at all. I like where you are going. I may not eventually understand where you've got too, but at least I might be able to read the signposts along the way.

    So, do stars evolve?
     
  4. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    No. Populations of stars (i.e., globular clusters, galaxies, etc)? No. Stars do not replicate in a manner condusive to evolution. At the very best, they go nova, create a nebula, and this collapses into new stars. However, there is no mechanism by which the traits of the old star are conferred onto the new star (except by chaos theory, which isn't particularily useful).

    Now, globular clusters and galaxies are populations of stars, and the frequency of various traits (stellar temperature, radius, mass, ratio of constituent atoms, etc) do vary with time. However, the important thing is that such traits are not inheritable. Thus, populations of stars do not have changes in allele frequency, which is the definition of evolution.

    That said, universes may evolve: if a universe is created whenever a black hole forms, and if the traits of that universe are determined by the traits of the previous universe, then universes will evolve. Specifically, those universes whos 'offspring' do not have traits conducive to forming black holes, then no further universes will form, and thus that 'genetic' lineage will die out. On the other hand, if one universe is particularily apt at creating black holes, then its traits will proliferate throughout the population (the multiverse, I guess).

    Of course, we have no way of knowing if universes are created by black holes, or if a universe's traits (universal constants, laws, etc) are determined by the pervious universe. Interesting theory, though.
     
  5. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +165
    Atheist
    Correct. If you don't mean specifically biological evolution, and the meaning is not clear from the context, "change" is more appropriate.
     
  6. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    Although, post nova, the nature of the issue is governed by the nature of the nova, and therefore subsequently the nature of the original star, yes?

    Although a singularity has to come from somewhere, and the nature of that somewhere carries all the traits of it's origin, yes?
     
  7. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    I
    Agreed.
    This is still a grey area though and worth some thrashing.
     
  8. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    No. The nature of the (post-nova) issue is driven by chaos theory and Brownian motion. That is, there is no correlation between the traits of a star with it's predecessor.

    That is the hypothesis, yes. However, there is no evidence to support it. It is mere conjecutre.
     
  9. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    :wave:Hi and welcome

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sinful2B [​IMG]
    Although, post nova, the nature of the issue is governed by the nature of the nova, and therefore subsequently the nature of the original star, yes?

    I am confused. You seem to be saying to different points here.
    1 - A star goes nova or supernova. This dependant upon the type of star. The issue is clearly dependant upon those two, and yet you say "No".
    Uh?
    If chaos and brownian theory do not cover it, then get your thinking cap on. You're far more clever than I, so if the theory doesn't fit . . .etc. . . . etc.
    2 - There is no KNOWN correlation to a predecessor. Tie for your thinking cap again.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sinful2B
    Although a singularity has to come from somewhere, and the nature of that somewhere carries all the traits of it's origin, yes?

    Conjecture in that something has to come from somewhere. You sure?
    It seems logical to me that if we can determine that a singularity can form in a sufficiently massive black hole, then the source of the singularity that enabled the creation of this universe has to be a sufficiently massive enough black hole, that would have been formed by gravitational collapse . . . etc . . . etc.
    Presumably, if we have a workable theory that governs singularities, then why determine conjecture when the same phenomena represents the Big Bang?
    Told you I was confused. :)
     
  10. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    My point was that the traits of the 'parent' star don't get conferred to the 'offspring'. Massive stars don't necessarily make more massive stars, for instance. Whether it goes nova of supernova is irrelevant as to the make-up of the future star (though it may affect whether a star is made or not).

    I figured that was a given. We have only been looking at stellar formation for a few hundred years maximum. We deduce the lifetime of stars by looking at a whole bunch of stars and assuming they're the sorta the same starm, but at different stages in their lifecycle. So yes, it's entirely possible we've got it all wrong.

    Because it maybe complete bull. If our universe was formed from a black hole, then yes, it would have to be at least as heavy as our universe is now (at least, according to our laws of physics, which may turn out to be wrong). The fact of the matter is we don't know. That's why it's pure conjecture: it's not even a working hypothesis yet. The mathematics haven't been formulated, since our knoweldge about the laws of physics are woefully incomplete at this stage.
     
  11. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    :wave:Hi and welcome

    Wiccan_Child - I shall take that amount of honesty as a compliment - I am indeed honoured - thankyou.

    Absolutely, yet if one looks at the whole workings of the universe, there definately seems to be interactions between events, and reactions that determine. I see no less an ability in star formation, and would assume that whatever we can witness at the microscopic level, then so should we also cosmologically.
    , but it is the relevence for which needs to be researched
    , and indeed the nature of that star. How can we assume that the instructions for life are the only instructions there are?
    I'm not so sure - without that wrongness, truth seldomly materializes. As they say, "if you can't bump something into something else and make it move, doesn't mean it hasn't been moved".

    I think the laws of physics are fine - it's where you apply them that may need to be considered.
    Maybe, but certainly the laws governing creation are not. If I were a physicist, I wouldn't be looking at how and why my laws of physics etc etc etc, but how the laws of creation can apply to my physics.
    You know what I mean by that yes? In the same way as it used to be said that Bumble-bees cannot fly.
    Thanks though - as always - first class.:wave:
     
  12. gamespotter10

    gamespotter10 Veteran

    +49
    Baptist
    we are NOT evolving for the simple reason that society has taken natural selection out of the equation.

    remember? mutation+natural selection+reproduction+time=evolution.

    we've taken natural selection out of the equation.
     
  13. Gracchus

    Gracchus Senior Veteran

    +753
    Pantheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Nonsense. The composition of the gene pool is changing. There are more people than there have ever been and that means that there is more genetic variation in the human species than there has ever been. It may seem to you that natural selection is no longer operating, but when the next large extinction event happens you will see selection with a vengeance.

    Global climate change, for instance, is going to cause crop failures, and the crash of fish populations, with resulting famine, plague, wars, and social collapse. When the great extinctions occur, natural selection goes into overdrive.

    :wave:
     
  14. Nitron

    Nitron HIKES CAN TAKE A WALK

    +147
    Agnostic
    Single
    Why not? Some still have more chance of breeding than others.
     
  15. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats

    Oh, absolutely. Cause and effect is intrinsic to our universe, and one could predict what future stars will be with enough knowledge about the current star.

    However, the traits of that star are not conferred. They are, for wnat of a better word, randomised. Big stars do not make big stars. Big stars just make more stars, of any configuration.
    For sure, chaos theory states that the state of the old system determines the new system (quantum mechanics notwithstanding), but that is irrelevant: the traits are not.

    But remember that spontaneous events and other quantum queerness have a profound effect on microscopic scales, and are neglible at macroscopic scales (especially in cosmology). And conversely, cosmology has it's own queerness: general (and special) relativity, something the quantum world emits since they don't travel at relativistic speeds.

    We don't, because there are no instructions for life. There's just... life.

    I've never heard that expression before, but I'll meditate on it, I'm sure. Anyway, you are right: there's a reason my signature has a quote about falsifiability above quotes from my deities.

    Not really. Our laws of physics may be entirely wrong models for the real laws of physics. It was not to long ago that the long-held Newtonian mechanics were summarily executed by quantum mechanics (and, later, general relativity).

    The bumblebee example was one that showed our understanding of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics was woefully inadequate. Or, more to the point, our numerical evaluations were prone to rounding errors and the like. We've fixed that now :).
     
  16. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Not quite. Natural selection is a phenomenon that emerges from evolution, just as evolution is emergent from population dynamics, or how kin selection emerges from natural selection.
    Just because we don't have natural selection any more, doesn't mean we don't evolve: the allele frequencies in the human species are still changing.
     
  17. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    So you would see life acting in much the same manner as star formation,, in that whatever gets produced and survives within it's environment, gets to exist for as long as it's environment allows?
     
  18. Edx

    Edx Senior Veteran

    +106
    Atheist


    No, its biology. Evolution the word and the biological scientific theory are different things. Just because one uses the word evolution doesnt mean its talking about the scientific theory.



    No.



    Huh?



    Evolution is the consequence of mutation and natural selection.

    So, if mutation no longer occurs and our children are just carbon genetic copies of each other, then no, we dont evolve. Also, if humans determine the reproduction of an animal in a zoo, its lineage is being artifically select. So no, evolution still occurs its just guided by humans and not natural anymore.



    Huh?



    Sounds like a film.



    We do evolve, just not naturally and very slowly since we all interbreed so much.
     
  19. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Yup. That's the basis of natural selection as well.
     
  20. Sinful2B

    Sinful2B Regular Member

    469
    +7
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    :wave:Hi and welcome

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sinful2B [​IMG]
    So you would see life acting in much the same manner as star formation,, in that whatever gets produced and survives within it's environment, gets to exist for as long as it's environment allows?

    1 - So no one thing in the Universe is more disposed to existence than anything else, other than the extraneous influences under which it finds itself, however conducive or otherwise to existence they may be?

    2 - Have you ever considered that that could equally apply to the Universe itself, in that the governing facts to the whole of existence as we see it, is governed by influences extraneous to existence itself?
     
Loading...