Statements About Evolution

[Mark Quayle]

Mathematics is the logical study based on a series of axioms. These axioms can be used as a model of the real world and so maths is useful as a logical method of studying aspects of the world that can be approximated mathematically.

This strikes me as rephrasing causation to remove the obvious contradiction but in fact simply makes the axiom false. Specifically that sources of causation need not be caused themselves.

Math is fact. Or at least, the principles behind it, that govern comprehension of fact, are not man-made arrangements for the purpose of comprehension and assessment.

My correction was not a restatement, but a correction of the strawman you had mistakenly attacked; you said that it was incoherent to claim that everything being caused meant that something had to be uncaused. I agree with that, but that is not what the law of causation says —not everything is caused.

Further reasoning shows that there is no plural to First Cause. It can only be one. There are no uncaused sources (plural) to causation, but one.

Extreme edge science like quantum theory might be harder to demonstrate... but the mathematical analysis is based on data from the physical world, not simply conjecture.

Data which is logically interpreted, no? My point is that to conclude there must be first cause, which you called special pleading, while I may not be able to prove it to the satisfaction of quantum theorists, is come to by logic, that all effects are caused, and all effects pretty obviously do not happen by mere chance —existence cannot be mere accident. Thus First Cause, possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds. If that is special pleading, unproven, then that is also how we come to cutting edge science —i.e. conjecture, upon which we attempt to produce verification.

Two reasons in my opinion.

One it seems to be an attempt to at an explanation without data and possible without the possibility of data.

Secondly I think people have a negative association due to it being commonly used without independent justification to simply insert the religious preferences of whoever is using it as a justification.

Fair enough.

It is actually difficult to define the edge cases.

One common method is by ability and inclination to reproduce, but that is not practical with extinct species.

It's interesting that you are comfortable with all arachnids being one set... but that represents more variety in genetics and structure than all primates or even all mammals.

The problem is that species is fundamentally a human label for a biological concept that doesn't have hard barriers.

Many people are happy with accepting that all cats or all canines being one group... but if you accept canines, why not bears as well?

This pattern can be demonstrated genetically to apply across all life and the fossil record support this diversification.

I think I get your point, but I'm not sure why it couldn't have diversified to the degree it has. When canines have gone, even in my lifetime, to the extremes they have, granted that it is mostly according to human intervention, I don't see how they would not have done the same over many centuries.

Non coding DNA doesn't directly "code" for the proteins that make up our bodies.

This means that mutations of this area are vastly less significant to the animals and can be passed on indefinitely.

Not sure how this is relevant or what the implications are.

It is not simply an assumption, it is also supported by evidence.

As with all the physical evidence for events over deep time a sufficiently powerful and deceptive creator could have left false evidence, but it seems unjustified to assume it.

To me it is not accurate to call it deceptive. If he did it, the creator, while he may also have intended it to provide a means of self-deception to those need an excuse not to believe, is not actually deceiving. Granted, that may contradict an earlier way I have put this notion —I don't remember— but my point is that if he did it, it is truth, and it is we who are deceived by our lack of knowledge or understanding.

To wit, if he instantly made the universe appear 14 billion years old, it IS 14 billion years old, but only from our current point of view; and I must add that even we know that time is relative. That may sound like a questionable and even unnecessary construction, but to me it is obvious that HIS point of view is the only absolute truth, and we know that he is "timeless" —not just independent of time, but the inventor and controller of time.

Dinosaurs, mega fauna mammals, synapsids, non human hominids and all manner of radically different plants and environments.

All these things leave evidence in the same places.

In my state there is evidence for giant salamanders, glaciers, continent sized river valleys, hibernating dinosaurs, volcanoes, saber toothed marsupials and giant birds.

These things can't all exist in the same place at the same time.

I get your point, but 4000 years is a long time.

It's not, but it lives in a similar environment and has similar habits, but is inexplicably more like a kangaroo internally.

I'm not seeing the point, then, of your original statement.

That sounds like a gene that can be switched on and off by environmental factors... like grasshoppers turning into locusts.

It's a different phenomena to a trait being gained or lost to mutation.

How is a gene "switched on and off by environmental factors"? I had assumed the migration of extant characteristics was by survival of the fittest over generations. Not directly action of environment upon the genes.

I understand it is a different phenomena to a trait gained or lost to mutation, and that was my point —if we are considering TOE to be dependent on mutation, then why all the talk about genes passed down (Aa with Ab equals AA etc)?

But we're talking about birds here... birds don't have teeth.

But dinosaurs did and some had feathers too. Evolution has an explanation for this situation, and Creation does not.

Some birds do have teeth, but I get your point, which to me seems to support the notion of independent sourcing of species —i.e. creationism.

 

[Phroderick]

Further reasoning shows that there is no plural to First Cause. It can only be one. There are no uncaused sources (plural) to causation, but one.

Evidence please.

 

[Shemjaza]

Math is fact. Or at least, the principles behind it, that govern comprehension of fact, are not man-made arrangements for the purpose of comprehension and assessment.

No mathematics is a logical framework derived from facts.

My correction was not a restatement, but a correction of the strawman you had mistakenly attacked; you said that it was incoherent to claim that everything being caused meant that something had to be uncaused. I agree with that, but that is not what the law of causation says —not everything is caused.

Further reasoning shows that there is no plural to First Cause. It can only be one. There are no uncaused sources (plural) to causation, but one.

Why? You have declared that one is possible, necessary even, but not defined exactly why and why there's a limit.

We have labels cause and effect and you have declared that all effects need causes, but that causes do not need to be effects and so are not necessarily constrained by the limit defined.

Data which is logically interpreted, no? My point is that to conclude there must be first cause, which you called special pleading, while I may not be able to prove it to the satisfaction of quantum theorists, is come to by logic, that all effects are caused, and all effects pretty obviously do not happen by mere chance —existence cannot be mere accident. Thus First Cause, possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds. If that is special pleading, unproven, then that is also how we come to cutting edge science —i.e. conjecture, upon which we attempt to produce verification.

I don't see justification for any of these assertions.

There are unknowns and maybe unknowable but I balk at defining into existence whole separate categories and rules of existence.

"existence cannot be mere accident" why?

"Thus First Cause, possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds." Why?

I think I get your point, but I'm not sure why it couldn't have diversified to the degree it has. When canines have gone, even in my lifetime, to the extremes they have, granted that it is mostly according to human intervention, I don't see how they would not have done the same over many centuries.

Basically it's too fast and not supported by evidence.

Variation on the scale required needs fatal levels of mutation from generation to generation.

Not sure how this is relevant or what the implications are.

Because non-coding DNA is not massively effected by natural selection it receives random mutations at a random rate over generations... this gives us a genetic clock about time separate for different family trees.

To me it is not accurate to call it deceptive. If he did it, the creator, while he may also have intended it to provide a means of self-deception to those need an excuse not to believe, is not actually deceiving. Granted, that may contradict an earlier way I have put this notion —I don't remember— but my point is that if he did it, it is truth, and it is we who are deceived by our lack of knowledge or understanding.

To wit, if he instantly made the universe appear 14 billion years old, it IS 14 billion years old, but only from our current point of view; and I must add that even we know that time is relative. That may sound like a questionable and even unnecessary construction, but to me it is obvious that HIS point of view is the only absolute truth, and we know that he is "timeless" —not just independent of time, but the inventor and controller of time.

The point is that the evidence for deep time isn't just traits found in old materials, it's evidence for millions of years of events occurring.

Creating a deliberate trap for the incredulous strikes me as doubly deceptive.

I get your point, but 4000 years is a long time.

Except it absolutely is not.

We have archaeological records and very well preserved remains from thousands of years ago... but no dinosaurs, no synapsids and no Homo erectus from that period.

That's before we get to evidence for deserts and glaciers in the same regions.

I'm not seeing the point, then, of your original statement.

At a glance they look almost the same, but structurally and genetically they are different stock.

Evolution has an explanation, Creation does not.

How is a gene "switched on and off by environmental factors"? I had assumed the migration of extant characteristics was by survival of the fittest over generations. Not directly action of environment upon the genes.

I understand it is a different phenomena to a trait gained or lost to mutation, and that was my point —if we are considering TOE to be dependent on mutation, then why all the talk about genes passed down (Aa with Ab equals AA etc)?

Genetics is very complicated and one particular type gene that can be passed on are those that can be triggered by environmental effects.

Evolution acts on variation found in a population, so the Aa, Ab etc, but mutation is the source of the variation.

Some birds do have teeth, but I get your point, which to me seems to support the notion of independent sourcing of species —i.e. creationism.

Except separate omnipotent Creation offers no justification for independent creations having common remnants of unrelated species.

Dolphins and whales don't need mammalian hips and genes for four limbs.

 

[Kylie]

Mathematical propositions are falsifiable, but math itself is not.

Given that we use mathematics as a language with which to describe the universe, I think that if maths was wrong, then we wouldn't be able to describe the universe.

"Similarities suggest" doesn't seem to me to demonstrate even as much as "existence demands first cause". A common designer is (to me) easily as likely a reason for the similarities as TOE. But after your beginnings of the reasoning behind TOE and discussions with @Shemjaza in particular, I'm not even sure just what the TOE is, other than a naturalistic description of what we already know, taken to the extreme of a single common ancestor for all living things, as opposed to unvariegated single basic species examples, complete with potential for adaptation. If the ear of the bat works well for the bat, why shouldn't the giraffe have a similar construction?

Because bats and giraffes use their ears for very different reasons. Bats use it for echolocation, a highly specialized activity that requires specific equipment. And yet the equipment they use is cobbled together from the ears that the bat's common ancestor with giraffes had - and that was a creature that did not use echolocation.

That seems to me to assume an awful lot. Why should genetic migration be at a consistent rate? Have things always been the same as they are now? Is all genetic adaptation equal in propagation rate and death of the unfit? (Lol, sorry, but it seems there's an awful lot you're going to have to show me to convince me.)

Here's a website that covers it better than I can. Rate of Evolutionary Change

Like I said before to someone, one obvious reason is so that we would wonder and talk about it.

However, this doesn't really work. If we had no knowledge of any religious belief, and only got information from the real world, all evidence would point towards evolution.

Also, so that those who want to ignore or deny him can find an excuse to do so.

That doesn't really make much sense to me. It's like saying that if I wanted to sell antiques, I should have a room where I can artificially age modern items. And the only reason I should have this is so if someone wants to believe that everything I sell is modern, they have a reason to claim that a real antique that I'm selling is just another modern piece. It makes no sense, and it's bordering on deceptive.

Also, so that the different species can adapt more than we might imagine that they can, to different environments.

And yet a whale, a completely aquatic animal that still requires lungs and doesn't have gills is not more adapted to its lifestyle than a shark.

And I haven't much doubt there are many more reasons that I am not aware of.

I don't wish to sound rude, but the reasons you've presented don't really strike me as particularly valid.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Evidence please.

Multiple [supposed] first causes implies both causation by chance (which is self-contradictory) and impingement of one upon the other, implying that one or the other is actually not first cause. First Cause has no impingement by (is not affected by) any principle from outside itself. Look up Aseity of God, for more information.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No mathematics is a logical framework derived from facts.

Ok, then you and I have different ideas of what 'math' is. I'm talking about the logic

Why? You have declared that one is possible, necessary even, but not defined exactly why and why there's a limit.

We have labels cause and effect and you have declared that all effects need causes, but that causes do not need to be effects and so are not necessarily constrained by the limit defined.

I don't see justification for any of these assertions.

There are unknowns and maybe unknowable but I balk at defining into existence whole separate categories and rules of existence.

"existence cannot be mere accident" why?

"Thus First Cause, possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds." Why?

From #185:

Multiple [supposed] first causes implies both causation by chance (which is self-contradictory) and impingement of one upon the other, necessarily implying that one or the other (or both) is actually not first cause. First Cause has no impingement by (is not affected by) any principle from outside itself. Look up Aseity of God, for more information.

'By mere accident' is causation by chance, which is self-contradictory. Cause and effect is pervasive.

Why is "first cause possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds"? Because it is first cause. Nothing causes it. Not even the principle of existence. But it causes all other things, to include the principle of existence as all other things are subject to. (It does not even cause its own existence, as is logically obvious, being a self-contradictory notion, as it would have to first exist in order to cause its own existence; therefore, existence is endemic to its nature, but more to the point, its existence is not at all of the same nature as all other things —we only consider it so because we don't know how to grasp the total 'otherness' of first cause compared to its effects. ALL things come from it and depend upon it for their existence, if they exist. First cause is not defined or bound by our concept, "existence". Instead, existence is defined and bound by first cause.

Basically it's too fast and not supported by evidence.

Variation on the scale required needs fatal levels of mutation from generation to generation.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. (Not saying I'm convinced, but I have no argument against it.) But like I have said elsewhere, when one takes into account the level of difference you seem to require many more years to produce, then how did millions of years produce such variety from a single-celled living organism, even if life began immediately when the planet was cooled enough? It seems to me that too many 'positive' reproducible mutations would have to happen.

Because non-coding DNA is not massively effected by natural selection it receives random mutations at a random rate over generations... this gives us a genetic clock about time separate for different family trees.

I'll take your wording there to mean, not truly random, but that we don't know the reasons. Absolute chance can cause nothing.

Not to criticize the principle you invoke, but I'm a little confused how a genetic clock can be calculated by this 'randomness' in mutations and particularly in the 'randomness' in rate of mutations.

I expect that isn't really your point as to the importance of non-coding DNA and the fact that it is not massively affected (or did you mean "not massively effected", which would seem to me to show it is not all that important after all.) But, admittedly, I still don't understand what it even is, in spite of your careful explanations.

The point is that the evidence for deep time isn't just traits found in old materials, it's evidence for millions of years of events occurring.

Creating a deliberate trap for the incredulous strikes me as doubly deceptive.

If it was mere incredulity, that could be one thing, but the implication is incredulity for the sake of self-determination, as the notion of a creator invokes the implication of submission to an absolute authority beyond one's self. But if indeed it is only logical incredulity, for lack of convincing reason or for lack of intelligence, it is still not morally wrong for first cause to do what it does in this. First cause owes no creature anything.

Except it absolutely is not.

We have archaeological records and very well preserved remains from thousands of years ago... but no dinosaurs, no synapsids and no Homo erectus from that period.

That's before we get to evidence for deserts and glaciers in the same regions.

Wait — no homo erectus from thousands of years ago? How many thousands? I thought you were saying the migration of DNA for the variety of dogs we have is too severe for many hundreds of years? (According to the calculations, from what I understand, 40 to 50 hundred).

At a glance they look almost the same, but structurally and genetically they are different stock.

Evolution has an explanation, Creation does not.

Creation doesn't have a satisfactory explanation for you, granted.

Genetics is very complicated and one particular type gene that can be passed on are those that can be triggered by environmental effects.

Evolution acts on variation found in a population, so the Aa, Ab etc, but mutation is the source of the variation.

Yet mutation —isn't that generally non-conducive to longevity and reproduction? Anyhow, the amount of complication of genetics you assert doesn't seem to line up with what @Kylie is trying to tell me. At least, I haven't heard any hint of TOE being dependent on mutation from her.

As for your first statement here, I'll just (again) have to take your word for it that there are genes (is this mutated genes?) passed on particularly effected (and/or affected) by environmental effects (since I'm not sure just what you mean by 'triggered').

Except separate omnipotent Creation offers no justification for independent creations having common remnants of unrelated species.

Dolphins and whales don't need mammalian hips and genes for four limbs.

Sure dolphins and whales need mammalian hips and genes for four limbs! That is their skeletal structure by which they are able to move. If the creator designed mammals to spend their whole lives in the water, why should they be built with fish skeletons? They seem to do very well in the water. I don't say this to mock you. I just don't understand where the problem is.

Edit: forgot to finish. "Separate omnipotent Creation" owes nobody any justification. You are welcome to not accept notions of creation, but I think it should at least be considered and probably, by people more intelligent and learned than myself, who may be able to come up with very good arguments for it.

 

[Kylie]

Yet mutation —isn't that generally non-conducive to longevity and reproduction? Anyhow, the amount of complication of genetics you assert doesn't seem to line up with what @Kylie is trying to tell me. At least, I haven't heard any hint of TOE being dependent on mutation from her.

We've already covered how different individuals in a population have slightly different traits. Mutation is how those traits came to be. I have blue eyes, my husband has brown eyes. My blue eyes are the result of a mutation long ago that someone had.

"Mutation" just means "a slight change in a gene."

Mutations occur when the genetic code (the genotype) is copied and a small mistake creeps in. As a result of this, the effect of the gene that has changed can be different. We say this is a different phenotype. A phenotype is the characteristics an organism has, and it's the result of the the way the genotype interacts with the environment.

Sure dolphins and whales need mammalian hips and genes for four limbs! That is their skeletal structure by which they are able to move. If the creator designed mammals to spend their whole lives in the water, why should they be built with fish skeletons? They seem to do very well in the water. I don't say this to mock you. I just don't understand where the problem is.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way around. Don't think of it as "How would we change a mammal to be able to live as a completely aquatic organism." Instead, think of it as, "If I'm going to create a completely aquatic organism, how will I do it."

Starting with a mammalian plan for an aquatic organism doesn't make sense. Mammals are adapted to life on land, so to alter them to be aquatic you have to make a bunch of compromises. And there are some problems that just can't be overcome, like giving them lungs when they live in a medium they can't breathe.

And there's just no reason to go and make aquatic organisms out of mammals when you've already got an excellent plan to work from that avoids all the problems you'll get with adapting a mammalian plan.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It may be a mood thing; I'm not sure why I am answering you and @Shemjaza like I am tonight. Not serious enough even for my satisfaction. Anyhow, I decided to write here what I would normally have written at the end, so you don't need to continue down these rabbit trails we have started.

It seems obvious, as with most Atheists (and to a huge degree I admire this) that you both feel a NEED for falsifiable and if possible empirically defended (if not also constructed) data and conclusions (yes, conclusions are data of a sort). I recognize that I have not provided that in my objections and claims. But my original intentions were not to convince you of the validity of my objections, so much as to show what they are. You have not yet defeated them, not because your reasoning is not better than mine, but because I have not all the knowledge you have, and I no doubt have biases besides. I would appreciate you continuing to attempt to destroy my objections, but it isn't working by going down these trails. I think perhaps it will go better by continuing what you started, bearing in mind, if useful to do so, that I do have these objections, that hopefully will be put aside as I learn more.

Anyhow, again, thank you.

Given that we use mathematics as a language with which to describe the universe, I think that if maths was wrong, then we wouldn't be able to describe the universe.

Agreed. And I hope you don't find it surprising that I agree with that statement. Logic is math based, they say. I say math is logic based, but ok. Either way, we do think in mathematical concepts. Value; combination, extraction, interaction, comparison, etc; result. Logical sequence.

Because bats and giraffes use their ears for very different reasons. Bats use it for echolocation, a highly specialized activity that requires specific equipment. And yet the equipment they use is cobbled together from the ears that the bat's common ancestor with giraffes had - and that was a creature that did not use echolocation.

Echolocation is still hearing. Why shouldn't it have become specialized? Bloodhounds have better noses than most dogs. I guess I just don't get your point. (Lol, maybe my ancestry naturally developed a harder head than your ancestry! My parents could both be stubborn —it got them by; they died of other causes, but not before producing 9 surviving stubborn offspring.)

Here's a website that covers it better than I can. Rate of Evolutionary Change

B-b-b-b-b but I told you I don't care enough to resea.....ok. I'll look it up. Thanks for the link. And thanks for taking you time to do this. Sincerely.

However, this doesn't really work. If we had no knowledge of any religious belief, and only got information from the real world, all evidence would point towards evolution.

That sounds like an assumption I heard on another 'discussion' site, that all children are born atheists.

That doesn't really make much sense to me. It's like saying that if I wanted to sell antiques, I should have a room where I can artificially age modern items. And the only reason I should have this is so if someone wants to believe that everything I sell is modern, they have a reason to claim that a real antique that I'm selling is just another modern piece. It makes no sense, and it's bordering on deceptive.

Yeah, extra complication, not the simplest explanation, etc. Ok, just so you maybe can get a better idea where my reasoning has gone: consider this from the POV that (IF there is first cause) first cause may have (not that we can do that, but just consider) —Humans are egocentric in their thinking. But first cause is the default fact, not human reasoning, human dependence on logic, human assumption of having no assumed bases that leave out any important facts —in fact, if there is first cause, IT is the source of logic, math, and all else. IF first cause exists, then our reasoning, while fun and sometimes rather along the correct lines, is necessarily short of the facts.

But first cause has no obligation to make the facts fit our conceptions and our mode of reasoning, in order to be true. That may not feel fair or satisfactory, but...

—But here I've strayed from where I meant to be going with this. I hope it shows up again. I liked it so much!

And yet a whale, a completely aquatic animal that still requires lungs and doesn't have gills is not more adapted to its lifestyle than a shark.

Of course. So what? I bet it is happier than the shark.

I don't wish to sound rude, but the reasons you've presented don't really strike me as particularly valid.

No, I suppose not. And I didn't really expect otherwise, yet... Oh well. Thus the reason I present my conclusion concerning this line of discussion at the beginning of this post.

 

[Kylie]

It may be a mood thing; I'm not sure why I am answering you and @Shemjaza like I am tonight. Not serious enough even for my satisfaction. Anyhow, I decided to write here what I would normally have written at the end, so you don't need to continue down these rabbit trails we have started.

It seems obvious, as with most Atheists (and to a huge degree I admire this) that you both feel a NEED for falsifiable and if possible empirically defended (if not also constructed) data and conclusions (yes, conclusions are data of a sort). I recognize that I have not provided that in my objections and claims. But my original intentions were not to convince you of the validity of my objections, so much as to show what they are. You have not yet defeated them, not because your reasoning is not better than mine, but because I have not all the knowledge you have, and I no doubt have biases besides. I would appreciate you continuing to attempt to destroy my objections, but it isn't working by going down these trails. I think perhaps it will go better by continuing what you started, bearing in mind, if useful to do so, that I do have these objections, that hopefully will be put aside as I learn more.

Anyhow, again, thank you.

I think my preference for falsifiable claims is that if a claim is not falsifiable, there's no way to know how accurate it is.

Echolocation is still hearing. Why shouldn't it have become specialized? Bloodhounds have better noses than most dogs. I guess I just don't get your point. (Lol, maybe my ancestry naturally developed a harder head than your ancestry! My parents could both be stubborn —it got them by; they died of other causes, but not before producing 9 surviving stubborn offspring.)

But my point is that the mammalian ear is, on average, nowhere near as good as a bat's ear. So, if you were a designer and you had to make a superb ear specifically for echolocation, would you start with an off-the-shelf model that you'd need to tinker with to get it to the standard you want, or would you design an echolocation ear from scratch, thereby avoiding the need for tinkering? Plus, as we saw with the recurrent laryngeal nerve, this tinker often ends up with flaws and trouble spots that can be avoided if you design it from scratch.

B-b-b-b-b but I told you I don't care enough to resea.....ok. I'll look it up. Thanks for the link. And thanks for taking you time to do this. Sincerely.

That sounds like an assumption I heard on another 'discussion' site, that all children are born atheists.

Not quite the same thing, but on that topic, I've never heard of anyone who turned to religion without having been exposed to it by someone else.

Yeah, extra complication, not the simplest explanation, etc. Ok, just so you maybe can get a better idea where my reasoning has gone: consider this from the POV that (IF there is first cause) first cause may have (not that we can do that, but just consider) —Humans are egocentric in their thinking. But first cause is the default fact, not human reasoning, human dependence on logic, human assumption of having no assumed bases that leave out any important facts —in fact, if there is first cause, IT is the source of logic, math, and all else. IF first cause exists, then our reasoning, while fun and sometimes rather along the correct lines, is necessarily short of the facts.

But first cause has no obligation to make the facts fit our conceptions and our mode of reasoning, in order to be true. That may not feel fair or satisfactory, but...

—But here I've strayed from where I meant to be going with this. I hope it shows up again. I liked it so much!

It's also needlessly complicated. Occam's razor would seem to apply.

Of course. So what? I bet it is happier than the shark.

Why would the amount of happiness apply to evolution?

 

[Shemjaza]

From #185:

Multiple [supposed] first causes implies both causation by chance (which is self-contradictory) and impingement of one upon the other, necessarily implying that one or the other (or both) is actually not first cause. First Cause has no impingement by (is not affected by) any principle from outside itself. Look up Aseity of God, for more information.

'By mere accident' is causation by chance, which is self-contradictory. Cause and effect is pervasive.

Why is "first cause possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds"? Because it is first cause. Nothing causes it. Not even the principle of existence. But it causes all other things, to include the principle of existence as all other things are subject to. (It does not even cause its own existence, as is logically obvious, being a self-contradictory notion, as it would have to first exist in order to cause its own existence; therefore, existence is endemic to its nature, but more to the point, its existence is not at all of the same nature as all other things —we only consider it so because we don't know how to grasp the total 'otherness' of first cause compared to its effects. ALL things come from it and depend upon it for their existence, if they exist. First cause is not defined or bound by our concept, "existence". Instead, existence is defined and bound by first cause.

I'm missing some issues:
'By mere accident' is causation by chance, which is self-contradictory. Cause and effect is pervasive.

I don't understand this chain of logic, can you explain?


Multiple [supposed] first causes implies both causation by chance

I don't understand why if something in the singular is possible that concept can't be plural.


Aseity of God...
...
Why is "first cause possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds"? Because it is first cause. Nothing causes it.

You are declaring it as singular and that nothing else can have the property of being an uncaused cause... surely that's the definition of special pleading and begging the question.

I'm not certain that true randomness or chance really exist... but I don't see a justification for ignoring them.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. (Not saying I'm convinced, but I have no argument against it.) But like I have said elsewhere, when one takes into account the level of difference you seem to require many more years to produce, then how did millions of years produce such variety from a single-celled living organism, even if life began immediately when the planet was cooled enough? It seems to me that too many 'positive' reproducible mutations would have to happen.

It took billions of years to get to the complexity to take advantage of the available material to form the sort of complex life we see today.

There is also a chain of complexity that links basic organic chemistry to non-living evolving replicators similar (similar to RNA and viruses) to very simple life forms to actual cell structures.

The interesting that is that many of the necessary steps are still perfectly valid forms of survival. Single celled life and colony life forms are still thriving today... but there was a time when that's all there was.

I'll take your wording there to mean, not truly random, but that we don't know the reasons. Absolute chance can cause nothing.

Not to criticize the principle you invoke, but I'm a little confused how a genetic clock can be calculated by this 'randomness' in mutations and particularly in the 'randomness' in rate of mutations.

I expect that isn't really your point as to the importance of non-coding DNA and the fact that it is not massively affected (or did you mean "not massively effected", which would seem to me to show it is not all that important after all.) But, admittedly, I still don't understand what it even is, in spite of your careful explanations.

I appologise if I've been unclear.

Non coding DNA fundamentally isn't as important as coding DNA, but it can still have some limited effect. (You may have heard its out of date name: Junk DNA).

Mutations are as close to random as we can determine and cause changes to DNA anywhere along the chain.

Changes to the coding DNA is more likely to have a measurable effect on the life form, but changes to the non-coding section do not... this means they will be continually be passed down unchanged by the filter of natural selection so we can compare degrees of change between populations to see how much change has occurred.

Mutations of this sort may be unpredictable individually, but over a population over significant time they become statistically measurable.

If it was mere incredulity, that could be one thing, but the implication is incredulity for the sake of self-determination, as the notion of a creator invokes the implication of submission to an absolute authority beyond one's self. But if indeed it is only logical incredulity, for lack of convincing reason or for lack of intelligence, it is still not morally wrong for first cause to do what it does in this. First cause owes no creature anything.

This is flawed in a couple of ways.

Firstly is that many of the people who accept the evidence of deep time, evolution and astrophysics still have faith in a creator as the first cause. (For example in the USA Christians who accept evolution outnumber atheists of all varieties).

Secondly it's not simply a moral judgement about not trusting deceivers... it's practical. If I have reason to suspect that a source will sometimes deliberately mislead, I don't have a reason to assume it's being honest at other times.

Wait — no homo erectus from thousands of years ago? How many thousands? I thought you were saying the migration of DNA for the variety of dogs we have is too severe for many hundreds of years? (According to the calculations, from what I understand, 40 to 50 hundred).

The very last Homo erectus have been dead for over 100 thousand years and the rest of them have been gone for a lot longer.

Dogs are not particularly genetically diverse, they have a lot of physical differences from recent mutations, but they are genetically still extremely similar to wolves.

Humans were able to interbreed with two other types of hominid and they were genetically more different than dogs are from all other breeds.

Some of the more recent types of hominid:

Yet mutation —isn't that generally non-conducive to longevity and reproduction? Anyhow, the amount of complication of genetics you assert doesn't seem to line up with what @Kylie is trying to tell me. At least, I haven't heard any hint of TOE being dependent on mutation from her.

I'm sorry if I've caused some confusion.

Mutation is almost all of the time neutral as far as survival goes.

You and I probably have 40 or 50 mutations ourselves.

As for your first statement here, I'll just (again) have to take your word for it that there are genes (is this mutated genes?) passed on particularly effected (and/or affected) by environmental effects (since I'm not sure just what you mean by 'triggered').

It's an added complication to genetics called Epigenetics. I'm an interested layman and not actually a biologist, so bear with me.

Environmental effects can trigger changes in some organisms so that certain genetic traits they have can be activated in their offspring.

Grasshoppers and locusts are the same species, but the environment can trigger the change from the solitary grasshopper to the swarming locust and continue for generations till a trigger to turn back.

Sure dolphins and whales need mammalian hips and genes for four limbs! That is their skeletal structure by which they are able to move. If the creator designed mammals to spend their whole lives in the water, why should they be built with fish skeletons? They seem to do very well in the water. I don't say this to mock you. I just don't understand where the problem is.

The problem is that dolphins and whales don't have four limbs... they only have the two at the front.

But they have switched off genes for hind legs.

Edit: forgot to finish. "Separate omnipotent Creation" owes nobody any justification. You are welcome to not accept notions of creation, but I think it should at least be considered and probably, by people more intelligent and learned than myself, who may be able to come up with very good arguments for it.

I'm always interested in the possibility that I'm wrong.

An advantage of atheism is that it doesn't particularly encourage conviction.

However, I find the evidence for evolution, deep time and astrophysics vastly more compelling than the Creationist counterpoints.

Something may well one day convince me in some religious belief... but even if that were so, I doubt I'd abandon the scientific method as a way of understanding and studying the physical world.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We've already covered how different individuals in a population have slightly different traits. Mutation is how those traits came to be. I have blue eyes, my husband has brown eyes. My blue eyes are the result of a mutation long ago that someone had.

"Mutation" just means "a slight change in a gene."

Mutations occur when the genetic code (the genotype) is copied and a small mistake creeps in. As a result of this, the effect of the gene that has changed can be different. We say this is a different phenotype. A phenotype is the characteristics an organism has, and it's the result of the the way the genotype interacts with the environment.

Ok, finally. Maybe that should have been obvious to me by way of implication from other things you and others have said, but now I see the reasoning a bit better. If a mutation occurs, however, I still don't see how the environment CAUSED the mutation, except we know, for example that thalidomide causes mutations. What I'm trying to say is that it seems that @Shemjaza was saying that environment doesn't just cause mutations in general, ('random', as he said), but that it steers mutations toward better suitability toward that environment. If it is just 'random' (sorry, but I don't believe 'random' or 'chance' or strict 'chaos' and such is good logical terminology, unless all we mean by it is "we don't know" and so "it seems random") then it produces mostly unsuitable mutations and possibly a (or some) mutations better suited to the environment and procreation, but all by 'accident', the less suitable weeded out. If all he meant was survival of the fittest, it didn't sound like it. I don't think the human gene is built to perceive the environment in such a way that it tends to steer toward it.

So, concerning this, the creationist viewpoint is that the tendencies that are already present in the organism's genetics become prevalent by survival of the fittest. The evolutionist view is that they become present in the organism by mutation. My question is not in order to support the creationist view, but to help me understand: If the mutation is present in only one parent, how is the offspring going to display that mutation? Would not both parents have to have the same mutation? It seems like I already asked this once, but I don't remember the answer, or at least, I don't remember why not both parents...

I think you're looking at this the wrong way around. Don't think of it as "How would we change a mammal to be able to live as a completely aquatic organism." Instead, think of it as, "If I'm going to create a completely aquatic organism, how will I do it."

Starting with a mammalian plan for an aquatic organism doesn't make sense. Mammals are adapted to life on land, so to alter them to be aquatic you have to make a bunch of compromises. And there are some problems that just can't be overcome, like giving them lungs when they live in a medium they can't breathe.

And there's just no reason to go and make aquatic organisms out of mammals when you've already got an excellent plan to work from that avoids all the problems you'll get with adapting a mammalian plan.

Why should I "think of it as" any particular way? If you mean, only so I can follow the evolutionist reasoning, then ok. But that seems pretty artificial to me, and if I may say so, a bit presumptuous. Why should the apparently (to us) easiest or most efficient design be the way to expect the creator to do anything? By 'alter' a land-based form, the evolutionist assumes it IS a land-based form, adapted to water life. Creationism would say, it is a mammalian form, designed for water life. One might delight in the evolutionist's view, since the reasoning feels more mechanically solid or something, but that doesn't eliminate the creationist's view.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think my preference for falsifiable claims is that if a claim is not falsifiable, there's no way to know how accurate it is.

And, entering onto the stage.... Faith, a necessary player. (Yeah, I'm still in a mood, lol.)

Not quite the same thing, but on that topic, I've never heard of anyone who turned to religion without having been exposed to it by someone else.

Good point, that! You might even say it is unnecessarily complicated for God to be expressed or represented by other people, but that isn't faith. Religion isn't faith. And not all religion is focused on the creator.

It's also needlessly complicated. Occam's razor would seem to apply.

'Unnecessarily' is in the eye of the beholder. But, Occam's razor is a general principle, not always applicable. Besides, as I've said before, TOE seems unnecessarily complicated, to me, so far. Every time I have an objection, there's a necessary "but...". Like when I say the strict use of genetic transmission principles you began to explain to me, have all sorts of, "Well, it's more complicated than that." That doesn't mean that simple logic doesn't reign, but it's a long complicated chain of cause and effect, with no beginning that I have seen.

But granted, I have no proof it is wrong. Just questions and a good measure of ignorance.

Why would the amount of happiness apply to evolution?

Well, if environment directly affects genes, I should think a happy cow is more likely to produce healthy calves. (Yes, that's a little facetious.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm missing some issues:
'By mere accident' is causation by chance, which is self-contradictory. Cause and effect is pervasive.

I don't understand this chain of logic, can you explain?

Multiple [supposed] first causes implies both causation by chance

I don't understand why if something in the singular is possible that concept can't be plural.

Aseity of God...
...
Why is "first cause possessing of existence in itself, and from which existence proceeds"? Because it is first cause. Nothing causes it.

You are declaring it as singular and that nothing else can have the property of being an uncaused cause... surely that's the definition of special pleading and begging the question.

I'm not certain that true randomness or chance really exist... but I don't see a justification for ignoring them.

All your objections fit into the same category, to me. It's pretty simple, really. 'First cause' implies existence in itself, not by any exterior principle. If there is more than one, then there is an external principle, if no other, of co-existence. All other 'co-existences' are derived from first cause.

It took billions of years to get to the complexity to take advantage of the available material to form the sort of complex life we see today.

There is also a chain of complexity that links basic organic chemistry to non-living evolving replicators similar (similar to RNA and viruses) to very simple life forms to actual cell structures.

The interesting that is that many of the necessary steps are still perfectly valid forms of survival. Single celled life and colony life forms are still thriving today... but there was a time when that's all there was.

I don't know enough not to say that the odds seem overwhelming against the success of the venture.

Mutations are as close to random as we can determine and cause changes to DNA anywhere along the chain.

I like this use of "random". Well done.

I appologise if I've been unclear.

Non coding DNA fundamentally isn't as important as coding DNA, but it can still have some limited effect. (You may have heard its out of date name: Junk DNA).

Mutations are as close to random as we can determine and cause changes to DNA anywhere along the chain.

Changes to the coding DNA is more likely to have a measurable effect on the life form, but changes to the non-coding section do not... this means they will be continually be passed down unchanged by the filter of natural selection so we can compare degrees of change between populations to see how much change has occurred.

Mutations of this sort may be unpredictable individually, but over a population over significant time they become statistically measurable.

This makes some sense to me. Though 'significant time' is not very specific, plus, I don't see how this makes.... maybe I better use a poor example: If, shall we say, a temperate climate and good grazing (and a non-increasing proportional population of predators or whatever else makes for constancy of environment) for a couple hundred years produces a good crop of vegetarians, and little happens evolution-wise, where/how do you draw the line between that measurement and the effects of the big asteroid in your calculation of rate? It seems to me more 'random' than we can calculate. Is the situation continually repeated?

According to some paleontologists, archeologists and geologists, Palestine and a good portion of surrounding lands was at one time a lush green land, but has since become a difficult place to live. They have found, under the ice in Greenland, fence posts, making one think it might have once been green. Radical changes have happened throughout history, making me think it would be difficult indeed to calculate rate of change in any consistent way.

This is flawed in a couple of ways.

Firstly is that many of the people who accept the evidence of deep time, evolution and astrophysics still have faith in a creator as the first cause. (For example in the USA Christians who accept evolution outnumber atheists of all varieties).

No doubt. In fact, I can see at least one way to conjecture that TOE and a literal Genesis 1 are compatible. Even if I become convinced of TOE it doesn't begin to shake my faith, (and obviously, not my belief in first cause).

Secondly it's not simply a moral judgement about not trusting deceivers... it's practical. If I have reason to suspect that a source will sometimes deliberately mislead, I don't have a reason to assume it's being honest at other times.

As with my trust in the accuracy of Genesis 1, I don't see the misleading as only misleading, but only to some people. God isn't here to convince as many as possible, but only those he has predetermined to convince. He can do as he pleases. Very practical.

However, granted, I could have it wrong, and in many respects, no matter what I think and believe, my view is always colored and wrong, falling short of the facts. As is anyone else's. This applies to the theology I argue every day here, too. It is not misleading by God that makes me too ignorant to understand what is beyond me. Logic can only go so far when data is missing.

Some of the more recent types of hominid:

I'm sorry if I've caused some confusion.

Mutation is almost all of the time neutral as far as survival goes.

You and I probably have 40 or 50 mutations ourselves.

Wait! I personally know J and M! L looks familiar and I resemble N except that it lacks the domed top of my head. It does have the same vacant look of the eyes and missing teeth though. I bet I have at least 60 mutations, several not so latent. But then, I will probably only be a grandfather by way of adoption. (But I'm good with that.)

But it's good to know mutation is usually neutral as far as survival (and, hopefully, reproduction).

It's an added complication to genetics called Epigenetics. I'm an interested layman and not actually a biologist, so bear with me.

Environmental effects can trigger changes in some organisms so that certain genetic traits they have can be activated in their offspring.

Now that's satisfying to hear. I have always suspected so, and it makes sense. I have wondered why they don't like to breed old dogs, although I know one old dog I would dearly love to have a pup off of. (But maybe that's a different issue, I don't know.)

Grasshoppers and locusts are the same species, but the environment can trigger the change from the solitary grasshopper to the swarming locust and continue for generations till a trigger to turn back.

The problem is that dolphins and whales don't have four limbs... they only have the two at the front.

But they have switched off genes for hind legs.

Yes, I understand that, which is one of the points that Creationists use to show that the species doesn't change species by mutation, but migrates to extant examples by latent genetic disposition.

I'm always interested in the possibility that I'm wrong.

An advantage of atheism is that it doesn't particularly encourage conviction.

Good point there, too. But, in my experience, faith encourages exploration. I always want to know more.

However, I find the evidence for evolution, deep time and astrophysics vastly more compelling than the Creationist counterpoints.

Something may well one day convince me in some religious belief... but even if that were so, I doubt I'd abandon the scientific method as a way of understanding and studying the physical world.

I can't deny the logic of first cause. Not that it denies TOE, but, first things first...

 

[Shemjaza]

All your objections fit into the same category, to me. It's pretty simple, really. 'First cause' implies existence in itself, not by any exterior principle. If there is more than one, then there is an external principle, if no other, of co-existence. All other 'co-existences' are derived from first cause.

I can't see independent reasoning for the traits you assign to the First cause, just that by definition it's unique.

By allowing for the existence of a singular instance of an uncaused source of causation you have declared it possible. The addition of further traits also not in direct evidence don't change this initial point.

I don't know enough not to say that the odds seem overwhelming against the success of the venture.

The scale of the biosphere and the number of generations possible in billions of years do a whole lot to flatten out probabilities.

There's also the fact that complex and specialised forms of life have advantages in environments without competitors, so if they get over the hurdle of existing, there's no reason for them not to thrive and diversify.

This makes some sense to me. Though 'significant time' is not very specific, plus, I don't see how this makes.... maybe I better use a poor example: If, shall we say, a temperate climate and good grazing (and a non-increasing proportional population of predators or whatever else makes for constancy of environment) for a couple hundred years produces a good crop of vegetarians, and little happens evolution-wise, where/how do you draw the line between that measurement and the effects of the big asteroid in your calculation of rate? It seems to me more 'random' than we can calculate. Is the situation continually repeated?

Perhaps instead of significant time, I should have said significant number of generations.

When you refer to the "big asteroid" are you referring to the one that did in the dinosaurs? That was a very long time before most varieties of mammals even existed.

According to some paleontologists, archeologists and geologists, Palestine and a good portion of surrounding lands was at one time a lush green land, but has since become a difficult place to live. They have found, under the ice in Greenland, fence posts, making one think it might have once been green. Radical changes have happened throughout history, making me think it would be difficult indeed to calculate rate of change in any consistent way.

You need to confirm exactly how significant changes you are talking about.

While ancient Mesopotamia was more fertile and green than it is today, it was still overall a very dry and deserted place. You just have to read all the descriptions of lifestyle and environment in the Bible.

In the region the green areas were in the river deltas and a combination of thousands of years of farming, harvesting forests and comparatively vast cities being built in what used to be the prime farm land of the ancient world have changed that.

Greenland is an example of settlements put down in a brief bit of history when Europe went through a small period of increased warming in the medieval period.

No doubt. In fact, I can see at least one way to conjecture that TOE and a literal Genesis 1 are compatible. Even if I become convinced of TOE it doesn't begin to shake my faith, (and obviously, not my belief in first cause).

TOE doesn't require conversion it's not a religious or philosophical position, it's just a scientific explanation for physical evidence.

As with my trust in the accuracy of Genesis 1, I don't see the misleading as only misleading, but only to some people. God isn't here to convince as many as possible, but only those he has predetermined to convince. He can do as he pleases. Very practical.

However, granted, I could have it wrong, and in many respects, no matter what I think and believe, my view is always colored and wrong, falling short of the facts. As is anyone else's. This applies to the theology I argue every day here, too. It is not misleading by God that makes me too ignorant to understand what is beyond me. Logic can only go so far when data is missing.

What you are describing is exactly the kind of unreliable source I was concerned about.

It's irrelevant what the morality or ultimate goal of a situation is if part of the plan is to deliberately mislead people the only thing you know for sure is that what you hear could be false.

Wait! I personally know J and M! L looks familiar and I resemble N except that it lacks the domed top of my head. It does have the same vacant look of the eyes and missing teeth though. I bet I have at least 60 mutations, several not so latent. But then, I will probably only be a grandfather by way of adoption. (But I'm good with that.)

It would be super interesting if some of the different varieties had survived to the modern day... but given how horrifically our kind has been known to treat out fellow humans, I can only imagine how more obviously different folks would have fared.

But it's good to know mutation is usually neutral as far as survival (and, hopefully, reproduction).

Interestingly in an evolutionary context survival is defined by successful reproduction.

Now that's satisfying to hear. I have always suspected so, and it makes sense. I have wondered why they don't like to breed old dogs, although I know one old dog I would dearly love to have a pup off of. (But maybe that's a different issue, I don't know.)

It's not all traits and it's not the only non genetic factor.

Sometimes with animals as they get older there's more chance for errors to have crept into their reproductive cells. (The is more significant for female mammals who also have to carry the young as they develop).

Yes, I understand that, which is one of the points that Creationists use to show that the species doesn't change species by mutation, but migrates to extant examples by latent genetic disposition.

Given whales are referenced as sea creatures in Genesis it doesn't seem consistent to assume they are mutated four legged land creatures.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

But why would whales have hidden internal land mammal traits, but not other sea creatures?

Good point there, too. But, in my experience, faith encourages exploration. I always want to know more.

That's an excellent result, regardless of the inspiration.

I can't deny the logic of first cause. Not that it denies TOE, but, first things first...

I don't find the logic convincing at all... but I absolutely appreciate the emotional resonance of the idea.

I was raised Christian, so that could be an explanation, but the singular "One" responsible for the universe is appealing in a way, even if I can't find a reasonable justification to accept it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't see independent reasoning for the traits you assign to the First cause, just that by definition it's unique.

By allowing for the existence of a singular instance of an uncaused source of causation you have declared it possible. The addition of further traits also not in direct evidence don't change this initial point.

It's not mere assertion, but reasoning upon the meaning of 'first cause'. First Cause by definition cannot be caused, not in any way. Thus, cannot be governed in any way or to any degree by external causes.

Perhaps instead of significant time, I should have said significant number of generations.

When you refer to the "big asteroid" are you referring to the one that did in the dinosaurs? That was a very long time before most varieties of mammals even existed.

You need to confirm exactly how significant changes you are talking about.

While ancient Mesopotamia was more fertile and green than it is today, it was still overall a very dry and deserted place. You just have to read all the descriptions of lifestyle and environment in the Bible.

In the region the green areas were in the river deltas and a combination of thousands of years of farming, harvesting forests and comparatively vast cities being built in what used to be the prime farm land of the ancient world have changed that.

Greenland is an example of settlements put down in a brief bit of history when Europe went through a small period of increased warming in the medieval period.

These were meant by way of example. My point isn't The Big Asteroid, nor what the truth is about ancient Mesopotamia nor about Greenland. My point is that there are extreme and inconsistent changes of many kinds, not easily described as cyclically regular. I should think one would have to know them all, know their timing, know their locality, know their effect without guessing, in order to get a good general calculation of rate of evolution. Or more to the point, it seems to me, if TOE is true, rates would be very inconsistent over deep time.

TOE doesn't require conversion it's not a religious or philosophical position, it's just a scientific explanation for physical evidence.

I get that, though the terminology is debatable. IF God indeed exists, then the implied submission to authority would seem to itself imply that non-belief is a moral position. To many, I think probably on both sides, TOE implies no creator.

What you are describing is exactly the kind of unreliable source I was concerned about.

It's irrelevant what the morality or ultimate goal of a situation is if part of the plan is to deliberately mislead people the only thing you know for sure is that what you hear could be false.

Could be false, or could be wrongly interpreted, misguided. Viewed with a skewed worldview.

It would be super interesting if some of the different varieties had survived to the modern day... but given how horrifically our kind has been known to treat out fellow humans, I can only imagine how more obviously different folks would have fared.

Agreed

Interestingly in an evolutionary context survival is defined by successful reproduction.

Yes

It's not all traits and it's not the only non genetic factor.

Sometimes with animals as they get older there's more chance for errors to have crept into their reproductive cells. (The is more significant for female mammals who also have to carry the young as they develop).

Not very woke of TOE!

Given whales are referenced as sea creatures in Genesis it doesn't seem consistent to assume they are mutated four legged land creatures.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

But why would whales have hidden internal land mammal traits, but not other sea creatures?

My point, I guess, could be expressed, "Why not?". It might not feel satisfying to not know reasons for what seems an unnecessarily complicated gene arrangement, or unused traits, but we don't know much. Why call them land mammal traits? Is Nessie a mammal?

I suppose, to be fair, I could ask, how does TOE explain land mammals adapting to water in such an outlandish fashion? Why would migration of genetics go there? It would seem to me to be a boundary prohibitive of gradual change, not to mention the inconsistent explanations I have heard, such as that whales are descendents of fish-like creatures, some of which escaped the sea and developed into early reptiles and mammals, and some of which remained sea-bound and developed into whales and dolphins (as opposed to land mammals that became sea-bound).

That's an excellent result, regardless of the inspiration.

I don't find the logic convincing at all... but I absolutely appreciate the emotional resonance of the idea.

I was raised Christian, so that could be an explanation, but the singular "One" responsible for the universe is appealing in a way, even if I can't find a reasonable justification to accept it.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, finally. Maybe that should have been obvious to me by way of implication from other things you and others have said, but now I see the reasoning a bit better. If a mutation occurs, however, I still don't see how the environment CAUSED the mutation, except we know, for example that thalidomide causes mutations. What I'm trying to say is that it seems that @Shemjaza was saying that environment doesn't just cause mutations in general, ('random', as he said), but that it steers mutations toward better suitability toward that environment. If it is just 'random' (sorry, but I don't believe 'random' or 'chance' or strict 'chaos' and such is good logical terminology, unless all we mean by it is "we don't know" and so "it seems random") then it produces mostly unsuitable mutations and possibly a (or some) mutations better suited to the environment and procreation, but all by 'accident', the less suitable weeded out. If all he meant was survival of the fittest, it didn't sound like it. I don't think the human gene is built to perceive the environment in such a way that it tends to steer toward it.

The environment doesn't cause the mutations (at least not usually. Around Chernobyl, it might be different, or some other place where there is some part of the environment like radiation or a chemical that can increase mutation rates, but I'll get to that in a moment).

The environment's role is that it determines which mutations are more likely to survive, and which aren't. In a cold environment, an individual with a mutation that makes the fur grow longer is going to have a slight reproductive advantage over individuals with average-length fur (with all other things being the same). So, over generations, we would expect to see the individuals with the long-fur gene start to spread, and where we once saw that only one individual had the Long-Fur gene, a hundred generations later we might see that fully half the population has that gene.

The problem with environments where there is something that increases the mutation rate is that the larger a mutation is, the more likely it is to be harmful. That's why most mutations we see in living creatures are very small. It's like if you are on a road going through the countryside. If You are standing there on the road and I randomly move you to a different position that's one foot away, you're probably still going to be on the road. But if I randomly move you to a new position that's a full mile away, you're probably not going to be on the road anymore.

So, concerning this, the creationist viewpoint is that the tendencies that are already present in the organism's genetics become prevalent by survival of the fittest. The evolutionist view is that they become present in the organism by mutation. My question is not in order to support the creationist view, but to help me understand: If the mutation is present in only one parent, how is the offspring going to display that mutation? Would not both parents have to have the same mutation? It seems like I already asked this once, but I don't remember the answer, or at least, I don't remember why not both parents...

Do you remember our discussion about recessive and dominant traits in our discussion about eye colour? Remember, each offspring gets genes from both its parents. If the trait is a dominant one, then it only needs to get it from one parent. If the trait is recessive, it can carry the gene without displaying the trait (it doesn't show the phenotype). But even then, it can pass that gene on to its offspring. If the recessive genes survive a few generations, they may come together again, for example, if two individuals that are cousins a few times removed produce offspring. And it may not be the case that the mutation only occurs once. In a large population, it may occur a few times, purely through random chance.

Why should I "think of it as" any particular way? If you mean, only so I can follow the evolutionist reasoning, then ok. But that seems pretty artificial to me, and if I may say so, a bit presumptuous. Why should the apparently (to us) easiest or most efficient design be the way to expect the creator to do anything? By 'alter' a land-based form, the evolutionist assumes it IS a land-based form, adapted to water life. Creationism would say, it is a mammalian form, designed for water life. One might delight in the evolutionist's view, since the reasoning feels more mechanically solid or something, but that doesn't eliminate the creationist's view.

When we look at the fossil record showing the evolution of whales, it is clear that they did evolve from land animals. There are well documented fossils of the ancestors of whales that lived on land, and over the millions of years that the fossil record shows, we can see the intermediate stages that show how they gradually became better adapted to an aquatic way of life.

THIS website has an explanation, along with an evolutionary tree of whale evolution, and there's also an excellent article on Wikipedia as well.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's not mere assertion, but reasoning upon the meaning of 'first cause'. First Cause by definition cannot be caused, not in any way. Thus, cannot be governed in any way or to any degree by external causes.

All those traits are still simply assertions.

You've defined it as necessary and defined it as singular, but I can't see any chain of logic to that point.

These were meant by way of example. My point isn't The Big Asteroid, nor what the truth is about ancient Mesopotamia nor about Greenland. My point is that there are extreme and inconsistent changes of many kinds, not easily described as cyclically regular. I should think one would have to know them all, know their timing, know their locality, know their effect without guessing, in order to get a good general calculation of rate of evolution. Or more to the point, it seems to me, if TOE is true, rates would be very inconsistent over deep time.

Ahh, yes, you are absolutely right!

The rate of evolution is in fact all over the place because the variations in environment and in changes of the rest of the biosphere is in constant flux.

However the rate of mutation in non-coding DNA is not the rate of evolution, it's the functionally random ticking of mutations over the generations. That's why it works as a clock and not the sort of mutations that lead to significant variation.

I get that, though the terminology is debatable. IF God indeed exists, then the implied submission to authority would seem to itself imply that non-belief is a moral position. To many, I think probably on both sides, TOE implies no creator.

Sure, but they are the minority in both camps.

Could be false, or could be wrongly interpreted, misguided. Viewed with a skewed worldview.

You made the point that the misleading was deliberate.

Not very woke of TOE!

I understand that you were just making a lighthearted joke... but it's very impolite to make points where if people respond to you they can be banned.

(It's against the site rules to defend homosexuality or transgender issues).

My point, I guess, could be expressed, "Why not?". It might not feel satisfying to not know reasons for what seems an unnecessarily complicated gene arrangement, or unused traits, but we don't know much. Why call them land mammal traits? Is Nessie a mammal?

There's no evidence for any of the modern species of dolphin and whales having four limbs with the exception of the odd mutant with malformed atavistic hind flippers.

Is you contention that all whales and dolphins were four limbed originally and then hyperevolved the same way into two limbed versions?

Whales have closer genes for legs and hips to land mammals and not the genes found in reptiles, birds and fish.

I suppose, to be fair, I could ask, how does TOE explain land mammals adapting to water in such an outlandish fashion? Why would migration of genetics go there? It would seem to me to be a boundary prohibitive of gradual change,

Not in the least.

All steps in evolution need to allow for survival and the history of wales is not different.

As examples found living today in the animal kingdom:
Cow
Hippo
Seal
Manatee
Whale

Those are not the actual ancestors of whales, but it does demonstrate that the gradual steps along the way of adapting from land to sea are viable strategies for survival.

We have found a number of transitional fossils of the whale family from before the survivors had fully adapted to the sea.

not to mention the inconsistent explanations I have heard, such as that whales are descendents of fish-like creatures, some of which escaped the sea and developed into early reptiles and mammals, and some of which remained sea-bound and developed into whales and dolphins (as opposed to land mammals that became sea-bound).

I've never seen anything like a justification for that idea... it seems grossly inconsistent with the evidence given all the land animal traits in both physical structure and genetics.

Many fish appear to have adapted from species that were more adapted to living partially in the air, but whales being always sea creatures is a totally new one for me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The environment's role is that it determines which mutations are more likely to survive, and which aren't. In a cold environment, an individual with a mutation that makes the fur grow longer is going to have a slight reproductive advantage over individuals with average-length fur (with all other things being the same). So, over generations, we would expect to see the individuals with the long-fur gene start to spread, and where we once saw that only one individual had the Long-Fur gene, a hundred generations later we might see that fully half the population has that gene.

The problem with environments where there is something that increases the mutation rate is that the larger a mutation is, the more likely it is to be harmful. That's why most mutations we see in living creatures are very small. It's like if you are on a road going through the countryside. If You are standing there on the road and I randomly move you to a different position that's one foot away, you're probably still going to be on the road. But if I randomly move you to a new position that's a full mile away, you're probably not going to be on the road anymore.

Yeah, we've been through that. Maybe I just misunderstood @Shemjaza

Do you remember our discussion about recessive and dominant traits in our discussion about eye colour? Remember, each offspring gets genes from both its parents. If the trait is a dominant one, then it only needs to get it from one parent. If the trait is recessive, it can carry the gene without displaying the trait (it doesn't show the phenotype). But even then, it can pass that gene on to its offspring. If the recessive genes survive a few generations, they may come together again, for example, if two individuals that are cousins a few times removed produce offspring. And it may not be the case that the mutation only occurs once. In a large population, it may occur a few times, purely through random chance.

Ok, but it doesn't seem likely to me, that the SAME 'random' mutation can occur 'by random chance', even in a large population.

When we look at the fossil record showing the evolution of whales, it is clear that they did evolve from land animals. There are well documented fossils of the ancestors of whales that lived on land, and over the millions of years that the fossil record shows, we can see the intermediate stages that show how they gradually became better adapted to an aquatic way of life.

THIS website has an explanation, along with an evolutionary tree of whale evolution, and there's also an excellent article on Wikipedia as well.

Ok.

When we look at the fossil record showing the evolution of whales, it is clear that they did evolve from land animals. There are well documented fossils of the ancestors of whales that lived on land, and over the millions of years that the fossil record shows, we can see the intermediate stages that show how they gradually became better adapted to an aquatic way of life.

THIS website has an explanation, along with an evolutionary tree of whale evolution, and there's also an excellent article on Wikipedia as well.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ahh, yes, you are absolutely right!

The rate of evolution is in fact all over the place because the variations in environment and in changes of the rest of the biosphere is in constant flux.

However the rate of mutation in non-coding DNA is not the rate of evolution, it's the functionally random ticking of mutations over the generations. That's why it works as a clock and not the sort of mutations that lead to significant variation.

Then I've been misunderstanding what I took to be an assertion that generally mutation is caused by the environment —that environment generally steers genetics directly, not just by survival of fittest random examples (as I told @Kylie at the beginning of post #198)

I understand that you were just making a lighthearted joke... but it's very impolite to make points where if people respond to you they can be banned.

(It's against the site rules to defend homosexuality or transgender issues).

My bad. I had no such intentions.

There's no evidence for any of the modern species of dolphin and whales having four limbs with the exception of the odd mutant with malformed atavistic hind flippers.

Is you contention that all whales and dolphins were four limbed originally and then hyperevolved the same way into two limbed versions?

Whales have closer genes for legs and hips to land mammals and not the genes found in reptiles, birds and fish.

Ok.

Not in the least.

All steps in evolution need to allow for survival and the history of wales is not different.

As examples found living today in the animal kingdom:
Cow
Hippo
Seal
Manatee
Whale

Those are not the actual ancestors of whales, but it does demonstrate that the gradual steps along the way of adapting from land to sea are viable strategies for survival.

We have found a number of transitional fossils of the whale family from before the survivors had fully adapted to the sea.

Ok

I've never seen anything like a justification for that idea... it seems grossly inconsistent with the evidence given all the land animal traits in both physical structure and genetics.

Many fish appear to have adapted from species that were more adapted to living partially in the air, but whales being always sea creatures is a totally new one for me.

Ok

I've never seen anything like a justification for that idea... it seems grossly inconsistent with the evidence given all the land animal traits in both physical structure and genetics.

Many fish appear to have adapted from species that were more adapted to living partially in the air, but whales being always sea creatures is a totally new one for me.

Ok

Mark Quayle said: ↑
"It's not mere assertion, but reasoning upon the meaning of 'first cause'. First Cause by definition cannot be caused, not in any way. Thus, cannot be governed in any way or to any degree by external causes."

All those traits are still simply assertions.

You've defined it as necessary and defined it as singular, but I can't see any chain of logic to that point.

I thought the logic that the necessary MEANING of the term 'first cause' was pretty obvious. But ok: If FIRST, then first cause cannot be caused —else, would not be first. And cannot be dependent on external causes because, that means it is in some way caused. Singular, because if there are multiple first causes, then they are all dependent in some way on external cause(s) to include, at least, co-existence.

You made the point that the misleading was deliberate.

The misleading was deliberate and intended toward certain people, not to those who are [actually] inclined toward God but toward those who are inclined against God. (For what it is worthy, to some degree this also implies that to all of us it is somewhat misleading, because we are all somewhat, or in some ways, inclined against God, having this driving will toward self-determination.)

 

[Kylie]

Ok, but it doesn't seem likely to me, that the SAME 'random' mutation can occur 'by random chance', even in a large population.

Remember, most mutations that we see are likely to be only slight changes, so it's not that far to get there. And even if the chance is one in a million, it's still got a 50% chance of happening in a population of just 500,000.