TE has nonexistent theology (?)

[shernren]

From the Wikipedia article on postmodernism:

The term post-modernism is often used pejoratively to describe tendencies perceived as Relativist, Counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of Rationalism, Universalism or Science. It is also sometimes used to describe tendencies in a society that are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality. The criticisms of postmodernism are often made complex by the still fluid nature of the term, in many cases the criticisms are clearly directed at poststructuralism and the philosophical and academic movements that it has spawned rather than the broader term postmodernism.

You haven't answered on whether you are sniping at ontological or methodological relativism (I was wrong to use pluralism earlier, as far as I can see, pluralism is really ontological relativism). What I mean by "o" and "m" relativism is the same as what scientists mean when talking about "o" and "m" naturalism: "o" represents a statement about the fundamental nature of reality; while "m" represents a convenient working assumption.

Ontological relativism is the assumption that there is no truth to be known. That is very much anti-Christian and ready to be rejected.

Methodological relativism is saying that yes, there is absolute truth to be known, but it is so huge and vast and wide that it may not be possible to objectively know it from the short human experience we have on earth. I'll describe my own position: how do I know the Bible is true?

You can talk about historical and scientific proof until the cows come home but that's not the real reason people believe the Bible: Scripture says that nobody can call Jesus Lord unless it is revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. This shows that it is entirely possible for someone to not know the truth even if it stares them in the face. So I take the Bible as given based on the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. All that "science and history supports the Bible" stuff is secondary. Remember that for nearly 15 centuries the modern concepts of science and history didn't even exist, and yet people still believed the Bible without those struts.

Suppose someone asks me, "Why do you believe the Bible?" I would say, "Because it works!" And I would show the person my life and how Biblical wisdom informs it. But then a sophisticated person might say, "Maybe it's auto-suggestion. Maybe the Bible just happens to be right in some areas and wrong in others. What you call God's providence is just luck. What you call reaping what you sow is really just sound business principles." to which I would reply: "well, maybe things make sense to you from that view. But I've looked at things through that view and they don't make sense to me from there. To me, things make sense when I read the Bible as truth." (Which, by the by, may or may not be equivalent to reading it as history and science.)

Do you see what my position is? I have subjective certainty that I am right, but not objective certainty. Mind you, subjective certainty can be stronger: after all, one cannot prove the resurrection or the Holy Spirit's existence objectively, but one can subjectively believe them and even die for that belief. Subjective belief, precisely because it is personal, permeates every area of a person's life, and thus informs his or her behaviour far more consistently than (to my knowledge) objective belief can.

Post-modernism to me means recognizing the subjective credibility of the other's opinions. It means seeing why something seems right to that person. Note that in no way is this equivalent to saying that the something should seem right to that person, or saying that the something is right to that person. For me this happens all the time in origins debates: I can see why you believe in YECism, I can respect your belief in it, but I don't think you should believe it and I don't think your believing it makes it right.

You might ask, "Are you saying that all truth is subjectively informed?" By no means! There is an objective standard for truth and His name is Jesus Christ. We know the truth when we are confronted with His physical presence. The disciples knew the truth when He was on earth the first time. And when He returns that will be objective proof enough that He is Lord. My postmodernism, however, is acknowledging that until then we as of now do not have the objective evidence that Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong, no matter how strong my subjective feelings are on the subject.

By the way, post-modernist respect of subjectivity is a central tenet of AiG's creationist approach.

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp

The bottom line is that it’s not a matter of who has the better (or the most) ‘facts on their side.’ We need to understand that there are no such things as brute facts—all facts are interpreted. Thus, the next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently. Then, using the real science of the present that an evolutionist also uses, see if that science, when properly understood, confirms (by being consistent with) the interpretation based on the Bible. You will find over and over again that the Bible is confirmed5 by real science. But remember that, like Job (42:2–6), we need to understand that compared to God we know next to nothing. So we won’t have all the answers. However, so many answers have come to light now, that a Christian can give a credible defence of the book of Genesis and show it is the correct foundation for thinking about, and interpreting, every aspect of reality.
So let’s not jump in a blind-faith way at the startling evidences we think we need to ‘prove’ creation—trying to counter ‘their facts’ with ‘our facts.’

(emphases added)

You have also expressed similar sentiments in your posts Buho. Are you aware that you are using a postmodern concept to defend your faith?

Wikipedia:
Deconstruction is a term which is used to denote the application of post-modern ideas of criticism, or theory, to a "text" or "artifact". A deconstruction is meant to undermine the frame of reference and assumptions that underpin the text or the artifact.

This is exactly what creationists try to do, as recommended by AiG and you: undermine the evolutionist frame of reference, insert the YEC frame of reference, and show that the evidence has greater consistency with one than the other. Deconstructing scientific evidence (insofar as I know what deconstruction is). Assuming that evidence by itself cannot prove anything - which is a post-modernist invention; the chief scientific paradigm of the Modernist interpretation (pre quantum physics) being the Great Machine interpretation where evidence itself not only proved things, but you could actually know where and what everything would be at every time given enough deterministic analysis on known evidence. (Come to think of it, whoever called scientific creationism "modernist" in that aspect seems wrong to me, but I don't think I'll make you any happier in comparison since I'll now say it's postmodern ... ")

Don't scold post-modernism too harshly: it's done most of your work for you ...

 

[Buho]

Relspace: "You are one of these black and white people to whom truth is truth, whatever that means. Well, you people just give me a headache."

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Jesus is truth. It rained yesterday is truth. Moses led people out of Egypt is truth. Either Moses did or Moses did not. That's black & white. Christianity is built upon black & white foundationals. God is a God of black & white truths. You will be judged for your sins by God if you do not have Christ's covering. That's a fact. Black & white is like cryptonite to postmodernists. If you're a Christian, embrace it and repent of worldly things.

Relspace: "...phenomological..."

Do some more research on phenomological descriptions and the Bible and then come back. Sorry, I'm just trying to keep my posts short.

Relspace: "would the "phenomological" description of evolution go something like Genesis 1:20-25?"

It can't. The order is screwed up. Adam case in point. "Formed from dust" looks nothing like generations upon generations upon generations of proto-humans being born, growing, living, dying, evolving into Adam's form. "Formed from dust" could mean amino acids and proteins being assembled from raw materials (65% oxygen, 18% carbon, 10% hydrogen, 3% nitrogen, 1.5% calcium, etc.) to form cells, bones, organs, and body. That would be a good phenomological description of the more specific scientific description I proposed.

Relspace: "...sola scriptura..."

Do a little more research on sola scriptura first. It has a very specific definition, and sub-conclusions that come from it.

A fundamentalist should rely on scripture alone without adding science to it to reinterpret scripture. A fundamental reading of Genesis 1 is historical narrative.

Relspace: "Oh yes I quite agree. I do think Genesis is a nice story for children, intended for children and not for people with the vastly more complex understanding of the world due to our advances in science."

Is Mark 15 a nice story for children? I don't agree with your belittling and trivializing God's Holy Scripture. What you're exhibiting here is "chronological snobbery," in C.S. Lewis's words.

Relspace: "But I do not rely on man's theories for there is no "relying" in science. Science accepts uncertainty and seeks to explain observational data."

God's word is unchanging, like a rock. I'm glad to see you rely on God's word more than science.

Relspace: "And thank goodness it no longer has to distort the data to fit Genesis, so we have a chance to grow up a little from the childlike understanding of 4 millenia ago."

Chronological snobbery again. By the way, macroevolution doesn't fit into Genesis at all. It's trying to fit a square peg into a carbon nanotube.

Relspace: "Nor do I feel any need to fit Genesis into scientific theory either, because I do not believe this text was written for that purpose at all."

The plain reading suggests that Genesis was recorded to tell us where we came from, something we can't figure out very well ourselves (even with our modern science).

Relspace: "As to why Genesis talks about plants being created before the sun, I do not know, but perhaps it is to make fools of overly rigid and legalistic people who cannot resist misusing the scripture for a purpose for which it was never intended."

Romans 1:22. 1 Corinthians 1:18.

Possibly you are seeing how exactly evolution is to Genesis as the square peg is to the carbon nanotube? I encourage you to show me how I am misusing Genesis 1 to explain mankind's origins. The way I see it, that is it's primary purpose.

Relspace: "This is the sort of nonsense I expect to see in the rhetoric of Flat Earthers. Just because they can disguise their rhetoric as a superficial imitation of science, they think they have got scientific evidence for their point of view."

John 8:43. John 12:37-40.

Relspace: "[To a YEC,] Faith is more important than science.... And if your faith requires absolutes like "the Bible is the inerrant sole authority upon all things which it mentions" then what importance could science have that it should stand in the way of your faith?"

Exodus 20:3. Mark 10:17-31.

Relspace: "Furthermore, there is the obnoxious rhetoric of atheists who think that science supports their point of view."

It's not my point of view. Rather, it's God's Word. If God created the world and told us how he created it, then the world should reflect how he created it. Scientific evidence does not show otherwise. By the way, evidence is neutral. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. It depends on how you look at it. Creationists look at it through a historical narrative interpretation of Genesis. Evolutionists look at it through naturalistic, materialistic, long-age eyes.

Relspace: "It easier to simply join them in their pretense that science supports your rhetoric instead of theirs, rather than make the effort to understand what science is really about. Our culture shows a deplorable tendency to extremes deriving from an impatience with complex issues. A society of fast food, cars, microwave ovens and fast sources of information has encouraged a laziness and habit that has extended to fast thinking. This kind of addiction to fast and easy thinking justifies itself by equating balanced points of view and compromise with selling out. And since balance and compromise is really the foundation of the American society, this tendency to extremes is what will ultimately destroy us."

I agree completely. This is that postmodern effect you are talking about. I encourage you and other theistic evolutionists to honestly look at the evidence creationists present, rather than relying on Discovery Channel evolution propoganda (which over and over to presents blatently false information in the guise of "science"). http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

+ + + + +

Ulg, more responses! I can't keep up!

+ + + + +

Buho: "As far as a Creationist is concerned, observable facts are secondary to God's word."
Shernren: Can you show this?
Look into biblical archaeology from 100 years ago. God said a city would be here. No city. God must be wrong, or have meant something metaphoric or something. They dig and find the city where God said it would be. Whoops, I guess this was historical narrative. Point: God's word is like a rock. Man's word changes every decade.

"What are those "dirty little secrets"?"

You ask in innocence? I'm sure a YEC has shown you. The Cambrian explosion. The missing transitional fossils. 50 years of microbiology and genetics research have yet to show one single case of an information-adding mutation that macroevolution requires. 100 years of fruit fly mutation experiments have yet to produce anything other than a fly. 50 years of bacteria mutation experiments have yet to produce anything other than the bacteria they started with. Just to name a few.

"TEs believe we can know truth from both scripture and creation."

Not from what I've been reading here. TEs seem to be relying on wishy-washing gray zones. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

"Do you agree with these points? If not, why not? "

I agree with each point. The only thing I would add is that scripture trumps creation in points of conflict since it is the special revelation of God. You later call this an error. God's truth is absolute. We acquire this truth through scripture and creation. If they conflict, one interpretation must be wrong. YECs claim their interpretation of scripture and science do not conflict. TEs claim their interpretation of scripture and evidence do not conflict. YECs claim TEs interpretation of scripture and evidence is in error. TEs claim YECs interpretation of scripture and evidence is in error. Notice both still line up in each's framework. The final judge on this dilemma should be God's Word, since it is God's special revelation. Who is interpreting God's Word more accurately?

Also, bad interpretation of creation can lead to conflicting answers: the Greeks interpreted creation to be composed of four elements. We interpret creation to be composed of hundreds of elements. Who is right? Science has a history of bad mistakes. God has no history of any mistakes.

"Why ignore God's Truth in creation?"

Because creation is God's general revelation, not his special revelation. General revelation should augment special revelation only.

"Or God's Truth in the witness of the Holy Spirit?"

This crossed my mind last week. Both YECs and TEs can claim guidance from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot lead both sides to conflicting conclusions, otherwise God lies. Therefore, whichever side the Holy Spirit is working on, no side can claim it. Know what I mean?

"And where do these "easily-understood" fundamentals come from if not from fallible human teachers? They are not, to my knowledge, listed in scripture itself."

They are in scripture.

"God spoke creation into existence. So why do you exclude listening to what we have discovered about creation."

I embrace what "we" have discovered about creation. I note that secular scientists have traced creation back to the 1/1000000000000th of a second of the Big Bang. That's not anywhere close to how God describes it.

"It continually tries to inject modern science and modern atheistic philosophy as well into its interpretations of scripture. "

I'm beginning to think this is a miscommunication. The method you describe is the method of TEs, not YECs. If YECs did the method you describe, our interpretation of scripture would not be different from yours. Please explain why you say "atheistic philosophy".

"Because all the evidence in regard to God's word in his creation points to this being fact."

No it doesn't. See "dirty secrets" above for starters. However, I concede that what you see looks like that to you because you are wearing "evolution glasses." I was in the same boat. If you look at the same evidence wearing "creation glasses" things look dramatically different. Try out the creation glasses for once.

"So?"

So you are not going by God's word, but man's, which is not what God wants.

"Absolutely! But I thought you agreed that we ought not to insert science into scripture. So we do not have to consider that this description is scientifically correct even as phenomenological description. The contradiction of this description with science must be apparent, so we can consider other interpretive possibilities that do not deny the factual evidence, which we know comes from God."

Progress. Orbital mechanics is correct when I say "the sun rises in the morning." Evolution as detailed by "modern science" is not correct when God says "plants first, sun moon stars next, creatures last".

The "other interpretive possibilities" -- do you apply that to science or scripture? Why do you pick one over the other? Why not both?

"You cannot ignore his created truth either. "

YECs don't. The difference is we START with scripture. The science of YECs that you reject is very real and works as well as (if not better than) secular science. Because you reject it, you think YECs don't have science, which is a fallacy. I invite you to check out the YEC science and see that when I say "YECs don't," I speak truth.

"That's not true. You were never a TE. "

Ok. I was a Christian and I believed macroevolution to be fact. What does that make me? A weak TE? I've said the same to Christians here who appear to barely understand what they believe in. Are they really Christians? It's open to debate, but I'd rather not.

How do you explain that, once I started looking at the "facts" of macroevolution, I came to disbelieve it as a viable scientific theory? (By the way, I frequent both TalkOrigins AND AnswersInGenesis to get the full picture.)

"If you had really been totally skeptical...."

Had I been "totally" skeptical (using your definition), I'd be an atheistic evolutionist. Check out my other threads for an idea of the way I research AiG's claims.

"Of course, this is the reaction of someone whose science background was weak."

Dismiss my testimony any way you wish. I get the same from atheists dismissing my testimony of Christ. By the way, I hold a bachelor of science degree and hang around nerds who know more than me. I read white papers for fun. If we got into a technical debate on microbiology, it would be interesting to see who could hold up the longest.

"It was only when I decided I needed to understand why people who knew science fell for such obvious idiocy as evolution that I began to study what science says. And found out that most of the "science" in the creationist material was not legitimate science. ... It doesn't. There is no claimed scientific support for a young earth model that is actually scientific. "

Name one.

What post-modernism stresses is that as individuals none of us has a full grasp of the truth. We are all socially conditioned to see some things as "truth" and to reject other things as "error". But those with different social conditioning may see our truth as error and our error as truth. Also each of us may see "truth" the other does not see at all.

It's really cool that you sought to understand this more, Gluadys. Thanks. Your post sounds very good. My quick definition was just that -- quick. Yours is better.

I selected this paragraph out because it is against what the Judeo-Christian God is. God is Truth and he has made some of His truths known to us. We can know these truths, and we have these truths. Postmodernist Christianity tends to focus on the unknowable truths of God, obfuscating who God is, and generally undermining Christianity as a whole. (Again I paint with a very broad brush.)

I found some links for further study of postmodernism and Christianity:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p02.html
http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/pmandyou.htm

 

[relspace]

It can't. The order is screwed up. Adam case in point. "Formed from dust" looks nothing like generations upon generations upon generations of proto-humans being born, growing, living, dying, evolving into Adam's form. "Formed from dust" could mean amino acids and proteins being assembled from raw materials (65% oxygen, 18% carbon, 10% hydrogen, 3% nitrogen, 1.5% calcium, etc.) to form cells, bones, organs, and body. That would be a good phenomological description of the more specific scientific description I proposed.

How unexpectedly generous to science. This is not the typical composition of dust, not if these are the abundances in the human body. But considering the water content of the human body, it would be more like mud than dust. So I am surprised you did not suggest that God used nucleosynthesis to correct the difference. You better be careful. You start making compromises like this and you don't know where it will lead.

A fundamentalist should rely on scripture alone without adding science to it to reinterpret scripture. A fundamental reading of Genesis 1 is historical narrative.

Well I don't use science to reinterpret scripture and I don't use scripture to reinterpret science as the Creation pseudo-scientists do either. I do study the metaphysical implications of contemporary physics.

I getting dizzy cause I guess I am not a fundamentalist. Well I though as much. Anyway I see Genesis as memory but not as scientific or historical. I have read scientific and historical texts and Genesis doesn't sound anything like them. But memory is more important to me personally.

Is Mark 15 a nice story for children? I don't agree with your belittling and trivializing God's Holy Scripture. What you're exhibiting here is "chronological snobbery," in C.S. Lewis's words.

Oooooh, I want to know your reference for that one. I am a C.S. Lewis fan and I really want to know the context of that to see what he is really saying rather than what you are using him for.

God's word is unchanging, like a rock. I'm glad to see you rely on God's word more than science.

You got that straight. Science is a hobby. God's word is my life line.

Possibly you are seeing how exactly evolution is to Genesis as the square peg is to the carbon nanotube? I encourage you to show me how I am misusing Genesis 1 to explain mankind's origins. The way I see it, that is it's primary purpose.

Oh but I agree that its purpose is to explain mankind's origins. All that is important for us to know about this and as would be understood by the people to whom it was first written 4 millenia ago. We are created by God, who is the creator of everything else.

Relspace: Faith is more important than science.... And if your faith requires absolutes like "the Bible is the inerrant sole authority upon all things which it mentions" then what importance could science have that it should stand in the way of your faith?"

I took out your offensive modification. This applies to everyone here. The part which is particular to YEC is the quoted part.

Scientific evidence does not show otherwise. By the way, evidence is neutral. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. It depends on how you look at it. Creationists look at it through a historical narrative interpretation of Genesis. Evolutionists look at it through naturalistic, materialistic, long-age eyes.

Ahhhh! Now we are getting somewhere..... sort of. Science is neutral as long as we keep the rhetoric of creationists and atheists out of it.

I agree completely. This is that postmodern effect you are talking about.

That is ridiculous. It is clear from gluadys' glorious explanation that post-modernism is just the opposite. From what she said post-modernism is the balance and compromise that America needs and your ridicule and rejection of it is symptomatic of the death of American society. Though your contempt of compromise is only half of the problem. The failure of secular liberalism (an unacknowledged religion in all but name) to compromise in regards to its sacred beliefs is tearing America apart from the other side.

I encourage you and other theistic evolutionists to honestly look at the evidence creationists present,

Sorry no. I prefer the neutral science without the added rhetoric.

rather than relying on Discovery Channel evolution propoganda (which over and over to presents blatently false information in the guise of "science").

I don't have cable. But I have been disgusted by a PBS broadcast before. There was this absurd claim that the only thing the AIDS virus has going for it is its poor ability to copy itself. A little study of mutagenesis will show just how absurd this is. This adaptability that enables organisms to adapt to hostile environments is anything but random or accidental.

You see "theistic evolutionists" is only a rough approximation of my point of view. I argue against creationist and evolutionist alike because I think they are both wrong. And ironically I think they are both wrong for the same reason: a deplorable misunderstanding about what living things really are. But you wouldn't be interested in that, because there is nothing about it in that little "history" of yours.

 

[shernren]

Buho: "As far as a Creationist is concerned, observable facts are secondary to God's word."
Shernren: Can you show this?
Look into biblical archaeology from 100 years ago. God said a city would be here. No city. God must be wrong, or have meant something metaphoric or something. They dig and find the city where God said it would be. Whoops, I guess this was historical narrative. Point: God's word is like a rock. Man's word changes every decade.

Are you referring to the discovery of the city of Jericho? Please do try and pin it down, I can't commit myself to discussing details otherwise.

When God's word says that the sun rises, and you call it "phenomenological language", aren't you hand-waving away the Bible's words in favour of observed facts?

The fact is that in uncorking the bottle by using the idea of phenomenology, you have really let the genie of prescientific cosmogony out of the bottle. Whoops. For there is no difference in saying:

Heliocentrism is an observed fact.
But the Bible says that the sun rises.
Therefore "the sun rises" is a phenomenological description.
We should not infer from this that the sun actually moves and the earth actually stays still, instead of vice versa.

and:

Evolution is an observed fact.
But the Bible says that animals reproduce according to their kind.
Therefore the expression "according to their kind" is a phenomenological expression.
We should not infer from this any notion of genetic fixity of species.

Both chains of arguments are sound. If you agree with the first and the second, you would agree with the third and fourth. We both agree with the second statements in each chain - those are actual words and ideas from the Bible. And yet you don't agree with the second chain, while I do.

What's the difference? In each chain the first statement addresses scientific ideas whereas the second statement addresses Biblical ideas. We both agree on the second statements, therefore we are agreed about the Bible. The reason you do not agree on the first statement in the second chain is because before anything the Bible says you have already disagreed with evolution, or at least have not learned it well enough to agree with it properly. This distinction is not Scripturally motivated, it is scientifically motivated. And it shows that observable facts are very important in interpreting Scripture.

I can go a step further, and compare these two chains:

In the morality and ethics of the day, slavery was the social norm.
Paul does not outright condemn slavery.
However, his views on slavery are merely accommodating the current paradigm of the day.
They should not be taken as Biblical support of slavery.

and,

In the Jewish mindset of the day, believing in Adam as the predecessor of the human race was the norm.
Paul says that all sin came through Adam.
However, his views on Adam are simply accommodating the current religious paradigms of the day.
They should not be taken as Biblical support of the historicity of Adam.

Now, to anticipate your objections, Adam himself is directly spoken of in Scripture while God never explicitly commands slavery. And you are right. I will not attempt to defend this particular comparison. But I am making it (although I believe in a historical Adam myself) in order to show you just what this "phenomenological" nonsense has let out of the bottle.

Phenomenological explanations are a tacit agreement that God saw fit to use the current paradigms of the day to express His truth, even though those paradigms were utterly flawed as scientific explanations. Thus when the Psalmist says that the movement of the sun across the sky glorifies God, and we know in modern terms that the sun does not move and the earth does, that does not in any way diminish the truth carried by the flawed science: that God is glorified in nature.

Well, to take this a step further, God took the paradigm of the day and used a creation myth to tell the story of how great and glorious He is in creating the earth. He walloped all the neighbouring gods by showing that the sun, moon, stars, animals, seas, skies, were all created instead of creators and powers in their own rights. We believe that even if the paradigm God used - the idea of the supernatural creation myth - is flawed, that does not in any way distort the message behind the myth.

What makes you believe that it isn't the sun which moves? Science.
What makes us believe that Genesis 1 is a creation myth? Science.

Science informs your interpretation as much as it informs ours. The distinction between YECism and TEism isn't how much of Scripture we accept, but how much science we accept and how much of it we allow to inform our worldview.

A fundamentalist should rely on scripture alone without adding science to it to reinterpret scripture. A fundamental reading of Genesis 1 is historical narrative.

Pop quiz: tell me what the heavens are in Genesis 1:1, without using science.

You ask in innocence? I'm sure a YEC has shown you. The Cambrian explosion. The missing transitional fossils. 50 years of microbiology and genetics research have yet to show one single case of an information-adding mutation that macroevolution requires. 100 years of fruit fly mutation experiments have yet to produce anything other than a fly. 50 years of bacteria mutation experiments have yet to produce anything other than the bacteria they started with. Just to name a few.

Let's start with the information one. Define a function with which one can measure information content in a genome or a protein. Otherwise you cannot claim to know that all mutations decrease information, if you can't even define what information is.

Don't patronize me by assuming I haven't dealt with these issues before.

 

[relspace]

Let's start with the information one. Define a function with which one can measure information content in a genome or a protein. Otherwise you cannot claim to know that all mutations decrease information, if you can't even define what information is.

Of course random mutations decrease information. That is basic information theory. The problem is that Buho grabs any fact he can to support his claim. This is standard procedure for a courtroom and the proceedure is called rhetoric. Science uses a different proceedure that has proven enormously effective in uncovering the truth about things.

If he were doing science then Buho would look at all of the facts (something that a few evolutionists could try doing as well). The fact is that very little mutation is purely random or accidental at all. Studies of mutagenesis have found that even bacteria have such efficient mechanisms for repairing copying mistakes and radiation damage that they have developed other mechanisms to prevent them from reparing everything all the time so that occasionally mutation can still occur. The difference this makes is obvious. It allows organisms to control which portions of the genetic code will allow mutations and the frequency as well. Euchariotic cells have developed entirely new ways of introducing genetic variation in the processes of meiosis and fertilization (which allow the organism even greater control over what parts of the the genetic code are allowed to vary).

The implications are that far from being the random and mechanical process that evolution is usually described as, it is really very controlled and intentional. Evolution really is nothing more than the basic ability that all living things have for creativity and learning. But as all breeders and teachers can tell you, learning often does not occur without a great deal of help.

 

[gluadys]

A fundamentalist should rely on scripture alone without adding science to it to reinterpret scripture. A fundamental reading of Genesis 1 is historical narrative.

Yet a fundamentalist has no scriptural reason to read Genesis 1 as historical narrative. That assumption comes from outside of scripture.

The plain reading suggests that Genesis was recorded to tell us where we came from,

Only if you have previously accepted the fundamentalist assumption which is not itself based on scripture.

Rather, it's God's Word. If God created the world and told us how he created it, then the world should reflect how he created it.

Precisely. God created the world by his Word. The Word (Logos) is the creator or agent of creation. What the world is must therefore reflect its creator.

Hence, what the world is is a word of God and can never be denied as such. If it seems to conflict with scripture, it is our understanding of nature and scripture than must be questioned, not nature itself nor scripture itself.

If upon revisiting our understanding of nature we have confidence that what we see in nature is real, then it is our understanding of scripture that is to be questioned. (not scripture itself and certainly not the Word itself).

Scientific evidence does not show otherwise. By the way, evidence is neutral. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. It depends on how you look at it. Creationists look at it through a historical narrative interpretation of Genesis. Evolutionists look at it through naturalistic, materialistic, long-age eyes.

Sorry. but evidence is not neutral. You cannot come up with different explanatory theories of the evidence which are both correct. The theory which correctly predicts new outcomes when tested is the correct theory. I have never seen yet a correct scientific prediction based on YEC interpretations of the evidence. I haven't even seen a YEC interpretation of the evidence that makes sense.

You ask in innocence? I'm sure a YEC has shown you. The Cambrian explosion. The missing transitional fossils. 50 years of microbiology and genetics research have yet to show one single case of an information-adding mutation that macroevolution requires. 100 years of fruit fly mutation experiments have yet to produce anything other than a fly. 50 years of bacteria mutation experiments have yet to produce anything other than the bacteria they started with. Just to name a few.

Yes, YECs have referred to these many times. And what such refernces show is that they do not know or do not understand what evolution is, what the theory of evolution is, and what it predicts. YECs continually expect from evolution results that would actually falsify evolution.

Your list of "dirty little secrets" are commonly referred to as PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times).

I won't go into refutations here, because, as I said, the first thing to look at is why YEC expectations are wrong. Why, for example, do you expect fruit fly experiments to produce something other than a fly? If you understood evolution, you would not expect that result. So what is it that you think evolution does that leads you to expect it?

"TEs believe we can know truth from both scripture and creation."

Not from what I've been reading here. TEs seem to be relying on wishy-washing gray zones. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken. At least I think so. Can you give an example of a wishy-washy gray zone?

I agree with each point. The only thing I would add is that scripture trumps creation in points of conflict since it is the special revelation of God.

For what reason would special revelation trump general revelation? After all, it is on the basis of general revelation that God can exercise just judgment on those who are not familiar with special revelation. The purpose of special revelation is to lead us to Christ. That is something general revelation cannot do unaided. But there is no reason for special and general revelation to be inconsistent with each other. In fact, it is essential that they agree with each other, for anything else would make a liar of God in one or the other.

You later call this an error. God's truth is absolute. We acquire this truth through scripture and creation. If they conflict, one interpretation must be wrong. YECs claim their interpretation of scripture and science do not conflict. TEs claim their interpretation of scripture and evidence do not conflict. YECs claim TEs interpretation of scripture and evidence is in error. TEs claim YECs interpretation of scripture and evidence is in error. Notice both still line up in each's framework.

Point taken. But I have not seen YEC interpretation of science to be agreeable to observations of nature, and that is fundamental to science.

The final judge on this dilemma should be God's Word, since it is God's special revelation. Who is interpreting God's Word more accurately?

All of God's word is God's word. It is unthinkable to say that general revelation is not as much from God as special revelation. It is unthinkable to say that special revelation can call general revelation an error. God's Word never lies. Not in special revelation, and not in general revelation either.

Hence the person who is interpreting God's word more accurately is the one who is taking all of God's word into account. Accepting only part of God's word distorts it.

Also, bad interpretation of creation can lead to conflicting answers: the Greeks interpreted creation to be composed of four elements. We interpret creation to be composed of hundreds of elements. Who is right?

Both. They are using different definitions of elements, and both are correct according to the definition they are using.

Science has a history of bad mistakes.

Science also has an excellent history of correcting mistakes by listening to God's creation.

"And where do these "easily-understood" fundamentals come from if not from fallible human teachers? They are not, to my knowledge, listed in scripture itself."

They are in scripture.

Show me.

I'm beginning to think this is a miscommunication. The method you describe is the method of TEs, not YECs. If YECs did the method you describe, our interpretation of scripture would not be different from yours. Please explain why you say "atheistic philosophy".

I think we've been over this enough in the other thread not to repeat myself here.

"Because all the evidence in regard to God's word in his creation points to this being fact."

No it doesn't. See "dirty secrets" above for starters.

And my response to the "dirty little secrets" likewise.

Try out the creation glasses for once.

Actually that is where I started. Or do you not believe that a creationist can become an evolutionist as well as vice versa.

Progress. Orbital mechanics is correct when I say "the sun rises in the morning." Evolution as detailed by "modern science" is not correct when God says "plants first, sun moon stars next, creatures last".

Self-contradiction. If orbital mechanics can be correct in spite of scriptural witness to the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun, there is no reason the scientific account of origins can likewise be correct in the spite of scriptural witness that apparently contradicts it.

I cede to shernren on the discussion of phenomenological language.

The "other interpretive possibilities" -- do you apply that to science or scripture? Why do you pick one over the other? Why not both?

Both in principal. But when assured that there is no other scientific interpretive possibility, then, by default, it is the interpretation of scripture that must be revised.

The science of YECs that you reject is very real and works as well as (if not better than) secular science.

Yet to be demonstrated.

Ok. I was a Christian and I believed macroevolution to be fact. What does that make me? A weak TE?

It makes you a Christian who was naive and uncritical about science. It does not make you a TE.

How do you explain that, once I started looking at the "facts" of macroevolution, I came to disbelieve it as a viable scientific theory? (By the way, I frequent both TalkOrigins AND AnswersInGenesis to get the full picture.)

Scientific ignorance and misinformation.

Had I been "totally" skeptical (using your definition), I'd be an atheistic evolutionist.

As I said, YEC is an efficient producer of atheists. This is one of the major dividing lines between YECs and TEs. When YECs become convinced by science, they become atheists as a logical consequence. When TEs are convinced by science, they remain in the faith, praising God for all God's truth--in nature and in scripture and above all in the incarnate Word crucified and risen for us.

If we got into a technical debate on microbiology, it would be interesting to see who could hold up the longest.

I'm not big on technology, but I am going to take a plunge into micro-biology to see what I can understand of it. I'll let you know when I am ready to try and discuss it.

"It was only when I decided I needed to understand why people who knew science fell for such obvious idiocy as evolution that I began to study what science says. And found out that most of the "science" in the creationist material was not legitimate science. ... It doesn't. There is no claimed scientific support for a young earth model that is actually scientific. "

Name one.

Name one what? As far as I know there is none to name. If you think otherwise, you name one.

I found some links for further study of postmodernism and Christianity:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p02.html
http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/pmandyou.htm

Do you have any link to a study of postmodernism and Christianity by a postmodernist? I don't trust those hostile to an idea to present it accurately. I think a postmodernist is best placed to tell me how a postmodernist views Christianity and why.

 

[shernren]

Of course random mutations decrease information.

Not necessarily ... to prove that, one must:

1. Define an information gauge. The DNA code can be considered a base-4 string (or string of 2-bit units: 00, 01, 10, and 11), while the protein code a base-20 string. So given a string made of that number of characters, what function can I use to process that string and yield an absolute information value?

Or in a lighter version, given two strings A and B, show a method to determine whether A or B has more information.

2. Within the context of that definition, show that any random mutation must necessarily reduce the information content of that string.

Or, given a mutation A -> A', show that no matter what mutation has occurred, A' always has less information than A.

Even without the gauge, the problem should be apparent. If a mutation can cause A -> A', mutations are reversible (generally speaking - though I'm not sure how that can happen on a chromosomal level, most mutations are not that radical) , so that the correct mutation can cause A' -> A, in which case a mutation has restored missing information, which is qualitatively identical to adding information to the genome.

In my experience creationists have not been able to do 1 effectively, and within the few attempts I've seen, 2 was impossible - within their frameworks there were mutations which increased information. So I am skeptical when creationists play the information card, unless they really know their stuff. It's a little like claiming the second law of thermodynamics without first defining temperature and inventing the thermometer to measure it.

 

[relspace]

Not necessarily ... to prove that, one must:

1. Define an information gauge. The DNA code can be considered a base-4 string (or string of 2-bit units: 00, 01, 10, and 11), while the protein code a base-20 string. So given a string made of that number of characters, what function can I use to process that string and yield an absolute information value?

Or in a lighter version, given two strings A and B, show a method to determine whether A or B has more information.

The point was that applying an information theory designed for handling information loss in electronic communication to genetics to make judgements about the theory of evolution is silly. But that said, I think expecting such a function to be developed based on genetic functionality is overly optimistic and I think the validity of your objection is extremely doubtful. It is just basic sense that purely random alteration destroys information.

HOWEVER, one can make the noise a source of information in signal transmission by sending two copies and allowing only one copy to undergo random alterations. Then the two copies can be compared to study how the orignal message has been altered. In this case you could say that the information content of the message has been increased. Therefore since genetic variation is really controlled rather than completely random, and since variation is intentional rather than accidental, pure information theory is not applicable. You could say that DNA is in some sense studying the effects of it own variation and thus the variation can be considered a source of information. But this is why the idea that evolution is driven by random mutation is wrong. The terminology should be changed to fit the facts.

 

[gluadys]

But this is why the idea that evolution is driven by random mutation is wrong. The terminology should be changed to fit the facts.

Of course, this is a creationist distortion of the theory of evolution. It has never been maintained by scientists.

Biologists understand that evolution is driven by the non-random process of natural selection, not by mutations.

Mutations introduce variability, but selection is required to move a species to adaptation.

 

[relspace]

Of course, this is a creationist distortion of the theory of evolution. It has never been maintained by scientists.

Biologists understand that evolution is driven by the non-random process of natural selection, not by mutations.

Mutations introduce variability, but selection is required to move a species to adaptation.

I am sorry but I completely disagree. Before you can have selection you must have variation, therefore variation IS the driving force of evolution! Selection is not the driving force but the guiding principle. So it is true that even IF variation were random, selection would make it non-random. But one of the consequences of the fact that variation IS the driving force is that not all evolutionary change has surivival value, but I would not call these changes random either.

The point is that variation is neither accidental nor random. And I think variation which is both intentional and controlled ought to be called creativity rather than random mutation. That way all of the evolutionary change which has no survival value can be properly seen as part of the creative nature of life (and God if he is participant as I believe) rather than as simply random and meaningless. This is of course a philosophical distinction rather than a scientific one, but then I make no pretention to being a biologist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I am sorry but I completely disagree. Before you can have selection you must have variation, therefore variation IS the driving force of evolution! Selection is not the driving force but the guiding principle. So it is true that even IF variation were random, selection would make it non-random. But one of the consequences of the fact that variation IS the driving force is that not all evolutionary change has surivival value, but I would not call these changes random either.

The point is that variation is neither accidental nor random. And I think variation which is both intentional and controlled ought to be called creativity rather than random mutation. That way all of the evolutionary change which has no survival value can be properly seen as part of the creative nature of life (and God if he is participant as I believe) rather than as simply random and meaningless. This is of course a philosophical distinction rather than a scientific one, but then I make no pretention to being a biologist.

Making a distinction between a driving force and a guiding principle is not going to help your case. Which has two major driving forces: the first is your contention that mutations are not really random and the second is that random means meaningless.

the first is a scientifically accessible idea. all you have to do is show mutations are not random. although you will have a hard time given the large amount of evidence that they are.

the second, is as you point out, not a scientific but a philosophic idea. it is however one of the major driving forces in the YECism community. This hue and cry that life can not be as meaningless as modern genetics wants to make it with its principles of RM/NS. The problem is, as you pointed out, that this is not science. Biology doesn't make a philosophic claim that RM means human life is meaningless, scientists speaking as metaphysicans do. So take it up with them at the level of metaphysics not at the level of genetics. This is the great category error that YECism makes in the whole discussion, they are making a religious battle into a scientific one, mistakenly so.

 

[relspace]

Making a distinction between a driving force and a guiding principle is not going to help your case. Which has two major driving forces: the first is your contention that mutations are not really random and the second is that random means meaningless.

I am not sure what "case" you are talking about. I see that you do not comprehend the distinction, but the distinction is there and it is an important one. Selection is simply not a driving force.

A "driving force" is a term from physics in the study of harmonic oscillation as a force which supplies energy to maintain or increase the oscillation. Without the driving force, dissipative forces will bring the oscillation to halt. The characteristics of the oscillation are not determined by the driving force alone. The system has completely different features which determine the resonant frequencies, which act much like selection in channeling the energy of the driving force into these modes. If the driving force is at the wrong frequency no oscillation occurs or rather all the oscillation destructively interferes.

Without variation nothing happens at all. Likewise if all variation were counter to survival, evolutionary change (in the traditional theory) would not occur. Selection is nothing like the driving force in harmonic motion but more like the resonant frequencies of the system. Variation without selection produces change without survival advantages but an increasing number of disadvantages. This can be observed in a modern human population. You might like to say that this brings an end to evolution but you would be wrong.

Evolution is a two stage process. Selection for individual survival ends when communities are formed which protect its weaker members. The sudden increase in variations which are not conducive to individual survival become an additional driving force in co-evolution selected by the survival of the community. However co-evolution is really an inadequate term for the deveopment of communal structure, communication and material transport that would be better described as an evolution of community and technology.

the first is a scientifically accessible idea. all you have to do is show mutations are not random. although you will have a hard time given the large amount of evidence that they are.

And from mutagenesis I know that mutation cannot be random, but perhaps we are simply not defining terms properly. I am saying that if you study the frequency of mutations accross the entire genetic code of a species you will not find an even distribution, but areas where the occurence of mutations tend to cluster and areas which the occurence of mutations avoid. In euchariotic organisms, where the main source of variation has sexual origins and I would not call them mutation at all, you are going to find even sharper and more concetrated clustering and avoidance. That is a prediction based on my study of mutagenesis.

 

[gluadys]

I am sorry but I completely disagree. Before you can have selection you must have variation, therefore variation IS the driving force of evolution! Selection is not the driving force but the guiding principle.

And before you can drive your car you must fill the fuel tank. But is it the fuel tank or the engine that provides the driving force? Is it the fuel tank or the driver who supplies the guiding principle?

Mutations supply variability—the fuel of the evolutionary process. Natural selection and environmental pressures provide the driving force and guiding principle. Mutations make evolution possible. Natural selection makes evolution happen.

So it is true that even IF variation were random, selection would make it non-random. But one of the consequences of the fact that variation IS the driving force is that not all evolutionary change has surivival value, but I would not call these changes random either.

You seem to be using “random” in a non-standard sense. I would appreciate knowing what you mean when you say “random”.

The point is that variation is neither accidental nor random. And I think variation which is both intentional and controlled ought to be called creativity rather than random mutation.

Are you saying you believe every mutation is a purposeful act of God?

I don’t deny that possibility. But even if it is so, mutation is still scientifically random.

That way all of the evolutionary change which has no survival value can be properly seen as part of the creative nature of life (and God if he is participant as I believe) rather than as simply random and meaningless. This is of course a philosophical distinction rather than a scientific one, but then I make no pretention to being a biologist.

Well, scientifically, “random” does not imply “meaningless”.

 

[gluadys]

A "driving force" is a term from physics in the study of harmonic oscillation as a force which supplies energy to maintain or increase the oscillation.

I am not sure that a term from physics can be directly applied to evolutionary biology.

And from mutagenesis I know that mutation cannot be random, but perhaps we are simply not defining terms properly. I am saying that if you study the frequency of mutations accross the entire genetic code of a species you will not find an even distribution, but areas where the occurence of mutations tend to cluster and areas which the occurence of mutations avoid.

This is correct, so it may be a matter of miscommunication and failure to define terms. A biologist would speak of the areas in which mutation is infrequent as "conserved" meaning that if and when mutations occur in this area they are rejected via natural selection so that little or no change is preserved in future generations.

In euchariotic organisms, where the main source of variation has sexual origins and I would not call them mutation at all, you are going to find even sharper and more concetrated clustering and avoidance. That is a prediction based on my study of mutagenesis.

It is important to distinguish between mutation and variation. Mutation is a source of variation, but it is not the only source of variation. Especially in sexual reproduction, mutation can be a minor source of variation.

Natural selection can act at many levels including mutations, but in the classic Darwinian scenario, natural selection acts on variation, not mutation per se. A lot of mutation falls below the radar of natural selection. (Another reason to see natural selection rather than mutation as the driver of evolution.)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And from mutagenesis I know that mutation cannot be random, but perhaps we are simply not defining terms properly. I am saying that if you study the frequency of mutations accross the entire genetic code of a species you will not find an even distribution, but areas where the occurence of mutations tend to cluster and areas which the occurence of mutations avoid.

There are a number of mechanisms of mutation that are known to be statistically significant. From corn jumping genes to hotspots in the genome. The best analogy for the word random in RM is to the prediction of which atom will fission next in an radioactive material. You don't know which one, nor can you predict when any given one will fission, but there are lots of equations governing the aggregate behavior.

The same with RM, you can not predict which mutation will occur next in an organism. We simply don't have that level access to the events. Maybe God does, maybe God is not subject to QM uncertainties, but we are. This lack of knowledge is what biology means by RM, from how mutations occur, where they occur, how matings will occur in a population, to how crossover events will assort the genes. RM is a cover for this ignorance. Are there pockets of knowledge and of non-random behavior within this field? Yes, but nowhere near enough to claim that RM is not random but directed.

 

[shernren]

The point was that applying an information theory designed for handling information loss in electronic communication to genetics to make judgements about the theory of evolution is silly. But that said, I think expecting such a function to be developed based on genetic functionality is overly optimistic and I think the validity of your objection is extremely doubtful. It is just basic sense that purely random alteration destroys information.

I agree that it isn't sensible to throw information-theoretic concepts at evolution and the genome and then say that mutations always decrease information. In the first place I'm not even sure that information-theoretics can provide an ironclad argument for that even if they used it.

But I don't agree that it is basic sense that random mutation destroys information. Purposeful, communicative information, probably. But DNA isn't communicative information - there is no sender or intent, and it's a far shot to call the transcription mechanism a receiver - so I'm not sure how one can apply the concept of "information content" to DNA (or to the proteome).

It's really like the concept of the second law of thermodynamics. Sure, we all know that heat flows from hotter to colder objects. But we can only know that if we have a way to, given two objects, decide which is hotter and which is colder. And we cannot make it a scientific statement until we quantify the concept of temperature. And then the law although it seems simple has many important ramifications that are not entirely obvious, such as their applications in Carnot heat engine theory and all. In the same way I don't think I can be convinced that mutations necessarily destroy information until I can compare the before and after and reliably say which has "more information", and I don't think it's provable as a scientific concept until there is a quantitative gauge of information. And there would be important ramifications: mutations would have to be irreversible, because otherwise a mutation could alter the mutated genome back into a normal genome and thus add information.

 

[relspace]

And before you can drive your car you must fill the fuel tank. But is it the fuel tank or the engine that provides the driving force? Is it the fuel tank or the driver who supplies the guiding principle?

Yes the engine provides the driving force (using the chemical energy in the fuel to provide a force to do work). The driver would be the guiding principle. However, this analogy is not so great unless the car engine is running and the car is in gear because variation produces change even without selection operating. It is just not likely to get very far without natural selection just like a car running and in gear is not likely to get far without a driver.

Are you saying you believe every mutation is a purposeful act of God?

Not at all, I believe that living things intentionally develop mechanisms for controlled variation because creativity is a basic characteristic of living things (plus it has a definite survival advantage). The deterministic process in living systems is nonlinear so it has bifurcations where the organism makes its own choices, but these choices can be influenced.

I am not sure that a term from physics can be directly applied to evolutionary biology.

Don't be silly. Terms are adopted from one science to another by the use of analogy all the time and this is a perfect example. But if you are going to discuss applicability it is only natural to go back to the origin of the term.

You seem to be using “random” in a non-standard sense. I would appreciate knowing what you mean when you say “random”.
...........
This is correct, so it may be a matter of miscommunication and failure to define terms. A biologist would speak of the areas in which mutation is infrequent as "conserved" meaning that if and when mutations occur in this area they are rejected via natural selection so that little or no change is preserved in future generations.

Well I think that answered your question about my use of random. But I don't think you quite get it. I am saying that variations cluster and avoid before selection not just after. More complex organisms require more control of variation because of a larger number of critical functions. Without this control you are stuck with a choice between the too many lethal mutations (and low infant survival) and a stagnantly rigid genome with a consequently poor adaptablitiy for the species.

Natural selection can act at many levels including mutations, but in the classic Darwinian scenario, natural selection acts on variation, not mutation per se. A lot of mutation falls below the radar of natural selection. (Another reason to see natural selection rather than mutation as the driver of evolution.)

You are equating evolution with survival adaptation rather than actual development. Why? The main thing we are trying to explain here is the development of life and its diversity. Development "below the radar of natural selection" is still significant development which plays a huge role in the diversity of life. Which is why variation and not natural selection is the driving force of the development of life. You cannot get around the fact that selection depends on variation and not the other way around. This means that creativity (variation) is more fundamental than learning (selection). The ability to learn derives from the capacity for creativity. I am talking about learning new things not just being handed what is already known. The point is that primary cause for the development of life is NOT survival BUT the innate creativity of living things. Life deveops in spite of death not because of it, or at least we can say that death has a secondary role in development.

There are a number of mechanisms of mutation that are known to be statistically significant. From corn jumping genes to hotspots in the genome. The best analogy for the word random in RM is to the prediction of which atom will fission next in an radioactive material. You don't know which one, nor can you predict when any given one will fission, but there are lots of equations governing the aggregate behavior.

Yes indeed! It is because of quantum phenomena like this that gives us a basis for believing that randomness is real and not just superficial. And this particular phenomena is quite interesting because it does not seem to be associated with amplification process of a measurement and wave collapse. Hmmmm....

The same with RM, you can not predict which mutation will occur next in an organism. We simply don't have that level access to the events. Maybe God does, maybe God is not subject to QM uncertainties, but we are. This lack of knowledge is what biology means by RM, from how mutations occur, where they occur, how matings will occur in a population, to how crossover events will assort the genes. RM is a cover for this ignorance. Are there pockets of knowledge and of non-random behavior within this field? Yes, but nowhere near enough to claim that RM is not random but directed.

Not directed no, limited and controlled to maximize the benefit and usefulness, while minimizing the potential for harm. In fact, directed would make no sense at all, variation must be exploratory rather than goal oriented. This is what enables living things to reach beyond their own limitations and maintain adaptability.

And there would be important ramifications: mutations would have to be irreversible, because otherwise a mutation could alter the mutated genome back into a normal genome and thus add information.

Ahhh yes of course, information theory like thermodynamics is probabilitic. A second error in signal transmission can always reverse a previous error but it is just highly improbable. Likewise, random mutation can increase information in the sense of genetic functionality but it is highly improbable. The more complex the organism the more improbable it becomes which is why mechanisms for the limitation and control of variation has developed to improve the odds. In fact I think it is these mechanisms for improving the odds which is behind the Cambrian explosion.

 

[shernren]

Ahhh yes of course, information theory like thermodynamics is probabilitic. A second error in signal transmission can always reverse a previous error but it is just highly improbable. Likewise, random mutation can increase information in the sense of genetic functionality but it is highly improbable. The more complex the organism the more improbable it becomes which is why mechanisms for the limitation and control of variation has developed to improve the odds. In fact I think it is these mechanisms for improving the odds which is behind the Cambrian explosion.

Highly improbable does not equal impossible.

 

[gluadys]

Yes the engine provides the driving force (using the chemical energy in the fuel to provide a force to do work). The driver would be the guiding principle. However, this analogy is not so great unless the car engine is running and the car is in gear because variation produces change even without selection operating. It is just not likely to get very far without natural selection just like a car running and in gear is not likely to get far without a driver.

That the engine depends on the presence of fuel does not change the fact that it is the engine, not the fuel that is the driving force. Ditto with mutations and selection.

Variation certainly produces changes in organisms without selection. But does it produce change in species? Only species change is evolution.

Not at all, I believe that living things intentionally develop mechanisms for controlled variation because creativity is a basic characteristic of living things (plus it has a definite survival advantage).

OK. This is different. Are you saying that every organism, even bacteria, is capable of intention in some sense?

Are you following in the footsteps of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?

Do you have any suggestion of how to ascertain the existence and influence of intent relative to the evolution of unicellular organisms?

Or do you agree this is a philosophical hypothesis that cannot be subjected to scientific testing?

In any case, that you do believe this provides some basis for your reasoning. It is not a factor I would have considered on the basis of science alone.

Don't be silly. Terms are adopted from one science to another by the use of analogy all the time and this is a perfect example.

By use of analogy, sure. Just as "entropy" was borrowed by information theory from thermodynamics. But this also tends to change the meaning of the term in its new setting. So if biology borrows "driving force" from physics, I would expect some difference as well as some similarity in its meaning in the new setting.

Well I think that answered your question about my use of random. But I don't think you quite get it. I am saying that variations cluster and avoid before selection not just after.

That could well be. This is such a new area and we are learning so much so fast, I don't doubt that radically new theories will be needed to deal with it all.

You are equating evolution with survival adaptation rather than actual development. Why?

Because that's what evolution means. Evolution is not a program for development.

The role you give to intent might make it such, but I am not assuming intent.

Development "below the radar of natural selection" is still significant development which plays a huge role in the diversity of life.

How? How can mutational change that does not result in functional genetic change play any part at all in development? Are you claiming that synonymous amino acid substitutions do have an impact on the protein product? Or that mutations in non-functioning pseudo-genes play a role in development?

I need to see an explanation of how mutations which do not produce variations exposed to selection can play any role in development.

Which is why variation and not natural selection is the driving force of the development of life. You cannot get around the fact that selection depends on variation and not the other way around.

Dependence on variation does not take away the role of selection as the directing and driving force of evolution. Variation alone would lead to massive genetic randomization and extinction of the species.

This means that creativity (variation) is more fundamental than learning (selection). The ability to learn derives from the capacity for creativity. I am talking about learning new things not just being handed what is already known. The point is that primary cause for the development of life is NOT survival BUT the innate creativity of living things.

This line of reasoning derives from what you said earlier about intent as a characteristic of all living beings. Your perspective seems to be that of a Bergsonian elan vital , which was a popular and attractive philosophy. But such innate qualities of living substance have not been shown to exist on a scientific basis.

Whether they can be still considered from a metaphysical perspective is another question, and an intriguing one. However, since evolution is science, IMO it would be best to keep the metaphysical question separate from the scientific ones.

Life deveops in spite of death not because of it, or at least we can say that death has a secondary role in development.

I don't know that death has any role in development. This smacks of another creationist distortion of how evolution works.

 

[Willtor]

Ahhh yes of course, information theory like thermodynamics is probabilitic. A second error in signal transmission can always reverse a previous error but it is just highly improbable. Likewise, random mutation can increase information in the sense of genetic functionality but it is highly improbable. The more complex the organism the more improbable it becomes which is why mechanisms for the limitation and control of variation has developed to improve the odds. In fact I think it is these mechanisms for improving the odds which is behind the Cambrian explosion.

Vulcan Proverb: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

That said, I think using information theory in evolution is a misapplication. Information theory, like any math, is inextricably bound to a conscious mind. Information involves the interpreter and assigning meaning to something that occurs naturally is largely arbitrary.