Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It always goes back to the elementals in paganism. There was even a question of which elemental was first, Thales thought it was water.This always fascinated me. Some things never change.
Since God is the Creator of all things and is a God of order, any 'laws' that man discovers are simply that which had already been imbedded into His creation.How does he do this, is it through some sort of supernatural event or through perhaps physical laws like quantum physics.
Yes I agree. Nothing makes sense without the instructions that go with it including the laws and codes that govern life. I think there may be an even deeper level of these laws that we cannot comprehend. As we discover more and peer deeper into how life works through science we are seeing that some of the scientific material laws devised to help understand our reality are breaking down such as with quantum physics and some of the phenomena we are seeing in the cosmos.Since God is the Creator of all things and is a God of order, any 'laws' that man discovers are simply that which had already been imbedded into His creation.
Yes I agree. Nothing makes sense without the instructions that go with it including the laws and codes that govern life. I think there may be an even deeper level of these laws that we cannot comprehend.
That's because I think there are other ways that living things can change to fit into their environments. It is not all about predator and prey and fit into an environment or perish. Living things can have a say in their own evolution by putting themselves in a better position to survive. Humans have been doing it for years. But they also have natural mechanisms that allow them to change such as through developmental processes where a creature's phenotype is more plastic and can vary through its interactions with environments. The environment acts back on living things and living things act back on environmental and with each other in changing ecosystems as well. Living things are not just programmed to change as with adaptive evolution and gene change but can be constructed through may mechanisms.There you go, you seem to have a handle on the basic conflict here. Evolution starts at creation, if you can imagine the creatures that inhabited the Ark of Noah disembarking to become the diversity we see all around us without adaptive evolution you have a much more vivid imagination then I do.
I think as science is discovering more they are hitting a point where our physical or should I say material perspective is being challenged. This can be highlighted by the debate about the physical brain and consciousness. This is especially relevant in quantum physics where the physical laws seem to break down with the observer effect. Some say this is just quantum goo but there seems to be some truth to it with some recent experiments. maybe this can be related back to Gods creation and how His signature maybe within all reality. Maybe this is to do with how what we see is not everything and that there is something else going on beyond this that makes our reality.Biology (although disconcertingly complex) is based on chemistry, after all. And chemistry (somewhat complex) is based on physics, which is less complex. So far, there is no sub-physics which can be detected.
But it's encouraging that physics has shown that physical reality is based on just a few simple laws, or possibly just one law.
At the bottom is, I suppose, "let there be light." If we never get to understand the physical basis of that which underlies physics, there is plenty of other things to understand about His creation.
First of all, I have argued about DNA comparisons since early in my time on CF, I have participated in an untolled number of threads. I would be delighted to discuss genomic comparisons with you, if you like we can start a thread and see how it goes, I have a ton of stuff on the subject.That's because I think there are other ways that living things can change to fit into their environments. It is not all about predator and prey and fit into an environment or perish. Living things can have a say in their own evolution by putting themselves in a better position to survive. Humans have been doing it for years. But they also have natural mechanisms that allow them to change such as through developmental processes where a creature's phenotype is more plastic and can vary through its interactions with environments. The environment acts back on living things and living things act back on environmental and with each other in changing ecosystems as well. Living things are not just programmed to change as with adaptive evolution and gene change but can be constructed through may mechanisms.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
This sounds interesting, do you have a thread along these lines or maybe you should start one.
Kind regards
Hi Crossnote! What about the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics). Do you believe that was imbedded into creation [by implication, I am referring to creation that occurred and was completed before sin]? My personal view is that while God did in fact create 'laws', the way the present creation exists is the result of the curse of sin and not the same state at which it would be if there had never been any sin... the way it will be again when we are with God in the eternal heaven (the new heaven and new earth).Since God is the Creator of all things and is a God of order, any 'laws' that man discovers are simply that which had already been imbedded into His creation.
An infinite God has embedded near infinite variations in His creation, which also goes to show that science changes it's theories to catch up with new discoveries... but God doesn't change.Yes I agree. Nothing makes sense without the instructions that go with it including the laws and codes that govern life. I think there may be an even deeper level of these laws that we cannot comprehend. As we discover more and peer deeper into how life works through science we are seeing that some of the scientific material laws devised to help understand our reality are breaking down such as with quantum physics and some of the phenomena we are seeing in the cosmos.
Yes, I agree there is a difference between the pre-fall and post-fall world. How much? Not sure. I suppose the introduction of death into creation was a form of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, how much? for even Adam and Eve were able to stop the growth process of a plant by eating it before the Fall...or were they?Hi Crossnote! What about the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics). Do you believe that was imbedded into creation [by implication, I am referring to creation that occurred and was completed before sin]? My personal view is that while God did in fact create 'laws', the way the present creation exists is the result of the curse of sin and not the same state at which it would be if there had never been any sin... the way it will be again when we are with God in the eternal heaven (the new heaven and new earth).
I think as science is dicovering more they are hitting a point where our phyical or should I say material perspective is being challenged. This can be highlighted by the debate about the physical brain and consciousness. This is especially relevant in quantum physics where the physical laws seem to break down with the observer effect. Some say this is just quantum goo but there seems to be some truth to itwith some recent experiemnets. maybe this can be related back to Gods creation and how His signature maybe within all reality. Maybe this is to do with how what we see is not everything and that there is something else going on beyond this that makes our relaity.
With regards to adaptive evolution and what you are describing, that sounds like environment. While it does trigger adaptive evolution I think the cause is ultimately molecular. A little fun fact for you, Polar bears, rabbits and foxes migrate north and their fur turns white, was that a chance happening or was there a molecular mechanism that made it happen? The arctic cod gets a brand new gene that keeps it from freezing in the frigid waters of the arctic, is that mutations with a beneficial effect or is there something else going on?
Yes God creation is not static and is designed with the ability to vary. There may be codes, laws and algorithms imbedded in his creation that allow change and creates new variations. The genome of living things could hold compressed info that could later be expressed to allow living things to change. We have a lot to learn about how living things operate and there may be some aspects we will never understand.An infinite God has embedded near infinite variations in His creation, which also goes to show that science changes it's theories to catch up with new discoveries... but God doesn't change.
I think it is more along the lines of metaphysics than theology. Some say that the area of consciousness could even be classed as science. That's because it intersects with the physical world. It seems now that science is trying to understand quantum physics this is where it is harder to measure according to classical science and where the weirdness starts and appears to move away from how physical reality works with cause and effect. It is almost as though science is trying to measure nothing. This would be of interest as it helps to understand how our reality works so I guess they can still call it science.It's called "theology." Science can only deal with the physical world.
I have always been fascinated with creatures who can mimic and change form to resemble other creatures or nature. It is almost as though living things and nature itself are connected and have some inbuilt antenna that is tuned into it. I believe the way say the cuttlefish can change shape and colour and texture to mimic other living things is not the result of adaptive evolution but is something that the genome has been able to do (switch on and off). Often these changes are specific to the point of mimicking detailed design that would be near impossible to replicate through a blind and random process.First of all, I have argued about DNA comparisons since early in my time on CF, I have participated in an untolled number of threads. I would be delighted to discuss genomic comparisons with you, if you like we can start a thread and see how it goes, I have a ton of stuff on the subject.
With regards to adaptive evolution and what you are describing, that sounds like environment. While it does trigger adaptive evolution I think the cause is ultimately molecular. A little fun fact for you, Polar bears, rabbits and foxes migrate north and their fur turns white, was that a chance happening or was there a molecular mechanism that made it happen? The arctic cod gets a brand new gene that keeps it from freezing in the frigid waters of the Arctic, is that mutations with a beneficial effect or is there something else going on?
Things worth considering, let me know if you're interested in a thread on chimpanzee and human genomic comparisons, it would be fun.
Grace and peace,
Mark
God did leave something to tell us about his creation.Remarkably, one can understand the workings of nature without any regard to God at all. He could have left something to show us that He was the creator, but He chose not to do so. Free will seems to be very important to Him, and if he made belief mandatory for any rational being, that would not be free.
I agree but just as we may find an ancient plumbing system in an archaeological dig and know that it was the result of an ancient civilization so can we know the workings of life is the result of Gods creation. Science can help us see this. The problem I see is that science can be associated with materialism which is then linked back to atheism.Science is methodologically naturalistic, like plumbing. Ontological naturalism is impossible in systems like science and plumbing, which have no way of determining such things. Science and plumbing can't know anything about God.
But scientists and plumbers can.
According to what the bible says everyone knows deep in their hearts that God is the creator. When they look at his creation they know that there is something great behind it and that it ultimately cannot come from a material source. It is just that some shut this out and are filled with ideas about naturalism. They almost turn the created into the creator. The bible talks about this as well.This is St. Paul's way of explaining natural law; the notion that gentiles are justified by the law written in their hearts. The Golden Rule, and much, much more. Being out alone or with my dog, and seeing nature as it is, often involves a religious epiphany for me. But not for many others. Belief opens one's eyes to the world He made in a way that complements, but does not replace science.
Yes he did. According to some research we are all born natural believers in the divine concepts. We can look at the world and universe and know that there is something behind this. But it is the secular world that knocks this out of us and indoctrinates our thinking. We are beginning to see the culmination of this materialistic thinking about how our teaching institutions want to dictate what reality is and how we should think.But God made it knowable and learnable, specifically for us.
Its a matter of balance. I think both science and philiosophy/religion have their place. But I think just as religion dominated proceedings earlier on the scientific materialism is taking over and dominating our thinking. Any thought outside this is mocked. people begin to see science or the use of it as a god and believe that they can be gods through it.Don't see how. After all, we see both operating in this universe.
For me, the jury is still out. I have no problem with accepting evolution as this still can fit in with how God works. But I tend to be sceptical for non-religious reasons. Evolution to me just does not explain adequately what is going on. That is why I like the EES as it retains some of the Darwinian evolution and rejects other parts of reinterprets it and adds a whole lot more which seems to fit well with what we see.Observably, it tends to increase fitness in a population. This cannot be random. But there is much random evolution, particularly with mutations that are only very slightly harmful or only very slightly beneficial.
But creatures altering their environment is non-random. They are specifically changing things to better suit their chances of survival or to fit into an environment. IE humans build shelters in cold climates to survive and reproduce. Without them, they die. Natural selection did not determine this the human did. They selected beneficial conditions. This goes for all living things. Beavers build dams to create a suitable environment for them to find food and reproduce. Creatures build nests to create a favourable environment. It can also be influenced by cultural and social practices.Not always. Darwin's observation about organisms altering their environment applies here. And from a systems perspective, random processes, combine with non-random processes, are non-random.
God did leave something to tell us about his creation.
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 (NLT)
I believe that science can help us see Gods creation even more so.
I agree but just as we may find an ancient plumbing system in an archaeological dig and know that it was the result of an ancient civilization so can we know the workings of life is the result of Gods creation.
Science can help us see this. The problem I see is that science can be associated with materialism which is then linked back to atheism.
So even if something was pointing to God many scientists will find anything even a far fetched idea and label it science to avoid acknowledging there is a God.
Though science itself is not the issue it can depend on the way that science is used. I still think there is an underlying methodology with science, the way it evolved and its associations make it intrinsically materialistic. This is called the scientific materialism.
Its a matter of balance. I think both science and philiosophy/religion have their place. But I think just as religion dominated proceedings earlier on the scientific materialism is taking over and dominating our thinking. Any thought outside this is mocked.
For me, the jury is still out. I have no problem with accepting evolution as this still can fit in with how God works.
But I tend to be sceptical for non-religious reasons. Evolution to me just does not explain adequately what is going on.
The problem is some may interpret what is non-adaptive with Darwin's adaptive processes because it is hard to tell. For example, the increase in fitness that is attributed to adaptive evolution may stem from natural process mentioned in the EES.
The increase in complexity that comes with adaptations may be the result of non-adaptive forces I linked in my previous posts.
But creatures altering their environment is non-random.
They are specifically changing things to better suit their chances of survival or to fit into an environment.
IE humans build shelters in cold climates to survive and reproduce. Without them, they die. Natural selection did not determine this the human did. They selected beneficial conditions.
I will leave it at that for the moment as it is getting late.
Regards Steve.
But how do we know these are random mutations. A change in sequences does not mean it was random. As you know from what I have posted there is evidence of directed change from many different sources. Pre-existing genetic info is being utilized in many cases and being switched on or recombined.Which is what we observe. Hall's bacteria, for example. Or the remarkably fast evolution of a new digestive organ in Adriatic lizards, when moved to a new environment. A series of evolutionary changes quickly (in a matter of two decades) adapted them to their new home.
But we should see the countless losers because they leave dysfunctional outcomes. For every good prototype that survived there should be many bad prototypes that died. Creatures with malformed features, we should see countless diseased and dysfunctional animals and humans all over the place living now if Darwinian processes are at work experimenting on the next new beneficial features.It looks more impressive than it is, because we only see the winners, not the countless losers.
Once again this could also be the result of a control gene that can change the development of major body plans and not necessarily the result of random mutations changing a creature bit by bit. Research shows that apes were able to walk upright well before scientists claim they first started to walk upright. It was not the case of gradual evolution.It was for demonstrating that, that Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels. Our adaptation to bipedal movement is definitely suboptimal. But it's fairly recent, so maybe not finished.
yet it is random in that there was no guarantee that the second mutation would come to make the initial one less of a cost to fitness. It may have been the case that humans were not evolved at all and because they are here is only due to luck.Like HbS and HbC. Natural selection merely selects from what is there. It is creation only in the sense that it determines what alleles will be present, in what frequency, for the next generation.
If you say that God created a universe that allows organisms such as us to evolve naturally then you are implying that there were some specific laws that ensured this would happen rather than a chance and random process that could have produced any possible outcome.He created a universe in which such organisms, and such mechanisms would evolve naturally.
I don’t mean life as in the first life but the evolution of life. They propose from the beginning of our universe that this was done by naturalistic material causes that did not need a God involved. This same view is carried through to the evolution of life itself.They'd be rather ignorant if they thought so. Evolution is not about the origin of life. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things. God, however says that the earth produced the first living things as He intended. So it seems that He was great enough to make that happen naturally, after all.
speaking of computer programs it is the same as saying if you had a number of letters that spelt out a coherent number of words for example using Dawkins again his famous Me think it’s a weasel” program. Dawkins uses this to show how evolution is guided by natural selection.Let's see how that works. Suppose we have a population with a certain gene locus with 2 allles, each with a frequency of 0.5. Suppose there is a mutation producing a third allele, and eventually, each of them then have a frequency of about 0.333. (I'm using these numbers to make computation easy, but you can change them, if you like)
What was the information for that gene when there were two alleles and what was the information when there were three? If there's a difference in information, from where did it come?
But people talk about how if any of the initial conditions were slightly different, we would not have the right mix when things cooled. i.e.Not actually. If we could recreate the conditions at the beginning, then the laws would be as they were then. Decoupling obeyed the same laws we have today, and matter condensed out of the initial expansion only when it cooled sufficiently to let electrons and protons come together to form hydrogen.
Then why do many talks about the finely tuned universe for intelligent life.Whether it happened by design or by contingent processes doesn't matter at all to God.
by many constants being just right that needed to be just right to produce me. This is a well know argument. Even non-religious scientists support this but they tend to come up with counter arguments like the multiverse theory to negate it.Let's put a finer point on it. How was the universe so finely tuned that it was able to produce you?
Yet so many scientists support this last one. That is why they come up with the idea of a multiverse. If there are billions of slightly different universes with slightly different physical constants, then it makes our not so special. It puts it in among a lot of possibilities and not just one which would make it more likely to be the result of tinkering with the constants.The strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that the universe is as it is, because we are here. The weak anthropic principle (WAP) says that the universe is the way it is, because if it was different, we wouldn't be here to see it. One last version says that it is the way it is, because it was designed by a designer. This is sometimes referred to as the completely ridiculous anthropic principle.
Yes that too[/quote]Obviously, an omnipotent creator doesn't need to design. And as Aquinas says, He can use necessity or contingency in His divine providence.
But how do we know these are random mutations.
A change in sequences does not mean it was random.
Pre-existing genetic info is being utilized in many cases and being switched on or recombined.
Also, we have HGT especially with bacteria.
AS I posted earlier Hall experiments simply show that lactose tolerance was already an ability that living things had.
This can help explain why evolutionary change can happen so fast as with the lizards.
If it was a case of Darwinian processes only then this should not happen fast.
AS Darwin himself said it is a slow and gradual process.
It makes more sense that changes to what is a complex system can happen fast because it involves mechanisms that allow the utilization and combining of existing genetic info or the loss of existing info.
New research findings show antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern clinical antibiotic use.
Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance
to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago.
But we should see the countless losers because they leave dysfunctional outcomes.
Research shows that apes were able to walk upright well before scientists claim they first started to walk upright.
It was not the case of gradual evolution.
An extraordinary advance in human origins research reveals evidence of the emergence of the upright human body plan over 15 million years earlier than most experts have believed.
yet it is random in that there was no guarantee that the second mutation would come to make the initial one less of a cost to fitness.
It may have been the case that humans were not evolved at all and because they are here is only due to luck.
It is a bit like Dawkins explanation of evolution being blind chance with no purpose and his example of a bunch of monkeys at typewriters where one would eventually through time type out a Shakespeare’s poem. That denotes pure chance.
Why would God use such a process like that when he needed certainty for his future plans for humankind?
If you say that God created a universe that allows organisms such as us to evolve naturally then you are implying that there were some specific laws that ensured this would happen rather than a chance and random process that could have produced any possible outcome.
The main supporters of evolution propose that no God is needed at all
I find it hard to reconcile how an all-powerful God would leave things up to random and chance processes.
But if beneficial mutations are so rare how do they come in such a short time. Also as noted in Halls experiment the new function in lactose tolerance was associated with existing genetic info. That sort of makes more sense if it happened fast as the change does not have to mutate new genetic info which would require a trial and error process.Because only a few of them were favorable, and most were neutral or harmful. Natural selection sorted it out.
According to many that are exactly what is produced by Darwinian evolution. But that is not what I meant. I mean that what may be interpreted as a random mutation producing the changes may be some other mechanism. Because there are so many other possibilities the change may be the result of other mechanisms that can change DNA sequences such as the ones I have already mentioned. There is no way for them to tell.It would be odd if some kind of plan produced mostly neutral or harmful mutations.
If that’s the case then it seems strange that what began as a single-celled organism can evolve into something that certainly has increased genetic info that was not there, to begin with. You can only recombine and re-jig existing info so much. It is like starting out with a single word and ending up with a paragraph and progressing to a then a page and then a book.Pre-existing genetic material is always utilized in evolution. It never makes anything de novo; it always modified existing things. However, new genetic information is produced every time there's a new mutation.
Yes, please.Yep. But in this case, that wasn't the source of the new information. Would you like me to explain how we know?
But didn’t humans already have that ability to utilize lactose as infants and then gradually lost that ability. So they can get it back again.This wasn't about tolerance. It's about bacteria evolving a new enzyme to utilize lactose. And Hall knew that the bacterium with which the culture started did not have that ability.
What I find hard to believe with these types of changes is that for random mutations to produce the right genetic changes to get that rare beneficial change in producing that spiral valve it has to also be able to produce non-functional mutational changes. Yet any non-functional change to a sensitive feature like a valve for digestion could be lethal. It makes more sense that the Lizards development mechanism responded to the pressure the lizard was under and produce the right feature in one go without a trial and error of Darwinian processes.No, the new organ did not exist in that species of lizards. However, the vertebrate digestive system can evolve to lengthen in response to natural selection. That's not what happened in this case, though. A spiral valve evolved over the decades, and was more efficient than merely lengthening the tract.
I have been posting that info along the way. Generally, if some of these variations are using existing genetic info and recombine or switching on latent genetic info then it would not take a long time. If the genetic info stems processes like HGT or symbiosis, then this would help creatures to evolve quicker by already having a source of genetic info needed to adapt. If organisms are more plastic in their phenotypes then there is more flexibility in their phenotypes to use that would produce changes quicker.I'd be interested in seeing your data for that. What do you have?
I thought the evolution of new traits takes thousands if not millions of years. If it happens in a few decades, then why do scientists say that for example most of the main phylum came about over ½ a billion years ago and many have taken 10 million years to change from one to another to get today's creatures. If mutations are random and beneficial ones are very rare then they are not going to throw up anything of use for some time. Also, a trait is not going to happen in one go. Like the eye example that started as an eye patch. It took time for each stage to get to the complex eye.It was indeed gradual. But it's the fastest known example of the evolution of a new trait. Show us the numbers that say it can't happen in a few decades.
Yes but that existing genetic info will only produce certainly limited results. For example, for an eye patch to evolve into a complex eye there needs to be more genetic info then what an eye patch contains. It has to come from outside from somewhere. Natural selection is good at explaining the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.That's what Darwinian evolution does.
Then why do some use this as an example of evolution by saying that this is a new adaptation because antibiotics have only been around since recent time for bacteria to evolve resistance to the antibiotics.No kidding. Why would anyone suppose that other soil organisms would not produce resistance to penicillin? Penicillium was using it to kill off competitors. Of course, some of them would evolve resistance.
Then why do these papers talk about antibiotic resistance happening thousands of years before Fleming discovered antibiotics. For example here are some more articlesSeems unlikely. Flemming himself predicted it not long after penicillin was brought into use.
But there should be way more dysfunctional outcomes than functional ones because harmful mutations are 1000's of times more likely. From what I have read most living things are well defined and functional. Can you give some examples?Yep. That's what we see in nature. But not merely the "dysfunctional." The "not as functional as some others" also lose out.
I thought I posted the link. Around at least 15 million years before scientists had attributed bipedal apes. The strange thing is that it is more about how this happened rather than when it happened. It seems that there was a change in the control gene that produces either a 4-legged body plan or a 2 legged one. So it may have been that a 2 legged infant aged was born and walking around with their siblings who were still unable to walk upright.When do you think scientists claim apes first started to walk upright? Show us that.
The articles seem to say that Morotopithecus goes back 21 million years ago.I think most "experts" knew about Oreopithecus, bipedal (around 9 million years ago). However, all of these "bipedal" hominins were less evolved than we are, in terms of bipedalism. Even early Homo are less adapted to walking upright than we are.
Yes but it is the ability of a random process to produce that second beneficial mutation. It is when one random mutation has to rely on a second or third on etc to make the beneficial change which is often the case. Research shows this is very hard and probably impossible to do and even if it was able to it would take too long, longer than what evolution claims.And it is non-random in that those with a second useful mutation would have a better chance of passing on their genes. As I mentioned, it's a systems principle that a random process, plus a non-random process, is a non-random process.
This is what he said or used as an example which is called the infinite monkey theorem.I don't think you've accurately depicted Dawkin's position. I'm not very familiar with his writing, but he's a hyper-selectionist, so he would laugh at the position you just outlined.
I have heard of Aquinas and sort of understand his contingency concept but can you explain this in layman's terms for me as I find it hard to fully understand.Because, as Aquinas points out, God can use contingency just as easily as He can use necessity.
Yes but that is not what I mean. As supporters of evolution point out that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I am meaning the actual process of evolving life from that first organism to complex ones like us. They say this evolution has no purpose, direction and end goal. It is just blind, pitiless and without any God or intelligence behind it.Darwin thought God just created the first living things. Would you consider him a "main supporter of evolution?"
TrueFortunately, God is not limited by our expectations of Him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?