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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
God did leave something to tell us about his creation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then why do many talks about the finely tuned universe for intelligent life.
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.
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.
Yes that too[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
Yes, please.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Then why do these papers talk about antibiotic resistance happening thousands of years before Fleming discovered antibiotics. For example here are some more articles
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?
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.
The articles seem to say that Morotopithecus goes back 21 million years ago.
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.
This is what he said or used as an example which is called the infinite monkey theorem.
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.
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.
True
