God and Evolution (Introduction)
I’ve shifted this from from "Nature's Wonders", which is no longer appropriate.
DHW: Tony was talking about single organisms communicating changes to others of their kind. I am pointing out that communities subjected to the same environmental conditions will make the same changes. Multiple pre-whales, male and female, would have entered the water, and so multiple pre-whales would have developed fins from legs – not just one passing its genes onto its neighbours. But nobody knows how speciation took place. Horizontal gene transfer may well have been an important factor.
TONY: And what DHW is suggesting is so miraculous that he might as well be saying 'God did it'. How did the creatures survive long enough to determine what physiological and biochemical changes would be needed, and then how did they communicate that to the entire species? I mean, think of how much knowledge and information exchange (between members of the soon to be altered species) you are talking about, or the likelihood that they would ALL arrive at the same solution without communication.
DAVID: Those that don't get the message remain the old species, I assume. Cells communicate automatically at the multicellular level, and that must be true or the organism would not live. The single cell is an all in one and must do everything. Communication is limited to quorum sensing and gene transfer, and I consider it almost all very automatic as a series of molecular reactions.
TONY: To cells within a single organism, that is possible, however unlikely, but look at the rest of the question. How did one multi-cellular organism and another multi-cellular organism, or the cells inside them, all come to the SAME conclusion at the SAME time. It takes more than one multi-cellular organism to reproduce, in almost all cases.
DAVID: How does a single mutation in one individual get spread into the group? Chance meeting for reproduction takes too long for the times involved in the record, and species appear only after huge gaps in phenotype.
You are still talking about single organisms! So please reread what you quoted at the start of this post. I will add that the eight stages of whale development are indeed a special mystery. So please explain why your God chose to specially create these eight stages, and are you saying that he did a wooj-wooj to change every individual at the same time, or do you think he went round the world twiddling with each individual? See “Pointy eggs and whales” for more.
dhw:We know these animals are comfortable in both environments. All you’re saying is that your God did it. We are talking about your belief that your God changed organisms BEFORE the environment changed (which requires a crystal ball or total control of the environment) – as opposed to the suggestion that environmental change triggered organismal change.
DAVID: Why does an all-powerful, all-knowing God need a crystal ball?
It’s a metaphor for knowing the future, which is essential if you think your God restructured organisms before the environmental changes that they were to master or exploit.
DAVID: And why not have an unlimited God in what He knows and what He plans. You view Him as with human limitations!
dhw: Another of your straw men. In the past you have imposed limitations on him with your uncertainty as to the degree of control he exerts over the environment. The hypothesis I have proposed imposes no limitations whatsoever. Creating an evolutionary free-for-all is no different from creating free will – that would have been his choice, though of course he could intervene if he wished to.
DAVID: Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't.
You keep talking of advance planning, and that requires knowledge of the future. Why is that a limitation? Of course he does what he wants (if he exists). And if he wants a free-for-all in which he can intervene when he wants to, he is doing what he wants.
TONY: Well.....I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to. I think he does what he wants because he knows and wants whats best. I just don't think that our idea of what's best matches his idea of what's best, which causes us to question his motives and methods.
I try to take the approach of assuming that his approach is best, and then try to understand why his approach is best.
Your way of thinking is no less human than mine or David’s, and boils down to him wanting what is best, and whatever he thinks is best is best but we don’t know what it is.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Monday, August 27, 2018, 17:17 (2066 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't.
You keep talking of advance planning, and that requires knowledge of the future. Why is that a limitation? Of course he does what he wants (if he exists). And if he wants a free-for-all in which he can intervene when he wants to, he is doing what he wants.
TONY: Well.....I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to. I think he does what he wants because he knows and wants whats best. I just don't think that our idea of what's best matches his idea of what's best, which causes us to question his motives and methods.
I try to take the approach of assuming that his approach is best, and then try to understand why his approach is best.DHW: Your way of thinking is no less human than mine or David’s, and boils down to him wanting what is best, and whatever he thinks is best is best but we don’t know what it is.
Eh, that was a typo on my part. "I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to on God." Or, to put it differently, we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?
The question is, what did HE do, and why? What does the evidence say, sans fairy tale? Forget special creation, fiddling, twiddling, diddling, cellular intelligence, or programming etc. for a minute. What does the EVIDENCE say when we DON'T add a narrative to it?
We have dogs. We have cats. We have whales. We have rats. There is DNA, that codes proteins and regulates gene expression. There are complex, tightly controlled interactions between systems at every observable level that are so ubiquitous that they can be codified into repeatable, dependable sciences (Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc). All of nature, organic and inorganic, follows tightly constrained rules and patterns that work together towards a harmonious whole(Mineral properties and cellular life). Systems that are physically separate demonstrate startling levels of two way interaction (flowers and bees, algae and atmosphere).
Taking a deconstructionist approach (which is the norm now) we can analyze each system as an individual, but in doing so we lose sight that the entirety also works as a singular unified system.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Monday, August 27, 2018, 18:58 (2066 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't.
You keep talking of advance planning, and that requires knowledge of the future. Why is that a limitation? Of course he does what he wants (if he exists). And if he wants a free-for-all in which he can intervene when he wants to, he is doing what he wants.
TONY: Well.....I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to. I think he does what he wants because he knows and wants whats best. I just don't think that our idea of what's best matches his idea of what's best, which causes us to question his motives and methods.
I try to take the approach of assuming that his approach is best, and then try to understand why his approach is best.DHW: Your way of thinking is no less human than mine or David’s, and boils down to him wanting what is best, and whatever he thinks is best is best but we don’t know what it is.
Tony: Eh, that was a typo on my part. "I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to on God." Or, to put it differently, we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?The question is, what did HE do, and why? What does the evidence say, sans fairy tale? Forget special creation, fiddling, twiddling, diddling, cellular intelligence, or programming etc. for a minute. What does the EVIDENCE say when we DON'T add a narrative to it?
We have dogs. We have cats. We have whales. We have rats. There is DNA, that codes proteins and regulates gene expression. There are complex, tightly controlled interactions between systems at every observable level that are so ubiquitous that they can be codified into repeatable, dependable sciences (Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc). All of nature, organic and inorganic, follows tightly constrained rules and patterns that work together towards a harmonious whole(Mineral properties and cellular life). Systems that are physically separate demonstrate startling levels of two way interaction (flowers and bees, algae and atmosphere).
Taking a deconstructionist approach (which is the norm now) we can analyze each system as an individual, but in doing so we lose sight that the entirety also works as a singular unified system.
To which I always add balance of nature for food/energy supply which existing life must always have as it must constantly counter entropy.
God and Evolution
DHW: Your way of thinking is no less human than mine or David’s, and boils down to him wanting what is best, and whatever he thinks is best is best but we don’t know what it is.
Tony: Eh, that was a typo on my part. "I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to on God." Or, to put it differently, we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?
We are not saying what WE would do. If God exists, he must have had a method of creating the history of life as we know it. We are trying to work out what that method might have been.
TONY: The question is, what did HE do, and why? What does the evidence say, sans fairy tale? Forget special creation, fiddling, twiddling, diddling, cellular intelligence, or programming etc. for a minute. What does the EVIDENCE say when we DON'T add a narrative to it?
We have dogs. We have cats. We have whales. We have rats. There is DNA, that codes proteins and regulates gene expression. There are complex, tightly controlled interactions between systems at every observable level that are so ubiquitous that they can be codified into repeatable, dependable sciences (Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc). All of nature, organic and inorganic, follows tightly constrained rules and patterns that work together towards a harmonious whole(Mineral properties and cellular life). Systems that are physically separate demonstrate startling levels of two way interaction (flowers and bees, algae and atmosphere).
Taking a deconstructionist approach (which is the norm now) we can analyze each system as an individual, but in doing so we lose sight that the entirety also works as a singular unified system.
Thank you for a magnificent analysis of what we do find (although it leaves out the fact that despite the harmony of the whole, vast numbers of species (90%+) have disappeared). I would like to think that everyone else would join me in agreeing with you and appreciating the way in which you have summed up the oneness of the system. But that is what we are all trying to explain: how did it happen? Atheists will tell you that it all fell into place because that is how impersonal Nature works (natural laws). Theists will tell you that there is an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mind behind it all, and then they speculate as to what he’s like, what he wants, and how he did it. The latter gives rise to hypotheses like David’s preprogramming and/or dabbling. My own hypothesis of cellular intelligence allows both for theism and for atheism. I’m not sure how to sum up your hypothesis, as it seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (separate creation of species) and cellular intelligence (species organize their own variations).
DAVID: To which I always add balance of nature for food/energy supply which existing life must always have as it must constantly counter entropy.
Yes, yes, all life forms need food, and if the “balance of nature” changes, they may not get food and they may die, which also changes the balance of nature.
dhw: You are still talking about single organisms! So please reread what you quoted at the start of this post. I will add that the eight stages of whale development are indeed a special mystery. So please explain why your God chose to specially create these eight stages, and are you saying that he did a wooj-wooj to change every individual at the same time, or do you think he went round the world twiddling with each individual? See “Pointy eggs and whales” for more.
DAVID: No one can explain God, and you know that.
You have not answered my question. I am not asking for an explanation of God. I have offered an explanation of whale development, and you do not accept it. So please tell us how YOU account for the eight stages, if not by one of the two methods I've mentioned.
DAVID: Can you solve Haldane's dilemma?
Oh come on, you know I am not a scientist. But I did point out that if you subscribe to cellular intelligence, time factors are irrelevant, just as they are if you subscribe to divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling. For anyone interested, here are two websites that claim to solve Haldane’s dilemma by questioning his assumptions.
CB121: Haldane's Dilemma - TalkOrigins Archive
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html
Debate Argument: Haldane's Dilemma | Debate.org
www.debate.org/debates/Haldanes-Dilemma/1
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 28, 2018, 18:10 (2065 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: The question is, what did HE do, and why? What does the evidence say, sans fairy tale? Forget special creation, fiddling, twiddling, diddling, cellular intelligence, or programming etc. for a minute. What does the EVIDENCE say when we DON'T add a narrative to it?
We have dogs. We have cats. We have whales. We have rats. There is DNA, that codes proteins and regulates gene expression. There are complex, tightly controlled interactions between systems at every observable level that are so ubiquitous that they can be codified into repeatable, dependable sciences (Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc). All of nature, organic and inorganic, follows tightly constrained rules and patterns that work together towards a harmonious whole(Mineral properties and cellular life). Systems that are physically separate demonstrate startling levels of two way interaction (flowers and bees, algae and atmosphere).
Taking a deconstructionist approach (which is the norm now) we can analyze each system as an individual, but in doing so we lose sight that the entirety also works as a singular unified system.dhw: Thank you for a magnificent analysis of what we do find (although it leaves out the fact that despite the harmony of the whole, vast numbers of species (90%+) have disappeared). I would like to think that everyone else would join me in agreeing with you and appreciating the way in which you have summed up the oneness of the system. But that is what we are all trying to explain: how did it happen? Atheists will tell you that it all fell into place because that is how impersonal Nature works (natural laws). Theists will tell you that there is an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mind behind it all, and then they speculate as to what he’s like, what he wants, and how he did it. The latter gives rise to hypotheses like David’s preprogramming and/or dabbling. My own hypothesis of cellular intelligence allows both for theism and for atheism. I’m not sure how to sum up your hypothesis, as it seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (separate creation of species) and cellular intelligence (species organize their own variations).
I agree Tony's analysis is right on.
dhw: You are still talking about single organisms! So please reread what you quoted at the start of this post. I will add that the eight stages of whale development are indeed a special mystery. So please explain why your God chose to specially create these eight stages, and are you saying that he did a wooj-wooj to change every individual at the same time, or do you think he went round the world twiddling with each individual? See “Pointy eggs and whales” for more.
DAVID: No one can explain God, and you know that.
dhw: You have not answered my question. I am not asking for an explanation of God. I have offered an explanation of whale development, and you do not accept it. So please tell us how YOU account for the eight stages, if not by one of the two methods I've mentioned.
There is no answer. I think God created each species of the whale stages. To not have a small gene pool he created several pairs at once.
DAVID: Can you solve Haldane's dilemma?dhw: Oh come on, you know I am not a scientist. But I did point out that if you subscribe to cellular intelligence, time factors are irrelevant, just as they are if you subscribe to divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling. For anyone interested, here are two websites that claim to solve Haldane’s dilemma by questioning his assumptions.
CB121: Haldane's Dilemma - TalkOrigins Archive
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.htmlDebate Argument: Haldane's Dilemma | Debate.org
www.debate.org/debates/Haldanes-Dilemma/1
And I can give you many comments on the other side.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, August 28, 2018, 19:10 (2065 days ago) @ dhw
Tony: ...we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?[/i]
DHW: We are not saying what WE would do. If God exists, he must have had a method of creating the history of life as we know it. We are trying to work out what that method might have been.
Most of what I see is people trying to prove God doesn't exist, not trying to actually figure out what happened. Most of the assumptions they start with are precluded with 'God doesn't exist'. Most of the language used to describe their observations have 'God doesn't exist' as a foregone conclusion. Here, that is less of an issue, but I was speaking in generalities. Still, you don't reverse engineer something by starting at the beginning. You start at the end and work your way back, and you start with pure observation without an over arching narrative. Once you include a narrative, you are predisposed to confirmation bias.
TONY: The question is, what did HE do, and why? What does the evidence say, sans fairy tale? Forget special creation, fiddling, twiddling, diddling, cellular intelligence, or programming etc. for a minute. What does the EVIDENCE say when we DON'T add a narrative to it?
We have dogs. We have cats. We have whales. We have rats. There is DNA, that codes proteins and regulates gene expression. There are complex, tightly controlled interactions between systems at every observable level that are so ubiquitous that they can be codified into repeatable, dependable sciences (Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc). All of nature, organic and inorganic, follows tightly constrained rules and patterns that work together towards a harmonious whole(Mineral properties and cellular life). Systems that are physically separate demonstrate startling levels of two way interaction (flowers and bees, algae and atmosphere).
Taking a deconstructionist approach (which is the norm now) we can analyze each system as an individual, but in doing so we lose sight that the entirety also works as a singular unified system.DHW: Thank you for a magnificent analysis of what we do find (although it leaves out the fact that despite the harmony of the whole, vast numbers of species (90%+) have disappeared). I would like to think that everyone else would join me in agreeing with you and appreciating the way in which you have summed up the oneness of the system. But that is what we are all trying to explain: how did it happen? Atheists will tell you that it all fell into place because that is how impersonal Nature works (natural laws). Theists will tell you that there is an unknown, unknowable, sourceless mind behind it all, and then they speculate as to what he’s like, what he wants, and how he did it. The latter gives rise to hypotheses like David’s preprogramming and/or dabbling. My own hypothesis of cellular intelligence allows both for theism and for atheism. I’m not sure how to sum up your hypothesis, as it seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (separate creation of species) and cellular intelligence (species organize their own variations).
It doesn't leave it out. It leaves it unanswered, leaving room for us to ask WHY it happened, which I have addressed on a number of occasions.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 28, 2018, 20:15 (2065 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: ...we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?[/i]
DHW: We are not saying what WE would do. If God exists, he must have had a method of creating the history of life as we know it. We are trying to work out what that method might have been.
Tony: Most of what I see is people trying to prove God doesn't exist, not trying to actually figure out what happened. Most of the assumptions they start with are precluded with 'God doesn't exist'. Most of the language used to describe their observations have 'God doesn't exist' as a foregone conclusion. Here, that is less of an issue, but I was speaking in generalities. Still, you don't reverse engineer something by starting at the beginning. You start at the end and work your way back, and you start with pure observation without an over arching narrative. Once you include a narrative, you are predisposed to confirmation bias.
You have described how I started from a position of soft agnosticism. In my 50's I did a get deal of reading about particle physics and the new standard theory of cosmology and changed my mind. Studying pure science can do it.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 06:41 (2065 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: ...we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?[/i]
DHW: We are not saying what WE would do. If God exists, he must have had a method of creating the history of life as we know it. We are trying to work out what that method might have been.
Tony: Most of what I see is people trying to prove God doesn't exist, not trying to actually figure out what happened. Most of the assumptions they start with are precluded with 'God doesn't exist'. Most of the language used to describe their observations have 'God doesn't exist' as a foregone conclusion. Here, that is less of an issue, but I was speaking in generalities. Still, you don't reverse engineer something by starting at the beginning. You start at the end and work your way back, and you start with pure observation without an over arching narrative. Once you include a narrative, you are predisposed to confirmation bias.
David: You have described how I started from a position of soft agnosticism. In my 50's I did a get deal of reading about particle physics and the new standard theory of cosmology and changed my mind. Studying pure science can do it.
Indeed it can, but not if you start with a foregone conclusion. Even over the course of the last several years of these discussions with you I have observed your position slowly shifting from a more naturalistic point of view to a more theistic one. Not that you were (since I've been here) purely naturalistic, but I have watched you embrace the concept of a designed universe more fully as the years rolled by, largely I think because of the increasingly apparent complexity that is completely at odds with the naturalistic approach.
The interesting thing is that you are not alone in this. I have witnessed a growing movement among formerly naturalistic scientist that have started embracing design. Even if they do not subscribe to a particular theory of a designer, they are at least acknowledging that it HAD to be designed. It's a start.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 15:30 (2064 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: You have described how I started from a position of soft agnosticism. In my 50's I did a get deal of reading about particle physics and the new standard theory of cosmology and changed my mind. Studying pure science can do it.
Tony: Indeed it can, but not if you start with a foregone conclusion. Even over the course of the last several years of these discussions with you I have observed your position slowly shifting from a more naturalistic point of view to a more theistic one. Not that you were (since I've been here) purely naturalistic, but I have watched you embrace the concept of a designed universe more fully as the years rolled by, largely I think because of the increasingly apparent complexity that is completely at odds with the naturalistic approach.The interesting thing is that you are not alone in this. I have witnessed a growing movement among formerly naturalistic scientist that have started embracing design. Even if they do not subscribe to a particular theory of a designer, they are at least acknowledging that it HAD to be designed. It's a start.
Thank you for observing me so closely. My first book was published in 2004 with discussions from pure science and stated that science alone showed God had to exist. dhw's imaginative prodding has certainly pushed my thinking. It appears he has learned a great deal in the process although he tenuously clings to Darwin.
God and Evolution
DAVID: You have described how I started from a position of soft agnosticism. In my 50's I did a get deal of reading about particle physics and the new standard theory of cosmology and changed my mind. Studying pure science can do it.
TONY: Indeed it can, but not if you start with a foregone conclusion. Even over the course of the last several years of these discussions with you I have observed your position slowly shifting from a more naturalistic point of view to a more theistic one. Not that you were (since I've been here) purely naturalistic, but I have watched you embrace the concept of a designed universe more fully as the years rolled by, largely I think because of the increasingly apparent complexity that is completely at odds with the naturalistic approach.
The interesting thing is that you are not alone in this. I have witnessed a growing movement among formerly naturalistic scientist that have started embracing design. Even if they do not subscribe to a particular theory of a designer, they are at least acknowledging that it HAD to be designed. It's a start.
DAVID: Thank you for observing me so closely. My first book was published in 2004 with discussions from pure science and stated that science alone showed God had to exist. dhw's imaginative prodding has certainly pushed my thinking. It appears he has learned a great deal in the process although he tenuously clings to Darwin.
I have learned an enormous amount – largely thanks to David introducing me to areas of science I knew very little about, as well as to different approaches to our various topics through both of you, BBella, Matt and many others throughout our many years of discussions. I now have a much clearer understanding of why I climbed onto and remain on my agnostic fence, and my brain (materialist) or my soul (dualist) has even come up with new hypotheses that it would not have thought of ten years ago.
As regards Darwinian evolution, I continue to believe in common descent, natural selection as a useful term to describe certain obvious processes, and the interplay between evolution and environment. I do not accept the theory of random mutations, and I do not accept Darwin’s rigid adherence to gradualism. Nor do I accept attempts by both theists and atheists to twist Darwin's theory to suit their own agendas.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 30, 2018, 13:19 (2063 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have described how I started from a position of soft agnosticism. In my 50's I did a get deal of reading about particle physics and the new standard theory of cosmology and changed my mind. Studying pure science can do it.
TONY: Indeed it can, but not if you start with a foregone conclusion. Even over the course of the last several years of these discussions with you I have observed your position slowly shifting from a more naturalistic point of view to a more theistic one. Not that you were (since I've been here) purely naturalistic, but I have watched you embrace the concept of a designed universe more fully as the years rolled by, largely I think because of the increasingly apparent complexity that is completely at odds with the naturalistic approach.
The interesting thing is that you are not alone in this. I have witnessed a growing movement among formerly naturalistic scientist that have started embracing design. Even if they do not subscribe to a particular theory of a designer, they are at least acknowledging that it HAD to be designed. It's a start.DAVID: Thank you for observing me so closely. My first book was published in 2004 with discussions from pure science and stated that science alone showed God had to exist. dhw's imaginative prodding has certainly pushed my thinking. It appears he has learned a great deal in the process although he tenuously clings to Darwin.
DHW: I have learned an enormous amount – largely thanks to David introducing me to areas of science I knew very little about, as well as to different approaches to our various topics through both of you, BBella, Matt and many others throughout our many years of discussions. I now have a much clearer understanding of why I climbed onto and remain on my agnostic fence, and my brain (materialist) or my soul (dualist) has even come up with new hypotheses that it would not have thought of ten years ago.
As regards Darwinian evolution, I continue to believe in common descent, natural selection as a useful term to describe certain obvious processes, and the interplay between evolution and environment. I do not accept the theory of random mutations, and I do not accept Darwin’s rigid adherence to gradualism. Nor do I accept attempts by both theists and atheists to twist Darwin's theory to suit their own agendas.
'm not trying to twist Darwin. He was doing the same thing we are doing, but with less information, and in my own way, I admire him just as I admire you, David, Bella, Matt, and George. I think if he had known about epigenetics, or about how similar genes are found in species in which it is virtually impossible for them to be related through descent, he would have proposed a different hypothesis. I don't think he had enough information to realize that common descent does not have enough explanatory power, nor enough to realize that natural selection is a tautology.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, August 30, 2018, 18:52 (2063 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have described how I started from a position of soft agnosticism. In my 50's I did a get deal of reading about particle physics and the new standard theory of cosmology and changed my mind. Studying pure science can do it.
TONY: Indeed it can, but not if you start with a foregone conclusion. Even over the course of the last several years of these discussions with you I have observed your position slowly shifting from a more naturalistic point of view to a more theistic one. Not that you were (since I've been here) purely naturalistic, but I have watched you embrace the concept of a designed universe more fully as the years rolled by, largely I think because of the increasingly apparent complexity that is completely at odds with the naturalistic approach.
The interesting thing is that you are not alone in this. I have witnessed a growing movement among formerly naturalistic scientist that have started embracing design. Even if they do not subscribe to a particular theory of a designer, they are at least acknowledging that it HAD to be designed. It's a start.DAVID: Thank you for observing me so closely. My first book was published in 2004 with discussions from pure science and stated that science alone showed God had to exist. dhw's imaginative prodding has certainly pushed my thinking. It appears he has learned a great deal in the process although he tenuously clings to Darwin.
dhw: I have learned an enormous amount – largely thanks to David introducing me to areas of science I knew very little about, as well as to different approaches to our various topics through both of you, BBella, Matt and many others throughout our many years of discussions. I now have a much clearer understanding of why I climbed onto and remain on my agnostic fence, and my brain (materialist) or my soul (dualist) has even come up with new hypotheses that it would not have thought of ten years ago.
As regards Darwinian evolution, I continue to believe in common descent, natural selection as a useful term to describe certain obvious processes, and the interplay between evolution and environment. I do not accept the theory of random mutations, and I do not accept Darwin’s rigid adherence to gradualism. Nor do I accept attempts by both theists and atheists to twist Darwin's theory to suit their own agendas.
All I see left of Darwin is common descent, stated as modification of existing forms starting from single cells.
God and Evolution
Tony: ...we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?[/i]
DHW: We are not saying what WE would do. If God exists, he must have had a method of creating the history of life as we know it. We are trying to work out what that method might have been.
TONY: Most of what I see is people trying to prove God doesn't exist, not trying to actually figure out what happened. Most of the assumptions they start with are precluded with 'God doesn't exist'. Most of the language used to describe their observations have 'God doesn't exist' as a foregone conclusion. Here, that is less of an issue, but I was speaking in generalities.
These do not apply to the three of us currently debating, since you and David believe in a God and I always allow for the existence of a God. Please can we stick to our own discussion of God and Evolution!
TONY: Still, you don't reverse engineer something by starting at the beginning. You start at the end and work your way back, and you start with pure observation without an over arching narrative. Once you include a narrative, you are predisposed to confirmation bias.
Absolutely right. When the theory of evolution was first proposed (it predates Darwin), it was based on observation of links from present to past. Darwin consolidated the theory, but he also faced up to the gaps, though he believed that in time these would be filled. Many scientists today argue that genetics add further evidence. You (and others) disagree. Their overarching narrative is a continuous development of life forms out of other life forms. Yours is life forms coming out of nowhere, separately created by a sourceless mind you call God. Some people regard the first narrative as atheistic. It is not. Lots of theists believe both in God and in evolution. Finally, once anybody has a firm belief, of course they are predisposed to confirmation bias. And from that moment on, we have pots calling kettles black!
DHW: Thank you for a magnificent analysis of what we do find (although it leaves out the fact that despite the harmony of the whole, vast numbers of species (90%+) have disappeared).
TONY: It doesn't leave it out. It leaves it unanswered, leaving room for us to ask WHY it happened, which I have addressed on a number of occasions.
It is a valid issue if you wish to claim that our world is a “harmonious whole”, but we needn’t argue about it because if I believed in your God (I don’t disbelieve) I would easily find reasons for extinctions. I am much more interested in the subject with which I ended that post, i.e. your own hypothesis regarding God’s method of speciation, which seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (speciation) and autonomous intelligence (variations and adaptations). Is that a correct interpretation?
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 12:31 (2064 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Thank you for a magnificent analysis of what we do find (although it leaves out the fact that despite the harmony of the whole, vast numbers of species (90%+) have disappeared).
TONY: It doesn't leave it out. It leaves it unanswered, leaving room for us to ask WHY it happened, which I have addressed on a number of occasions.
It is a valid issue if you wish to claim that our world is a “harmonious whole”, but we needn’t argue about it because if I believed in your God (I don’t disbelieve) I would easily find reasons for extinctions. I am much more interested in the subject with which I ended that post, i.e. your own hypothesis regarding God’s method of speciation, which seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (speciation) and autonomous intelligence (variations and adaptations). Is that a correct interpretation?
You keep putting words in my mouth, particularly that word speciation, which I have repeatedly said has never been observed, and you are trying to slip cellular intelligence in by a different name, which I have also stated has not been observed to the degree that would be required.
No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 19:42 (2064 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.
Do you think evolution is over and this is the endpoint?
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 22:17 (2064 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.
David: Do you think evolution is over and this is the endpoint?
Not even close. I see the current state of events as one of those pauses that we see throughout the fossil record. Think of it as a period of debugging before moving on to the next iteration in the production pipeline.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, August 30, 2018, 00:56 (2064 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.
David: Do you think evolution is over and this is the endpoint?
Tony: Not even close. I see the current state of events as one of those pauses that we see throughout the fossil record. Think of it as a period of debugging before moving on to the next iteration in the production pipeline.
Are we replaced or changed?
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 30, 2018, 00:59 (2064 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.
David: Do you think evolution is over and this is the endpoint?
Tony: Not even close. I see the current state of events as one of those pauses that we see throughout the fossil record. Think of it as a period of debugging before moving on to the next iteration in the production pipeline.
David: Are we replaced or changed?
Well, if the bible is to be believed, the bugs in the genetic code are supposed to be corrected, and then new things are supposed to start happening again which we have never observed or experienced before. Just what, who can say. I like to imagine that the rest of the universe will start to be filled with life the same way the earth was.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, August 30, 2018, 15:21 (2063 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Not even close. I see the current state of events as one of those pauses that we see throughout the fossil record. Think of it as a period of debugging before moving on to the next iteration in the production pipeline.
David: Are we replaced or changed?
Tony: Well, if the bible is to be believed, the bugs in the genetic code are supposed to be corrected, and then new things are supposed to start happening again which we have never observed or experienced before. Just what, who can say. I like to imagine that the rest of the universe will start to be filled with life the same way the earth was.
How does the Bible talk about genetic codes?
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 30, 2018, 17:58 (2063 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Not even close. I see the current state of events as one of those pauses that we see throughout the fossil record. Think of it as a period of debugging before moving on to the next iteration in the production pipeline.
David: Are we replaced or changed?
Tony: Well, if the bible is to be believed, the bugs in the genetic code are supposed to be corrected, and then new things are supposed to start happening again which we have never observed or experienced before. Just what, who can say. I like to imagine that the rest of the universe will start to be filled with life the same way the earth was.
David: How does the Bible talk about genetic codes?
Like it talks about most things...in a very roundabout way. To be clear, it does never comes out and uses the words gene, or epigenetics, or any of the other words that were invented a few thousand years later.
First, understand that the original words used for sin, hhatah and chait, literally mean 'to miss the mark'; to err or make a mistake. Likewise, the tree and the garden was not 'the tree of good and evil', but the tree of 'functional and non-functional'. Whatever happened with Adam and Eve, sin (error) became something that was inherited. The only way that makes sense is if something changed in them at a genetic level that would be spread through all of their offspring. This is further alluded to in the fact that Christ was born without sin, having no human father, which implies that the 'original sin(error)' is likely passed through the male genome. When it talks about the period after Armageddon, it talks about removing 'original sin(error)', and mentions that sickness and death would be no more. To me, this implies that the inherited genetic errors will be corrected.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, August 30, 2018, 19:26 (2063 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Not even close. I see the current state of events as one of those pauses that we see throughout the fossil record. Think of it as a period of debugging before moving on to the next iteration in the production pipeline.
David: Are we replaced or changed?
Tony: Well, if the bible is to be believed, the bugs in the genetic code are supposed to be corrected, and then new things are supposed to start happening again which we have never observed or experienced before. Just what, who can say. I like to imagine that the rest of the universe will start to be filled with life the same way the earth was.
David: How does the Bible talk about genetic codes?
Like it talks about most things...in a very roundabout way. To be clear, it does never comes out and uses the words gene, or epigenetics, or any of the other words that were invented a few thousand years later.dhw: First, understand that the original words used for sin, hhatah and chait, literally mean 'to miss the mark'; to err or make a mistake. Likewise, the tree and the garden was not 'the tree of good and evil', but the tree of 'functional and non-functional'. Whatever happened with Adam and Eve, sin (error) became something that was inherited. The only way that makes sense is if something changed in them at a genetic level that would be spread through all of their offspring. This is further alluded to in the fact that Christ was born without sin, having no human father, which implies that the 'original sin(error)' is likely passed through the male genome. When it talks about the period after Armageddon, it talks about removing 'original sin(error)', and mentions that sickness and death would be no more. To me, this implies that the inherited genetic errors will be corrected.
Thank you. My New Testament education is some readings in the Gospels.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 30, 2018, 21:22 (2063 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Not even close. I see the current state of events as one of those pauses that we see throughout the fossil record. Think of it as a period of debugging before moving on to the next iteration in the production pipeline.
David: Are we replaced or changed?
Tony: Well, if the bible is to be believed, the bugs in the genetic code are supposed to be corrected, and then new things are supposed to start happening again which we have never observed or experienced before. Just what, who can say. I like to imagine that the rest of the universe will start to be filled with life the same way the earth was.
David: How does the Bible talk about genetic codes?
Tony: Like it talks about most things...in a very roundabout way. To be clear, it does never comes out and uses the words gene, or epigenetics, or any of the other words that were invented a few thousand years later.Tony: First, understand that the original words used for sin, hhatah and chait, literally mean 'to miss the mark'; to err or make a mistake. Likewise, the tree and the garden was not 'the tree of good and evil', but the tree of 'functional and non-functional'. Whatever happened with Adam and Eve, sin (error) became something that was inherited. The only way that makes sense is if something changed in them at a genetic level that would be spread through all of their offspring. This is further alluded to in the fact that Christ was born without sin, having no human father, which implies that the 'original sin(error)' is likely passed through the male genome. When it talks about the period after Armageddon, it talks about removing 'original sin(error)', and mentions that sickness and death would be no more. To me, this implies that the inherited genetic errors will be corrected.
Thank you. My New Testament education is some readings in the Gospels.
You're welcome.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 17:12 (1680 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Vital elements from exploding stars are shared and allow life:
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-reveals-vital-clues-recycling-evolution.html
"New research by Kent astrophysicists reveals vital clues about the role recycling plays in the formation of life in our universe.
***
:Scientists have long known that the materials that make up human life were not present during the beginnings of the universe. Elements such as carbon and oxygen form deep inside stars and are released when the stars explode. What has not been clear is what happens to these materials in the vast majority of stars which do not explode and how they are then extracted to contribute to the development of new planets and biospheres.
***
"For the first time, the physicists simulated the detailed formation of Protoplanetary nebula. These are astronomical objects that develop during a star's late evolution. They modeled the formation of the shell of materials that is released as the star ages. These shells form planetary nebulae, or ring-shaped clouds of gas and dust, which are visible in the night sky.
The study revealed how the gas and energy expelled by stars are returned to the universe, and in what forms. It found that the elements produced by dying stars are transferred through a process of fragmentation and recycled into new stars and planets.
"Professor Smith said: "Initially, we were perplexed by the results of our simulations. We needed to understand what happens to the expelled shells from dying red giants. We proposed that the shells must be temporary, as if they stayed intact life could not exist in our universe and our planets would be unoccupied.
"'The shells are not uniform. Most are likely to be cold and molecular. They disintegrate into protruding fingers and so lose their integrity. In contrast, warm atomic shells remain intact. This provides vital clues about how carbon and other materials are transferred and reused within our universe. Our civilization happens to exist when the generation of recycled material is at its highest. That is probably no coincidence.'" (my bold)
Comment: I view this as God at work evolving the universe for life to exist.
God and Evolution of the universe
QUOTES: The study revealed how the gas and energy expelled by stars are returned to the universe, and in what forms. It found that the elements produced by dying stars are transferred through a process of fragmentation and recycled into new stars and planets.
"Professor Smith said: "Initially, we were perplexed by the results of our simulations. We needed to understand what happens to the expelled shells from dying red giants. We proposed that the shells must be temporary, as if they stayed intact life could not exist in our universe and our planets would be unoccupied. (dhw’s bold)
How many of our planets does he think are occupied?
"'The shells are not uniform. Most are likely to be cold and molecular. They disintegrate into protruding fingers and so lose their integrity. In contrast, warm atomic shells remain intact. This provides vital clues about how carbon and other materials are transferred and reused within our universe Our civilization happens to exist when the generation of recycled material is at its highest. That is probably no coincidence.'" (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: I view this as God at work evolving the universe for life to exist.
But then the question arises as to why your always-in-control God has created all the “cold and molecular” shells, and why there are so many planets that appear to be unoccupied – indeed as far as we know, ours is the only planet that IS occupied. If we think of the universe as an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials, it is not that difficult to conceive of the “coincidence” eventually happening.
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 16:20 (1679 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTES: The study revealed how the gas and energy expelled by stars are returned to the universe, and in what forms. It found that the elements produced by dying stars are transferred through a process of fragmentation and recycled into new stars and planets.
"Professor Smith said: "Initially, we were perplexed by the results of our simulations. We needed to understand what happens to the expelled shells from dying red giants. We proposed that the shells must be temporary, as if they stayed intact life could not exist in our universe and our planets would be unoccupied. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: How many of our planets does he think are occupied?
"'The shells are not uniform. Most are likely to be cold and molecular. They disintegrate into protruding fingers and so lose their integrity. In contrast, warm atomic shells remain intact. This provides vital clues about how carbon and other materials are transferred and reused within our universe Our civilization happens to exist when the generation of recycled material is at its highest. That is probably no coincidence.'" (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: I view this as God at work evolving the universe for life to exist.
dhw: But then the question arises as to why your always-in-control God has created all the “cold and molecular” shells, and why there are so many planets that appear to be unoccupied – indeed as far as we know, ours is the only planet that IS occupied. If we think of the universe as an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials, it is not that difficult to conceive of the “coincidence” eventually happening.
First, according to Big Bang theory the universe is not eternal. Second, we find the Earth is most unusual among planets, and we know it supports life. Since I view God as preferring to evolve his creations, the idea of the article makes lots of sense. Further, note the bold, you are still touting the idea of why did God bother to do so much a forehand, still asking for direct creation, not supported by history.
God and Evolution of the universe
QUOTES: "Professor Smith said: "Initially, we were perplexed by the results of our simulations. We needed to understand what happens to the expelled shells from dying red giants. We proposed that the shells must be temporary, as if they stayed intact life could not exist in our universe and our planets would be unoccupied. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: How many of our planets does he think are occupied?
"'The shells are not uniform. Most are likely to be cold and molecular. They disintegrate into protruding fingers and so lose their integrity. In contrast, warm atomic shells remain intact. This provides vital clues about how carbon and other materials are transferred and reused within our universe bbbOur civilization happens to exist when the generation of recycled material is at its highest. That is probably no coincidence.'" (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: I view this as God at work evolving the universe for life to exist.
dhw: But then the question arises as to why your always-in-control God has created all the “cold and molecular” shells, and why there are so many planets that appear to be unoccupied – indeed as far as we know, ours is the only planet that IS occupied. If we think of the universe as an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials, it is not that difficult to conceive of the “coincidence” eventually happening. (David’s bold)
DAVID: First, according to Big Bang theory the universe is not eternal.
But according to you, your God is, and even if the BB theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the BB, so the theory of an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials is no more and no less feasible or provable than your theory of an eternal God.
DAVID: Second, we find the Earth is most unusual among planets, and we know it supports life. Since I view God as preferring to evolve his creations, the idea of the article makes lots of sense. Further, note the bold, you are still touting the idea of why did God bother to do so much a forehand, still asking for direct creation, not supported by history.
What is not supported by history is your theory that your always-in-control God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens! On other threads you admit that you have no idea why he chose not to fulfil that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design all the non-human forms. Now you tell us that his way of specially designing the planet that would support life to fulfil his one and only purpose was to specially design billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct, including the “cold and molecular shells”, that have no known relevance whatsoever to the support of life. Your claim that he “preferred” to do it that way does not provide even a smidgen of explanation. So maybe he had a different purpose, or maybe he isn’t always in control, or chooses not to be always in control. Or of course, maybe he was never even there – but for the purposes of our discussion, I am wearing my theist hat and simply pointing out the illogicality of your theistic theory and offering theistic counter-proposals which at least provide a more logical explanation than yours for the history.
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Thursday, September 19, 2019, 15:49 (1678 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I view this as God at work evolving the universe for life to exist.
dhw: But then the question arises as to why your always-in-control God has created all the “cold and molecular” shells, and why there are so many planets that appear to be unoccupied – indeed as far as we know, ours is the only planet that IS occupied. If we think of the universe as an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials, it is not that difficult to conceive of the “coincidence” eventually happening. (David’s bold)
DAVID: First, according to Big Bang theory the universe is not eternal.
dhw: But according to you, your God is, and even if the BB theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the BB, so the theory of an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials is no more and no less feasible or provable than your theory of an eternal God.
My logical point is something or someone has to be eternal for were to be anything now.
DAVID: Second, we find the Earth is most unusual among planets, and we know it supports life. Since I view God as preferring to evolve his creations, the idea of the article makes lots of sense. Further, note the bold, you are still touting the idea of why did God bother to do so much a forehand, still asking for direct creation, not supported by history.dhw: What is not supported by history is your theory that your always-in-control God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens! On other threads you admit that you have no idea why he chose not to fulfil that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design all the non-human forms. Now you tell us that his way of specially designing the planet that would support life to fulfil his one and only purpose was to specially design billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct, including the “cold and molecular shells”, that have no known relevance whatsoever to the support of life.
Those cold shells are the same as the way stars explode and fill the universe with the element molecules necessary for life
dhw: Your claim that he “preferred” to do it that way does not provide even a smidgen of explanation. So maybe he had a different purpose, or maybe he isn’t always in control, or chooses not to be always in control. Or of course, maybe he was never even there – but for the purposes of our discussion, I am wearing my theist hat and simply pointing out the illogicality of your theistic theory and offering theistic counter-proposals which at least provide a more logical explanation than yours for the history.
I view your theism as constantly colored with a humanistic God. As the creator what we see in our reality is what He did. He had to prefer it. Your theistic hat is quite askew.
God and Evolution of the universe
Dhw: […] If we think of the universe as an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials, it is not that difficult to conceive of the “coincidence” eventually happening.
DAVID: First, according to Big Bang theory the universe is not eternal.
dhw: But according to you, your God is, and even if the BB theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the BB, so the theory of an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials is no more and no less feasible or provable than your theory of an eternal God.
DAVID: My logical point is something or someone has to be eternal for were to be anything now.
Precisely, so what is the point in your saying that according to the BB theory the universe is not eternal? My logical point is that either there is an eternal God (your someone) or there is an eternal mass of materials (something).
DAVID: Second, we find the Earth is most unusual among planets, and we know it supports life. Further [..] you are still touting the idea of why did God bother to do so much a forehand, still asking for direct creation, not supported by history.
dhw: What is not supported by history is your theory that your always-in-control God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens! […] Now you tell us that his way of specially designing the planet that would support life to fulfil his one and only purpose was to specially design billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct, including the “cold and molecular shells”, that have no known relevance whatsoever to the support of life.
DAVID: Those cold shells are the same as the way stars explode and fill the universe with the element molecules necessary for life.
So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.
dhw: Your claim that he “preferred” to do it that way does not provide even a smidgen of explanation. So maybe he had a different purpose, or maybe he isn’t always in control, or chooses not to be always in control. […]
DAVID: I view your theism as constantly colored with a humanistic God. As the creator what we see in our reality is what He did. He had to prefer it. Your theistic hat is quite askew.
You have no idea why your God would have chosen to create billions of non-Earths and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders when all he wanted to design was Planet Earth and H. sapiens. But you defend this totally illogical theory by telling us that any logical explanation of our reality can’t be right, because God is not human!
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Friday, September 20, 2019, 18:28 (1677 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My logical point is something or someone has to be eternal for were to be anything now.
dhw: Precisely, so what is the point in your saying that according to the BB theory the universe is not eternal? My logical point is that either there is an eternal God (your someone) or there is an eternal mass of materials (something).
I agree that something or someone pre-existed this universe, but how did a 'mass of materials' create the complex rules of the universe by itself?
DAVID: Second, we find the Earth is most unusual among planets, and we know it supports life. Further [..] you are still touting the idea of why did God bother to do so much a forehand, still asking for direct creation, not supported by history.dhw: What is not supported by history is your theory that your always-in-control God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens! […] Now you tell us that his way of specially designing the planet that would support life to fulfil his one and only purpose was to specially design billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct, including the “cold and molecular shells”, that have no known relevance whatsoever to the support of life.
DAVID: Those cold shells are the same as the way stars explode and fill the universe with the element molecules necessary for life.
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.
The elements necessary for life were born in the stars ( your countryman Fred Hoyle did buy it). I still believe God creates by evolving what He wants: universe, Earth, life. All are known patterns of logical development by God, the Creator
dhw: Your claim that he “preferred” to do it that way does not provide even a smidgen of explanation. So maybe he had a different purpose, or maybe he isn’t always in control, or chooses not to be always in control. […]DAVID: I view your theism as constantly colored with a humanistic God. As the creator what we see in our reality is what He did. He had to prefer it. Your theistic hat is quite askew.
dhw: You have no idea why your God would have chosen to create billions of non-Earths and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders when all he wanted to design was Planet Earth and H. sapiens. But you defend this totally illogical theory by telling us that any logical explanation of our reality can’t be right, because God is not human!
I do have a scientific reason; see above. And you want to make Him human in thought. You have a very narrow view of how a humanized God might have acted.
God and Evolution of the universe
DAVID: My logical point is something or someone has to be eternal for were to be anything now.
dhw: Precisely, so what is the point in your saying that according to the BB theory the universe is not eternal? My logical point is that either there is an eternal God (your someone) or there is an eternal mass of materials (something).
DAVID: I agree that something or someone pre-existed this universe, but how did a 'mass of materials' create the complex rules of the universe by itself?
How can an inventively conscious mind, with the power to create a universe and all its laws, simply have existed for ever? If this astonishing, all-knowing and inexplicable mind can be your first cause, then so can the astonishing, ever changing and inexplicable mass of materials. The first offers top down evolution, and the second offers bottom up.
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.
DAVID: The elements necessary for life were born in the stars ( your countryman Fred Hoyle did buy it). I still believe God creates by evolving what He wants: universe, Earth, life. All are known patterns of logical development by God, the Creator.
Of course the elements were born in the stars, and that would be true of bottom up evolution through an eternally changing mass of materials. If your God exists, though, and if one believes in evolution, as we do, then he clearly chose evolution as his method! But you persist in leaving out the theory which is not logical: namely, that he specially designed every single non-Earth-related star and every single non-human related life form, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens, and you have no idea why.
DAVID: I do have a scientific reason; see above. And you want to make Him human in thought. You have a very narrow view of how a humanized God might have acted.
There is nothing scientific about the above anthropocentric theory, and it is absurd to call my view narrow since I have offered you several logical views of how your divine God “might have acted”, whereas you have only one, and you have no idea why he would have acted that way.
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Saturday, September 21, 2019, 19:18 (1676 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My logical point is something or someone has to be eternal for were to be anything now.
dhw: Precisely, so what is the point in your saying that according to the BB theory the universe is not eternal? My logical point is that either there is an eternal God (your someone) or there is an eternal mass of materials (something).
DAVID: I agree that something or someone pre-existed this universe, but how did a 'mass of materials' create the complex rules of the universe by itself?
dhw: How can an inventively conscious mind, with the power to create a universe and all its laws, simply have existed for ever? If this astonishing, all-knowing and inexplicable mind can be your first cause, then so can the astonishing, ever changing and inexplicable mass of materials. The first offers top down evolution, and the second offers bottom up.
The mass of materials did not exist before the Big Bang. So how is there bottom up?
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.DAVID: The elements necessary for life were born in the stars ( your countryman Fred Hoyle did buy it). I still believe God creates by evolving what He wants: universe, Earth, life. All are known patterns of logical development by God, the Creator.
dhw: Of course the elements were born in the stars, and that would be true of bottom up evolution through an eternally changing mass of materials. If your God exists, though, and if one believes in evolution, as we do, then he clearly chose evolution as his method! But you persist in leaving out the theory which is not logical: namely, that he specially designed every single non-Earth-related star and every single non-human related life form, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens, and you have no idea why.
Same old mantra. Remember, I don't question God's decisions. History tells us what He created, not why He did it that way. It is your concept of a humanized God that raises questions.
DAVID: I do have a scientific reason; see above. And you want to make Him human in thought. You have a very narrow view of how a humanized God might have acted.dhw: There is nothing scientific about the above anthropocentric theory, and it is absurd to call my view narrow since I have offered you several logical views of how your divine God “might have acted”, whereas you have only one, and you have no idea why he would have acted that way.
I don't question his decisions. Only you do.
God and Evolution of the universe
DAVID: I agree that something or someone pre-existed this universe, but how did a 'mass of materials' create the complex rules of the universe by itself?
dhw: How can an inventively conscious mind, with the power to create a universe and all its laws, simply have existed for ever? If this astonishing, all-knowing and inexplicable mind can be your first cause, then so can the astonishing, ever changing and inexplicable mass of materials. The first offers top down evolution, and the second offers bottom up.
DAVID: The mass of materials did not exist before the Big Bang. So how is there bottom up?
Even if the BB theory is true, how can you possibly know it was not caused by a mass of materials? It is absurd to assume that nothing preceded and caused the BB. You assume that it was preceded and caused by an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing mind. The alternative is that eternal materials caused the BB.
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.
DAVID: The elements necessary for life were born in the stars ( your countryman Fred Hoyle did buy it). I still believe God creates by evolving what He wants: universe, Earth, life. All are known patterns of logical development by God, the Creator.
dhw: Of course the elements were born in the stars, and that would be true of bottom up evolution through an eternally changing mass of materials. If your God exists, though, and if one believes in evolution, as we do, then he clearly chose evolution as his method! But you persist in leaving out the theory which is not logical: namely, that he specially designed every single non-Earth-related star and every single non-human related life form, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens, and you have no idea why.
DAVID: Same old mantra. Remember, I don't question God's decisions. History tells us what He created, not why He did it that way. It is your concept of a humanized God that raises questions.
You don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his decisions, which is that everything he created was geared to the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. I offer several different interpretations, all of which you agree fit in perfectly with the history. Your only objection is that although they are comprehensible in terms of human logic, your interpretation is right, and so God cannot possibly think in what we humans regard as a logical way. How do you know that?
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Sunday, September 22, 2019, 16:16 (1675 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The mass of materials did not exist before the Big Bang. So how is there bottom up?
dhw: Even if the BB theory is true, how can you possibly know it was not caused by a mass of materials? It is absurd to assume that nothing preceded and caused the BB. You assume that it was preceded and caused by an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing mind. The alternative is that eternal materials caused the BB.
What created the material initially?
DAVID: Same old mantra. Remember, I don't question God's decisions. History tells us what He created, not why He did it that way. It is your concept of a humanized God that raises questions.dhw: You don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his decisions, which is that everything he created was geared to the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. I offer several different interpretations, all of which you agree fit in perfectly with the history. Your only objection is that although they are comprehensible in terms of human logic, your interpretation is right, and so God cannot possibly think in what we humans regard as a logical way. How do you know that?
No one can know what God thinks. We can only look at what He produced and make guesses as to His purposes and reasoning.
God and Evolution of the universe
DAVID: The mass of materials did not exist before the Big Bang. So how is there bottom up?
dhw: Even if the BB theory is true, how can you possibly know it was not caused by a mass of materials? It is absurd to assume that nothing preceded and caused the BB. You assume that it was preceded and caused by an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing mind. The alternative is that eternal materials caused the BB.
DAVID: What created the material initially?
What created your God initially? I give you the same answer: the materials were the “first cause”!
DAVID: Remember, I don't question God's decisions. History tells us what He created, not why He did it that way. It is your concept of a humanized God that raises questions.
dhw: You don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his decisions, which is that everything he created was geared to the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. I offer several different interpretations, all of which you agree fit in perfectly with the history. Your only objection is that although they are comprehensible in terms of human logic, your interpretation is right, and so God cannot possibly think in what we humans regard as a logical way. How do you know that?
DAVID: No one can know what God thinks. We can only look at what He produced and make guesses as to His purposes and reasoning.
So why do you think that your theoretical guess, which requires God’s logic to be incomprehensible to humans, is more likely to be true than other guesses which make perfect sense even to you? (See Natural Wonders and Evolution".)
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Monday, September 23, 2019, 18:29 (1674 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The mass of materials did not exist before the Big Bang. So how is there bottom up?
dhw: Even if the BB theory is true, how can you possibly know it was not caused by a mass of materials? It is absurd to assume that nothing preceded and caused the BB. You assume that it was preceded and caused by an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing mind. The alternative is that eternal materials caused the BB.
DAVID: What created the material initially?
dhw: What created your God initially? I give you the same answer: the materials were the “first cause”!
We both agree something has to be eternal. I'll stick with God as quantum energy.
DAVID: Remember, I don't question God's decisions. History tells us what He created, not why He did it that way. It is your concept of a humanized God that raises questions.dhw: You don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his decisions, which is that everything he created was geared to the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. I offer several different interpretations, all of which you agree fit in perfectly with the history. Your only objection is that although they are comprehensible in terms of human logic, your interpretation is right, and so God cannot possibly think in what we humans regard as a logical way. How do you know that?
DAVID: No one can know what God thinks. We can only look at what He produced and make guesses as to His purposes and reasoning.
dhw: So why do you think that your theoretical guess, which requires God’s logic to be incomprehensible to humans, is more likely to be true than other guesses which make perfect sense even to you? (See Natural Wonders and Evolution".)
My guess does not require that God's logic be incomprehensible to humans as you twist the argument. My point is all approaches to God are only guesses. I have mine and you have yours, and I have faith in mine.
God and Evolution of the universe
DAVID: The mass of materials did not exist before the Big Bang. So how is there bottom up?
dhw: Even if the BB theory is true, how can you possibly know it was not caused by a mass of materials? It is absurd to assume that nothing preceded and caused the BB. You assume that it was preceded and caused by an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing mind. The alternative is that eternal materials caused the BB.
DAVID: What created the material initially?
dhw: What created your God initially? I give you the same answer: the materials were the “first cause”!
DAVID: We both agree something has to be eternal. I'll stick with God as quantum energy.
I don’t have a problem with your faith. I just can’t share it.
The rest of this post is covered under “Natural Wonders and Evolution”.
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 24, 2019, 17:55 (1673 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The mass of materials did not exist before the Big Bang. So how is there bottom up?
dhw: Even if the BB theory is true, how can you possibly know it was not caused by a mass of materials? It is absurd to assume that nothing preceded and caused the BB. You assume that it was preceded and caused by an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing mind. The alternative is that eternal materials caused the BB.
DAVID: What created the material initially?
dhw: What created your God initially? I give you the same answer: the materials were the “first cause”!
DAVID: We both agree something has to be eternal. I'll stick with God as quantum energy.
I don’t have a problem with your faith. I just can’t share it.
I know.
Evolution of the universe; will an axion discovery help
by David Turell , Monday, June 07, 2021, 18:10 (1051 days ago) @ David Turell
That is the subject of this paper:
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-axions-fossil-universe.html
"How far back into the Universe's past can we look today? In the electromagnetic spectrum, observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background—commonly referred to as the CMB—allow us to see back almost 14 billion years to when the Universe cooled sufficiently for protons and electrons to combine and form neutral hydrogen. The CMB has taught us an inordinate amount about the evolution of the cosmos, but photons in the CMB were released 400,000 years after the Big Bang making it extremely challenging to learn about the history of the universe prior to this epoch.
***
"In their paper, they suggest the possibility of searching for an axion analogue of the CMB, a so-called Cosmic axion Background or CaB.
"While hypothetical, there are many reasons to suspect that the axion could exist in our Universe.
"For one, axions are a generic prediction of string theory, one of today's best hopes for a theory of quantum gravity. The existence of an axion could further help resolve the long standing puzzle of why we have yet to measure an electric dipole moment for the neutron, an issue more formally known as the "Strong CP Problem." More recently, the axion has become a promising candidate for dark matter, and as a consequence researchers are rapidly searching for axion dark-matter.
"In their paper, the researchers point out that as experimentalists develop more sensitive instruments to search for dark matter, they may stumble upon another sign of axions in the form of the CaB. But because the CaB shares similar properties with dark-matter axions, there is a risk the experiments would throw the CaB signal out as noise.
"Finding the CaB at one of these instruments would be a double discovery. Not only would it confirm the existence of the axion, but researchers worldwide would immediately have a new fossil from the early Universe. Depending on how the CaB was produced, researchers could learn about various different aspects of the Universe's evolution never possible before (Figure).
"'What we have proposed is that, by changing the way current experiments analyze data, we may be able to search for left-over axions from the early universe. Then, we might be able to learn about the origin of dark matter, phase transition or inflation at the beginning of the Universe. There are already experimental groups who have shown interest in our proposal, and I hope we can find out something new about the early Universe that wasn't known before," says Murayama.
"'The evolution of the universe can produce axions with a characteristic energy distribution. By detecting the energy density of the universe currently made up of axions, experiments such as MADMAX, HAYSTAC, ADMX, and DMRadio could give us answers to some of the most important puzzles in cosmology, such as, "How hot did our universe get? What is nature of dark matter? Did our universe undergo a period of rapid expansion known as inflation? Was there ever a cosmic phase transition?" says Dror."
Comment: The universe had to evolve just as life did when the universe reached a point of fine-tuning to allow life. dhw with his human brain attempts to question God's reasons for a universe that looks like ours does. It allows him to question God's existence. We may never find all of God's reasons. That doesn't cause Him to disappear, does it?
Evolution of the universe; early giant stars
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 22, 2023, 16:05 (426 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#trash/FMfcgzGrcjRLktnZNCGjDMKTkbkWrWpg
"When the universe's first stars emerged from the cosmic dark ages, they ballooned to 10,000 times the mass of Earth's sun, new research suggests.
"The first stars in the cosmos may have topped out at over 10,000 times the mass of the sun, roughly 1,000 times bigger than the biggest stars alive today, a new study has found.
"Nowadays, the biggest stars are 100 solar masses. But the early universe was a far more exotic place, filled with mega-giant stars that lived fast and died very, very young, the researchers found.
"And once these doomed giants died out, conditions were never right for them to form again.
"More than 13 billion years ago, not long after the Big Bang, the universe had no stars. There was nothing more than a warm soup of neutral gas, almost entirely made up of hydrogen and helium. Over hundreds of millions of years, however, that neutral gas began to pile up into increasingly dense balls of matter. This period is known as the cosmic Dark Ages.***
***
"The researchers found that a complex web of interactions preceded the first star formation. Neutral gas began to collect and clump together. Hydrogen and helium released a little bit of heat, which allowed clumps of the neutral gas to slowly reach higher densities.
"But high-density clumps became very warm, producing radiation that broke apart the neutral gas and prevented it from fragmenting into many smaller clumps. That means stars made from these clumps can become incredibly large.
***
"Those first stars weren’t just any normal fusion factories. They were gigantic clumps of neutral gas igniting their fusion cores all at once, skipping the stage where they fragment into small pieces. The resulting stellar mass was huge.
"Those first stars would have been incredibly bright and would have lived extremely short lives, less than a million years. (Stars in the modern universe can live billions of years). After that, they would have died in furious bursts of supernova explosions.
"Those explosions would have carried the products of the internal fusion reactions – elements heavier than hydrogen and helium – that then seeded the next round of star formation. But now contaminated by heavier elements, the process couldn’t repeat itself, and those monsters would never again appear on the cosmic scene."
Comment: first the Big Bang and then an evolutionary process to produce the current universe. This is the first instance of evidence God prefers to create by evolutionary processes. The primordial Earth evolved from a dust disc around the Sun. First life helped evolve the Earth into its present form. And finally, life evolved. Strong evidence God prefers to evolve His creations.
Evolution of the universe; quark/gluon plasma
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 22, 2023, 23:14 (426 days ago) @ David Turell
A material from 13 billion years ago:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/this-particle-accelerator-makes-a-substance-th...
"By using one of the most complicated and powerful machines on the planet, scientists have found a way to glimpse back to the very beginning of time itself. This time machine is a particle accelerator, and it gives us a peek at the soup of our newborn universe. Just moments after the Big Bang, our universe was a very different place.
"It started out so small, dense and hot that the building blocks of our reality atoms couldn't even form. Yet the ingredients of atoms, protons and neutrons were broken down into their most fundamental building blocks. Quarks. These quarks floated around in a perfect fluid, along with the particles that carry the force that holds them together inside of their proton and neutron homes.
"Those particles are called gluons. Scientists name this universe creating fluid quark-gluon plasma. It hasn't been found in nature since the beginning of time as we know it. But scientist states can recreate it inside particle accelerators. It was officially observed first at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island, where researchers used the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider or RHIC for short to smash atoms together.
***
"Here at Brookhaven, there are two collision points where detectors can watch the action: sPHENIX and STAR. sPHENIX is brand new. And STAR just got upgrades to make it more sensitive than ever. Each detector is like an onion with layer upon layer of nested detectors, wires, cooling tubes and electronics, pulling massive amounts of data tracking and detecting particles, energies and motions at the core of each device is a powerful superconducting magnet that can bend charged particles and identify particles of different masses.
"These measurements can reveal secrets about the quark-gluon plasma, giving us a deeper understanding than ever before of how the tiniest bits of matter behave. By studying this quark soup, scientists are learning about our primordial cosmic origins and the matter all around us."
comment: amazing that we are poking into God inventive tricks.
God and Evolution of the universe
by David Turell , Sunday, May 22, 2022, 23:50 (702 days ago) @ dhw
Look at this opinion from dhw:
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.
The universe is even stranger:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520181234.htm
"Mysterious fast radio bursts release as much energy in one second as the Sun pours out in a year and are among the most puzzling phenomena in the universe.
***
"Producing the extraordinary bursts in space are celestial bodies such as neutron, or collapsed, stars called magnetars (magnet + star) enclosed in extreme magnetic fields. These fields are so strong that they turn the vacuum in space into an exotic plasma composed of matter and anti-matter in the form of pairs of negatively charged electrons and positively charged positrons, according to quantum electrodynamic (QED) theory. Emissions from these pairs are believed to be responsible for the powerful fast radio bursts.
"The matter-antimatter plasma, called "pair plasma," stands in contrast to the usual plasma that fuels fusion reactions and makes up 99% of the visible universe. This plasma consists of matter only in the form of electrons and vastly higher-mass atomic nuclei, or ions. The electron-positron plasmas are composed of equal mass but oppositely charged particles that are subject to annihilation and creation. Such plasmas can exhibit quite different collective behavior.
***
"The overall goal of this research is understanding how bodies like magnetars create pair plasma and what new physics associated with fast radio bursts are brought about, Qu said. "These are the central questions we are interested in.'"
Comment: just more confusion for dhw. We live in a very strange universe that I believe God gave us. I don't question it. We live in a very safe spot in our Milky Way. The other stuff that is so dangerous doesn't bother us. We are trying to understand it as we should, but why question why it must exist as dhw does? We have been provided for. We are living peacefully here when from a natural occurrence standpoint there is no reason we should be here. Just ask Adler.
God and Evolution
dhw: I am much more interested in the subject with which I ended that post, i.e. your own hypothesis regarding God’s method ofspeciation, which seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (speciation) and autonomous intelligence (variations and adaptations). Is that a correct interpretation?
Tony: You keep putting words in my mouth, particularly that word speciation, which I have repeatedly said has never been observed, and you are trying to slip cellular intelligence in by a different name, which I have also stated has not been observed to the degree that would be required.
No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.
There is a misunderstanding here. I thought we had both accepted the definition of species that you offered a little while back (from Britannica? – I can’t find it now) to the effect that species were organisms which, as you say, cannot break the barrier of reproductive isolation. I am perfectly happy to call them root types, and within those categories we have variants. There is no difference between us on this. So now we have root types specially created at various times. That is the equivalent of David’s “dabbling”. But then we come to the variants. Again I agree that they are limited, but that was not what I was asking. I wanted to know what mechanism you envisaged that enabled organisms to vary, but you have answered this now on the pointy egg thread.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 30, 2018, 12:32 (2063 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am much more interested in the subject with which I ended that post, i.e. your own hypothesis regarding God’s method ofspeciation, which seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (speciation) and autonomous intelligence (variations and adaptations). Is that a correct interpretation?
Tony: You keep putting words in my mouth, particularly that word speciation, which I have repeatedly said has never been observed, and you are trying to slip cellular intelligence in by a different name, which I have also stated has not been observed to the degree that would be required.
No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.DHW: There is a misunderstanding here. I thought we had both accepted the definition of species that you offered a little while back (from Britannica? – I can’t find it now) to the effect that species were organisms which, as you say, cannot break the barrier of reproductive isolation. I am perfectly happy to call them root types, and within those categories we have variants. There is no difference between us on this. So now we have root types specially created at various times. That is the equivalent of David’s “dabbling”. But then we come to the variants. Again I agree that they are limited, but that was not what I was asking. I wanted to know what mechanism you envisaged that enabled organisms to vary, but you have answered this now on the pointy egg thread.
Epigenetics was the inspiration for the idea that our genes are like functions in programming that can produce different outputs when given different inputs. It would allow for variation without changing the underlying genome. Thus, an identical gene in two variants could produce different results, and I suspect these different results most likely come in the way the proteins are folded. The resulting proteins could be chemically identical, but the difference in the folded structure could produce different results when used. That is only a guess, though, and I fully admit I do not have enough information to state it with any degree of certainty.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, August 30, 2018, 19:12 (2063 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
dhw: I am much more interested in the subject with which I ended that post, i.e. your own hypothesis regarding God’s method ofspeciation, which seems to be a mixture of divine dabbling (speciation) and autonomous intelligence (variations and adaptations). Is that a correct interpretation?
Tony: You keep putting words in my mouth, particularly that word speciation, which I have repeatedly said has never been observed, and you are trying to slip cellular intelligence in by a different name, which I have also stated has not been observed to the degree that would be required.
No, sir, as I clearly, and extensively defined in my exposition on my own hypothesis, I propose that the root types (I hesitate to use the word species here) were created, and that this creation process happened repeatedly, as needed at various stages of Earths development. Further, I propose that what we call species, most often are not, because they do not break the barrier of reproductive isolation. Instead, I see them as variants of the same type, and that the limit of their potential variation was set from the beginning of their creation. Thus, they will never truly evolve beyond the scope of what was originally allowed to them.DHW: There is a misunderstanding here. I thought we had both accepted the definition of species that you offered a little while back (from Britannica? – I can’t find it now) to the effect that species were organisms which, as you say, cannot break the barrier of reproductive isolation. I am perfectly happy to call them root types, and within those categories we have variants. There is no difference between us on this. So now we have root types specially created at various times. That is the equivalent of David’s “dabbling”. But then we come to the variants. Again I agree that they are limited, but that was not what I was asking. I wanted to know what mechanism you envisaged that enabled organisms to vary, but you have answered this now on the pointy egg thread.
Tony:Epigenetics was the inspiration for the idea that our genes are like functions in programming that can produce different outputs when given different inputs. It would allow for variation without changing the underlying genome. Thus, an identical gene in two variants could produce different results, and I suspect these different results most likely come in the way the proteins are folded. The resulting proteins could be chemically identical, but the difference in the folded structure could produce different results when used. That is only a guess, though, and I fully admit I do not have enough information to state it with any degree of certainty.
Folding is one mechanism to change function and is why so many proteins can be used in so many different functional ways
God and Evolution
DHW: I wanted to know what mechanism you envisaged that enabled organisms to vary, but you have answered this now on the pointy egg thread.
TONY: Epigenetics was the inspiration for the idea that our genes are like functions in programming that can produce different outputs when given different inputs. It would allow for variation without changing the underlying genome. Thus, an identical gene in two variants could produce different results, and I suspect these different results most likely come in the way the proteins are folded. The resulting proteins could be chemically identical, but the difference in the folded structure could produce different results when used. That is only a guess, though, and I fully admit I do not have enough information to state it with any degree of certainty.
I could not even begin to speculate on how it all works, but thank you for your own speculations! In my own simple way, and in the wider context of “God and Evolution”, I was actually trying to find out whether you believed in divine programming, divine dabbling, or autonomous (cellular) intelligence, possibly designed by your God. This statement and others under “pointy eggs” confirm that you favour programming.
dhw: As regards Darwinian evolution, I continue to believe in common descent, natural selection as a useful term to describe certain obvious processes, and the interplay between evolution and environment. I do not accept the theory of random mutations, and I do not accept Darwin’s rigid adherence to gradualism. Nor do I accept attempts by both theists and atheists to twist Darwin's theory to suit their own agendas.
TONY: I'm not trying to twist Darwin.
By this I meant that some atheists twist the theory to suggest that it explains the whole of life (which it doesn’t), thereby excluding the need for a designer; some theists twist the theory to suggest that it CLAIMS to explain the whole of life (which it doesn’t), thereby excluding the need for a designer, and therefore the whole theory can be dismissed.
TONY: He was doing the same thing we are doing, but with less information, and in my own way, I admire him just as I admire you, David, Bella, Matt, and George. I think if he had known about epigenetics, or about how similar genes are found in species in which it is virtually impossible for them to be related through descent, he would have proposed a different hypothesis.
I don’t know why you think epigenetics runs counter to the theory of common descent, since it only explains how existing organs can make changes to themselves. As regards genes, I’m surprised that similar (or the same) genes preclude relationship. Why? I’d have thought it was the similarity or the sameness that supported common descent.
TONY: I don't think he had enough information to realize that common descent does not have enough explanatory power, nor enough to realize that natural selection is a tautology.
Power to explain what? We humans long to know our origins. I see common descent as explaining the history of life as we know it so far: a development from relatively simple (though still complex) forms to the extraordinarily complex (the human brain) - which incidentally has major ramifications for our understanding of ourselves and also of our fellow creatures. We are still struggling to understand the mechanisms that made this possible, but whatever they may be, they do not preclude the existence of a designer. I agree about natural selection, but it is a very useful term to sum up the process whereby what is useful survives and is passed on.
DHW: We agree on design of some kind. I do not believe that your God changed organismal structures in advance of the environmental changes those structures would be used for. I’d be interested to know if Tony thinks his God controls the environment, and if he specially created root types in advance of or in response to environmental change.
TONY: first, imagine each environmental state of the Earth as a stage in Earth's development. I believe he created organisms that could exist in the initial environment to change the environment to a new state, the next stage in Earth's development…
So did he control the environment or not? It’s true that organisms can change an environment, but so can other factors like catastrophes (e.g. Chixculub), movements in the earth’s crust, floods, desertification...Some of these may also have been due to organismal activity, but what about those that were not?
TONY: ...and then repeated this process at each new stage, driving the development of the environment using the organisms natural biological processes….
Does this mean he programmed organisms to create new environments, then created and programmed new root types to change environments again, then created and programmed new root types to change environments again, and so on? Just checking.
dhw: I’d be interested to know if Tony thinks his God controls the environment, and if he specially created root types in advance of or in response to environmental change.
DAVID: If by environmental change you mean entering water, that is different than climate change or Chixculub.
Of course it’s different. There are all kinds of environmental changes, global and local, and in my view they could have created the need or the opportunity for organismal change.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 31, 2018, 17:04 (2062 days ago) @ dhw
A lot here.. have to trim.
DHW: I meant that some atheists twist the theory to suggest that it explains the whole of life (which it doesn’t), thereby excluding the need for a designer; some theists twist the theory to suggest that it CLAIMS to explain the whole of life (which it doesn’t), thereby excluding the need for a designer, and therefore the whole theory can be dismissed.
The theory isn't simply dismissed because they try to preclude a designer. The theory is dismissed because there are some very significant scientific gaps in it and some very unscientific reasoning.
DHW: I don’t know why you think epigenetics runs counter to the theory of common descent, since it only explains how existing organs can make changes to themselves. As regards genes, I’m surprised that similar (or the same) genes preclude relationship. Why? I’d have thought it was the similarity or the sameness that supported common descent.
Epigenetics does NOT add new information to DNA, meaning it can not explain an increase in complexity of information. As regards the genes, the very things that Darwin claims would lead to innovation, i.e. genetic isolation, means that genetic descent should ONLY happen PRIOR to genetic isolation. Which in turn means that genetic similarity between two species that are genetically isolated, and in which the 'molecular clocks' disagree on time of separation preclude inheritance by descent.
TONY: first, imagine each environmental state of the Earth as a stage in Earth's development. I believe he created organisms that could exist in the initial environment to change the environment to a new state, the next stage in Earth's development…
DHW: So did he control the environment or not? It’s true that organisms can change an environment, but so can other factors like catastrophes (e.g. Chixculub), movements in the earth’s crust, floods, desertification...Some of these may also have been due to organismal activity, but what about those that were not?
Some, like a meteor strike, wouldn't have wiped out life on earth, and the microbes that processed the environment would have continued to do so, albeit after suffering a setback. "Time and unforseen circumstances.." For the things that happened that were part of the Earth's natural cycles (Ice Ages/flooding/desertification/etc) it is perfectly reasonable to assume that those were understood potentials and had contingencies planned for, just like the fruit fly brain that had a backup in case it lost the ability to see the sun.
TONY: ...and then repeated this process at each new stage, driving the development of the environment using the organisms natural biological processes….DHW: Does this mean he programmed organisms to create new environments, then created and programmed new root types to change environments again, then created and programmed new root types to change environments again, and so on? Just checking.
Yes. Earths environments were processed through flora, fauna, bacterial life, and natural processes over and over, that is the only logical way to ensure homeostasis. If it were designed any other way it would require constant intervention, which I am certain would consume vast amounts of energy and resources, which if the rest of creation is any indication, is not how God operates.
dhw: I’d be interested to know if Tony thinks his God controls the environment, and if he specially created root types in advance of or in response to environmental change.
It would most likely need to be at cusps. The point where the the new environment was becoming too dissimilar from the old one for the old organisms to flourish. Archetypes viable for the new environment would be created, and over time, thrive as they altered the environment further, and then decline as they approached the next cusp and the next creation iteration.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, August 31, 2018, 19:26 (2062 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: I don’t know why you think epigenetics runs counter to the theory of common descent, since it only explains how existing organs can make changes to themselves. As regards genes, I’m surprised that similar (or the same) genes preclude relationship. Why? I’d have thought it was the similarity or the sameness that supported common descent.
Tony: Epigenetics does NOT add new information to DNA, meaning it can not explain an increase in complexity of information.
Epigenetics can change the expression of a gene, which means methylation brings out other existing information which the gene contains. This is where I see God's pre-planning.
God and Evolution
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 31, 2018, 21:19 (2062 days ago) @ David Turell
DHW: I don’t know why you think epigenetics runs counter to the theory of common descent, since it only explains how existing organs can make changes to themselves. As regards genes, I’m surprised that similar (or the same) genes preclude relationship. Why? I’d have thought it was the similarity or the sameness that supported common descent.
Tony: Epigenetics does NOT add new information to DNA, meaning it can not explain an increase in complexity of information.
David: Epigenetics can change the expression of a gene, which means methylation brings out other existing information which the gene contains. This is where I see God's pre-planning.
Precisely. The epigenetic messages act as inputs to the genetic function, thus changing the genes expression(output). Of course, this output is a spatially/chemically precise response, much like the response from a function in a computer program. This response is then forward on to the next generation, and used as the input to the genetic softwares initial startup parameters. It is even conceivable that this mechanism would allow a parents thoughts, hopes, expectations, emotions, habits imprint upon their children through epigentic messaging, and thus the sins of the father pass to the son.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, August 31, 2018, 23:58 (2062 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: I don’t know why you think epigenetics runs counter to the theory of common descent, since it only explains how existing organs can make changes to themselves. As regards genes, I’m surprised that similar (or the same) genes preclude relationship. Why? I’d have thought it was the similarity or the sameness that supported common descent.
Tony: Epigenetics does NOT add new information to DNA, meaning it can not explain an increase in complexity of information.
David: Epigenetics can change the expression of a gene, which means methylation brings out other existing information which the gene contains. This is where I see God's pre-planning.
Tony: Precisely. The epigenetic messages act as inputs to the genetic function, thus changing the genes expression(output). Of course, this output is a spatially/chemically precise response, much like the response from a function in a computer program. This response is then forward on to the next generation, and used as the input to the genetic softwares initial startup parameters. It is even conceivable that this mechanism would allow a parents thoughts, hopes, expectations, emotions, habits imprint upon their children through epigenetic messaging, and thus the sins of the father pass to the son.
Neat twist. Note the studies of WWII starvation and the effect on subsequent generations in the Neatherlands.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, August 31, 2018, 18:55 (2062 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I’d be interested to know if Tony thinks his God controls the environment, and if he specially created root types in advance of or in response to environmental change.DAVID: If by environmental change you mean entering water, that is different than climate change or Chixculub.
dhw: Of course it’s different. There are all kinds of environmental changes, global and local, and in my view they could have created the need or the opportunity for organismal change.
I know you recognize that need and opportunity are not the cause of speciation, but perhaps allowing the process to try.
God and Evolution
by David Turell , Monday, August 27, 2018, 18:02 (2066 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: To cells within a single organism, that is possible, however unlikely, but look at the rest of the question. How did one multi-cellular organism and another multi-cellular organism, or the cells inside them, all come to the SAME conclusion at the SAME time. It takes more than one multi-cellular organism to reproduce, in almost all cases.
DAVID: How does a single mutation in one individual get spread into the group? Chance meeting for reproduction takes too long for the times involved in the record, and species appear only after huge gaps in phenotype.
dhw: You are still talking about single organisms! So please reread what you quoted at the start of this post. I will add that the eight stages of whale development are indeed a special mystery. So please explain why your God chose to specially create these eight stages, and are you saying that he did a wooj-wooj to change every individual at the same time, or do you think he went round the world twiddling with each individual? See “Pointy eggs and whales” for more.
No one can explain God, and you know that. Can you solve Haldane's dilemma?
DAVID: Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't.
You keep talking of advance planning, and that requires knowledge of the future. Why is that a limitation? Of course he does what he wants (if he exists). And if he wants a free-for-all in which he can intervene when he wants to, he is doing what he wants.
TONY: Well.....I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to. I think he does what he wants because he knows and wants whats best. I just don't think that our idea of what's best matches his idea of what's best, which causes us to question his motives and methods.
I try to take the approach of assuming that his approach is best, and then try to understand why his approach is best.dhw: Your way of thinking is no less human than mine or David’s, and boils down to him wanting what is best, and whatever he thinks is best is best but we don’t know what it is.
I find it interesting that Tony also notes how you humanize god.