AS an Evolutionary Condition?

Post Reply New Topic

AngleRho,

I'm making huge assumptions based upon your previous posts, so please correct me if I'm wrong about you, and I apologize if you take offense:

0. The Bible is the word of God, and is the ultimate truth.

1. God is perfect.

2. All of God's creations are also perfect.

3. God created all species at the inception of our planet.

4. All the species God created are perfect.

5. Species have not changed since then because they are perfect as they are.

6. Evolution implies that species are not perfect, because they have to change significantly over time.

7. #6 contradicts #1, and because god is perfect, Evolution must be false.

I'm well aware of DNA and the process by which it transfer genetic information to new organisms. The trouble, though, getting back to the point of evolution is explaining exactly how it is those systems came into being. The human genome is 750 MB? Impressive. But that only accounts for a single strand of DNA? Wow... So how about all those trillions of cells in the human body? And they all work so well together (usually)?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I really do find it amazing. The DNA thing I vaguely remember from high school biology class (I tested out of taking science-related courses in college, so I do know more than most about science, considering science is the penultimate area of interest of mine only surpassed by math). DNA is also problematic for the evolution argument. First, like I said earlier, there is no "smoking gun" evidence for any chain of events that would spark the spontaneous generation of DNA, no creative process whatsoever.

That aside, DNA itself is interesting in this whole debate. DNA is universal. I know that the human genome is different from any given plant genome is different from any given reptilian genome is different from... The way DNA is processed/synthesized remains largely the same from species to species, and the code itself is universally unchanged. DNA itself is not known to evolve. If DNA changed, then the very fabric of all those protein molecules that make up our cells would fall apart. Apoptosis is one means of natural defense to keep this from happening. If evolution is true, it's extremely odd and interesting that the development of DNA abruptly stopped and that we don't see more evidence of "failed beings" more often. Sure, stuff happens. But the biological successes we witness are more/less copies/combinations of what already exists (as in sexual reproduction for one example). If DNA is still evolving, we ought to be seeing more blobs of jelly from evolutionary failures as well as the occasional monstrosity of its successes.

Uh, DNA is the key way that organisms are declared a success or not, you pass your genes on, you won at the game of evolution, your genes express themselves with input from your mate. The process gets mixed up, some bad outcomes, some neutral "general successes", and some totally positive outcomes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173205.htm

This as well: http://www.themanitoban.com/articles/30269

I'm not offended, but some of your assumptions are a bit off.

1. Agree.
2. Disagree. This doesn't contradict 1 because it was due to man's bad decisions that one creature became imperfect. For various reasons I won't get into here, the entry of sin into the world creates an imperfect world.
3. Agree.
4. Disagree. Man isn't perfect. Because sin exists in the world, it follows that other imperfect creatures also exist. God's curse on the ground, for example that produces "thorns and thistles" rather than necessary plants for food (though the Bible later implies this curse was lifted, nevertheless farmers continue to be plagued with unwanted plants competing with crops).
5. Disagree, see 2 and 4. I don't have all the answers here, but it's plain that most species have the ability to adapt for the sake of survival. Small changes do happen, but they don't appear to be lasting, permanent changes.
6. Not necessarily, because man isn't perfect. This is also something I can't claim to have all the answers for. Even if species aren't perfect, they don't necessarily HAVE to change over time. Besides, we DO know that biodiversity contributes to the longevity of the species. Prehistoric evidence (Cro-Magnon man versus Neanderthals) show that possibly distinctive races of humans lived with distinctive physical features and, for whatever reason, died out or integrated with other races. We don't know for sure what happened, just *poof* gone. Yet someone mentioned contemporary clans that have 24 digits, which for us 20-digited folks might appear as an imperfection. Who's supposed to be right? I don't know. Those are simply genetic traits that can appear when certain conditions are met (two partners sharing the gene).
7. Evolution need not be false. I personally don't believe it to be correct. But I wasn't there any more than you were. You might have noticed one of my posts in which I said if I'd witnessed the Big Bang after traveling back in time, I'd simply just say "Cool, so THAT'S how God did it." Same thing with evolution, and there are Christians who are also scientists who can make a perfectly good case for evolution NOT being anti-Biblical, though their conclusions often have their roots in Intelligent Design.

The main thing I can say about these assumptions is that I can't speak for animals or other creations being perfect/imperfect. The Bible's position on the perfection/imperfection of creation centers on man, not really anything else. I've drawn a few conclusions based on your line of reasoning, but it would be improper for me to claim to know those things for sure when it comes to whether the rest of creation is perfect or not. Logically, a perfect being need not create a perfect creation, though I don't see why a perfect being wouldn't. In my opinion, it only follows that man's folly extend to the rest of the world, but this isn't something I can say I know for sure at this time.

You've done a good job logically, and at least you're not going on an all-out attack. I'm not really a logician, though, so a lot of that from more sophisticated debaters is completely lost on me. The fact is that some things just have to remain subjective. You can also go back and see that I've often said that I can't "prove" God in any reliable objective way (I could try Intelligent Design, but it fails on key points that I find important). On the other hand, I do accept Creationism as it seems to me the best option given the evidence--and don't try to get me on young earth/old earth because neither I nor anyone else can honestly say they know for sure!! !

Overall, I'm not really into that line of discourse when it comes to evolution. I don't mind clarifying my own convictions as long as it doesn't distract from the main point. I choose to believe the creation story based on faith alone. Introducing evolutionary theory, which is NOT proven, in my opinion only serves to dilute the Biblical account. Even if I AM wrong, it makes no difference in the end other than I lived a life enriched by a belief in a miraculous creation.

Doesn't really sound like you're disagreeing with me much here. I know all about DNA, at least the bare minimum I needed to pass the course, anyway.

The process for forming these creative pathways remains a mystery. The article you quoted even affirms that. Let me know when they finish work on the time machine so we can go check it out.

I know young earth creationism is false for an absolute fact.

There is no possible way you can argue that point.

All you CAN do logically is recognize that perhaps it makes more sense to assume anything worthy of being called a god, is smarter than you are, and could find a better way to do things than the dumbed down "Jesus riding dinosaurs, with satan hiding fossils to trick us" garbage.


I have issue with descriptions of god that are logically self-contradicting, and which contradict observed reality.

If I found a deity that actually sounded smarter than a real-time-strategy type micro-management obsessed geek who was unable to choose a more elegant method than breaking the rules they supposedly created... I would admit it was logically possible.

To date, I've yet to have this happen, so I remain essentially a theological noncognitivist, the term "god" is meaningless, because it has not been given any valid construction, or observation support, so any questions regarding it are about as sensible as asking "do glibblesnortz fart pixiedust?" ultimately.


The link showed that RNA could self assemble and complexify, auto-catalytic reactions can produce local increases in order, and are generated by things like lightning strikes, and heated clay.


Looking at the magnificent grandeur of the Universe, and being unable to imagine a deity that could simply design a Universe complex enough that it would automatically include life, is literally painful to consider from my perspective.

I can see logical methods to explain Universes reproducing, I know that our human impression of cause and effect does not hold on the scale of Universes, so the assumption that the Universe NEEDS a creator is faulty by design, and only shows a limited grasp of what time and space are.


Nonetheless, at the least, if you're going to argue something, why would you try to argue against the process of gaining knowledge? Science is not against religion, why does religion feel the need to attack science?

It isn't like religion is based on facts, you can change it to fit new scientific understanding, all that matters is that you have faith, not WHAT you have faith in.

Actually some margin of error is acceptable and expected. Precise dating is not expected or implied. That is why every such measurement comes with a +/- margin of error.


And there are procedures to take these things into account as well as means of cross checking. I note that you claimed in earlier post (and this is the claim that I was contesting) that the age of a fossil is used to date the surrounding rocks and the age of the rocks are used to date the fossil. This is incorrect. The age of rocks as indicated by geological science is cross checked against the age as indiated by radiometrics. Each of these ages are arrived at through independent means and the comparison between them is a form of cross checking. That is entirely different from what you claimed which would entail each measurement being dependent on rather than confirmatory of the other. Further evidences are drawn from the bigger picture. Across vast areas the same assemblages of fossils appear at particular geological times. Phylogenic trees are also confirmatory of the findings. Assumptions or not (and frankly if you think any human knowledge is free of assumption you are naive on that count), when various, all apparently robust and scientifically supported, independent measurements all seem to confirm the same thing, there is a very good chance that we are on the right track.

So now your story is not that rocks date fossils which themselves date rocks and this is circular, but rather that there are complications to process and that sometimes gaps in knowledge about a particular sample could influence the results, and never mind that this is why results are cross referenced with other independently derived measurements and that it is unlikely that not a single sample is ever going to be accurately measured, and that results tend to be widely consistent in a manner that is highly unlikely if most results are not reasonably accurate.


Evolutionary theory is scientfic. It produces hypotheses that can be tested and which are falsifiable. It's science.

Each of those cells gets its DNA through replication beginning with one initial cell formed from a fusion between a cell provided by each parental organism. The information is not novel to each cell. Evidently, because of the way DNA works, the amount of information needed to derive all the DNA information in the cell is half of the information present. Once one strand exists the other strand forms as a result of the attraction between base types.

None of which is actually a problem for the theory of evolution since it deals with what occurs once life is extant. It does not matter too much how life came to be so much as its characteristics, processes, influences and behaviour once it exists. Science that delves into the orgins of life are actually more in the realm of chemistry. Will you now claim to not believe in chemistry because it seems that your problem is at least as much, if not more in the area of chemistry than with the theory of evolution?

Evidently there is a fairly solid hypotheses about the origins of DNA; it may well have evolved from RNA. Contemporarily some viruses actually do not have any DNA, and RNA serves the roll of DNA for these organisms, and in some other organisms, the virus uses RNA to produce DNA (the actual genetic material is the RNA and the DNA merely serves an intermediary translation role in the production of proteins, which is the inverse of the operation in organisms characterized by DNA).

This really does not make sense. Why would some other genetic module necessarily evolve? On what basis do you assume that there is a viable alternative to those already extant, and why if there is one or more such possible alternatives do you assume that the circumstances necessary for any of them to arise have ever actually occured?

Failed organisms are those that are not compatible with life so why would we see them as anything other than the very common spontaneous abortions known to naturally and routinely occur?

As it happens not all organisms are characterized by DNA and there is some reason to suspect DNA evolved from RNA. Certainly if your argument is that all organisms require DNA as genetic material, this is not true as some organisms rely on RNA instead.

I like the analogy to homosexuality. It is a trait which obviously doesn't increase reproduction yet it persists at low levels just as autism persists at low levels. Perhaps these traits which don't increase an individual's odds of reproducing (or increase the number of kids they have) persist because they can have a helpful effect to the reproduction of relatives- those carrying related DNA. If a person's actions help nieces, nephews, cousins, then the gene goes on since probably one of them is a carrier. It might be the (gay) maiden aunt who has no children of her own and didn't marry but helps care for her (straight but carrying a gene) brother's children. It might be the (AS) uncle who has horticulture as a special interest and no children of his own. But he spends a lifetime observing plants and is able to give very helpful farming tips to his (NT) relatives which helps their crops and increases their total food, increasing the chance they won't starve and will pass on a recessive gene.

Certainly spontaneous abortions do occur, but very often spontaneous abortions very much resemble the organism from which they came rather than nature's attempt at "taking the next step." Let's suppose, though, for the sake of argument, that miscarriages result from new life forms that might not be viable outside the womb (if we're talking about mammals, of course). Could it also be possible that the mother's body rejects the new life form as a means of halting the evolutionary process? If evolution is a proven scientific principle, why wouldn't that new life form make it to full term so it COULD maintain viability outside the womb? I don't think it would happen because I don't think evolution happens. Oddly enough, sexual reproduction in humans may not create large-scale "improvements" in human beings, but it does certainly does allow human beings with defective genetic structures to be born into a world in which they have no "natural" purpose or business to even BE here--Down's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome (unable to reproduce, but otherwise relatively high functioning considering the nature of that condition), and other conditions that aren't quite so dramatic (we don't know for sure, but low-functioning ASD MIGHT be in that category). The fact that people like that are even ALLOWED to exist is astounding (why not kill them--eugenics?) and cannot be explained without going beyond evolutionary science and science in general.

Chemistry is only one of MANY scientific disciplines. Yet chemistry holds no evolutionary "smoking guns" any more than biology or anything else.

I'm not going to say that science has NO value. I think relying on science to help us explore and understand our world better is certainly worthwhile. But rejecting evolution is NOT rejecting science outright. Certain individuals appear to think I grew up on a farm sometime in the 1930's sequestered from civilization and going to church with fundamentalist snake handlers. I'm actually 31 years old and had access to better-than-average education all through my childhood and teen years. Sure, I had lower than average grades in math and science while I was in school, but I scored high enough on college aptitude tests that I had no need to pick up any science classes in college and no more math than standard college algebra. I even earned a master's degree. What I find absolutely amazing is that with my level of education, with better-than-average science reasoning skills, with full awareness and understanding of the basic things we're talking about here, that I could have come to a different conclusion (and I'm not alone) than evolutionists. In fact, there are Ph. D.'s in chemistry, biology, and other disciplines all running around that are MUCH smarter and better educated than I am who have also come to the same conclusion. I wonder why. Could it be, and I'm only hypothesizing here, that they've come to those conclusions because they recognize that science or their respective disciplines simply can't answer certain questions such as the origins of life? Could it be that they recognize the "absolute certainty" of evolution as a scientific dogma not unlike scripturally incompatible dogmas of Christian faith at varying times throughout its history? Obviously I don't have all the answers here, but it IS interesting to me that Christians and other men and women of faith also are among our greatest scientific minds.

Anyway, I'm not going to take the time picking apart every single detail of what has been said, simply because there's just not enough time in the day for it. Trying to understand every detail of every evolutionary theory stretching across every scientific discipline is just not something we are all able to do and requires decades of study, practice, and research. I seriously doubt anyone here truly understands it completely, and to try to argue one point of it or another is a futile endeavor. What I DO know for sure is that it has NEVER been proven. No one here has shown that there is a proven, demonstrated bio-chemical or other spontaneous creative pathway through which comes the origin of life.

I do apologize if this seems like an attack on science as a whole. It is not. Another very interesting feature of this and related discussions is how emotional people tend to be about it. To DARE to contradict or dispute "logic" and "known fact" insofar as it pertains to scientific theories amounts to outright blasphemy. I don't get bent out of shape over refutations of God in various ways, and I have a hard time understanding why it is anyone else would over other matters of faith such as unproven theories. I just know better than to get science involved in purely spiritual matters.

Not necessarily so. If a mutation does not increase a single individual's fitness but does increase the fitness of relatives who are carrying the gene but not affected by it, it will still be passed on. It isn't just sons and daughters who carry your DNA. It is nieces and nephews and cousins. Obviously this can only work when people interact with each other so that the benefits flow. A hermit who figures out a new way to trap animals and stay alive has benefited no one if he is so isolated that his trap invention dies with him. Many hermits across the millenia may have been autistic. But if a person doesn't live in total isolation and does things or makes things or discovers things that benefit the group, which will include relatives carrying a recessive gene, then the gene goes on even if that person doesn't have kids.

Uh, they do, and that isn't what evolution is. If you don't reproduce, you don't exist as far as evolutionary processes are concerned. Evolution isn't a deity, it doesn't do things for a reason, it does things because they worked the best for earlier generations.



Random fluctuations of gene expression are required to increased the possibilities of life, you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, and there you have, the facts of life.



Uh... you really are kinda in denial for no reason here, evolution works, it has been observed, it is a fact that organisms have been seen speciating, it is a fact that there are transitional fossils, it is a fact that every organism currently alive shares a single common ancestor, including people.



Rejecting evolution for no reason IS rejecting science outright, you're picking and choosing based on personal prejudices, ignoring aspects of a field which is specifically designed to eliminate the effect of personal prejudice, see the irony here?



Do you think this suggests that you are fully educated in science, or perhaps that the classes you were pursuing weren't reliant upon science, or perhaps it is just a failing of the school system in general?



I've been studying physics, and the rest of science, for the last 20 years, I was ready to enter college in 1st grade, and am most definitely better educated in science than you are. The conclusion I came to is irrelevant though, as we can show speciation events.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evo ... ation.html



As well as: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fast_evolut ... utterflies



Evolution =/= Abiogenisis, the origins of life are not the same as the development of life.


My woman has strong faith, do you think my explaining science to her has helped, or hurt her faith?

She's come to appreciate how amazing the Universe is in ways which she never imagined, and it's done nothing but confirm to her that her faith is well placed.

She was using very similar arguments to yours, but bit by bit I explained to her how this knowledge is not a threat to her faith, and that denying something which you can see with your own two eyes is a threat to faith.

When you are faced with something like that, you can doubt, you can ignore it, you can lie to yourself, you can lie to others, or you can accept that perhaps god is smarter than you, and through humility come to appreciate the world through the combined strength of faith and understanding?



I understand evolution, and know that it is proven, I know that there are still unsolved problems related to biogenesis (the specific origin of life itself), but that we have working models, and while I lack any faith, I can see that everything in the Universe is the result of the same event.

There is no reason to postulate an outside influence, much less to claim that something which created a Universe could not make the Universe produce what it wanted without having to reach in and tinker constantly.

That does not sound like a wise, all knowing, worthy of worship, deity to me.

If I can see a better way to do things than the deity you're describing, perhaps you should rethink your description, as it is probably wrong.



I don't get bent out of shape, I've done science myself, I'm a scientist, it's what I do. You can do it as well, and science isn't against religion.

They are two different types of things, science is not trying to fight against your faith, YOU are imagining this conflict, YOU are assuming that science is another type of faith which is incompatible with your own, which could not be further from the truth.


If your god is great, then he must be smarter than I am, I can see and explain how the Universe works to you in ways which are entirely compatible with, and in fact reinforce faith.

Perhaps the problem isn't science, but your mistaken impression of what science is?

I think that it is clear that there are two discussions going on here:

the evolutionary foundation for autism
the validity of evolution.

Its hard to follow each discussion because they intermingle in the forum.

Is there any way to split this thread?

Two points, mostly the aborted offspring looks like cluggy blood clots. Prior to spontaneously aborting they tend to somewhat resemble a small bit of jelly with a little bit of developing structure.

The second and more pertinant point is that nature's next step usually does look a lot like its parents. The theory of evolution predicts that this would be the case, so that's not really a big issue for evolutionary theory.

Not really. Why would her body do that? If her body would do that, why do all the other mothers' bodies not do the same? Generally in most (although not all) instances, if the fetus expires before birth it is expelled as a defence against likely infection arising from carrying around a dead corpse in one's womb.


Because it is not compatible with life and it dies during the course of the pregancy because it cannot live. Much like if someone chops off your head, while it would be nice to keep living until science finds a way to keep headless people alive, it is just not going to happen because having no head is not compatible with human life.

None of this is astounding from an evolutionary view point. Down's syndrome occurs because it is not immediately incompatible with life (although often is accompanied by health concerns that tend to result in earlier mortaility than the general population). It occurs as a result of a copying error when extra genetic material is introduced into a sex cell (often an entire chromosome). Off the top of my head, I believe Turners Syndrome is the result of missing genetic material (from memory one of the sex chromosomes is missing in a person bearing a single X chromosome). Both Turner's and Down's are not immediately incompatible with life, so individuals characterized by them can survive to birth and as such there is no reason why we would expect the mothers' body to expel them. Both Turners and Downs Syndromes are the result of mechanical errors in the production of sex cells so they can occur at any time when a new sex cell is created.


I did not suggest that it did. What I pointed out is that unlike the theory of evolution there are domains of chemistry that are devoted to determining and formulating and testing hypotheses about how life came to exist. These things are not the concern of evolution.


Rejecting it over concerns about genesis rather than rejecting chemistry or particular sub-domains within chemistry is certainly misplaced.


Personally I would not know anything about that and cannot comment on the apparent thinking of these individuals (whoever they happen to be).

Well in all honesty I do not find that the evidence as I currently know it supports your assertion that you understand the basics, although I suppose there is much room for subjectivity in defining what would constitute "basics".


Sure, or they could mistakenly think as much, or they might simply be under the influence of cognitive bias.


Given how very common Christians are, I think it would be rather odd for them not to make up a significant number of great minds unless something about being a Christian correlates to low intelligence, and I personally see no evidence that there is such a correlation. I do however see plenty of evidence that many great scientific minds that are Christian believe evolution is true.

Er what has that got to do with evolution? Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life but with the origin of variation amongst life forms once they exist. As I have already pointed out, evolution is not about genesis, that would be more in the domain of chemistry. You claim to understand the basics, but I believe that it does not get much more basic than understanding what is and is not within the scope of a theory, and genesis is not within the scope of the theory of evolution. If you do not understand that much, then it would be my opinion that you do not understand even the basics, as that to me is about as basic as it gets.

People by and large are somewhat emotional. It's no biggie, if they stop being sufficiently reasonable or interesting, you can always not read what they have to say (at least on the internet.....not so easy in a face to face discussion obviously).

That makes no sense to me personally. It's certainly not consistent with a scientific approach.


I do not see why you would view biology as a particularly spritual manner, maybe something to do with bodies being temples....?

If not, you're spending an awful lot of time describing different adaptational variations and trying to call it "proof" of evolution. It's great that you are so intellectually gifted and brilliant, but you still fail to show any kind of creative pathway from which evolution definitively can be said to have made, essentially, something from nothing (the primordial soup, the protein clusters that just "happened" to get struck by lightening, or whatever you want to call it--evolutionists don't all agree on exactly HOW it happened, just rough guesses, some that are given more credence than others). What we DO know is that many, MANY different things have been attempted in laboratories and so far very little evidence of any real significance at all has been found to suggest what "might" have happened. Nobody KNOWS. All we have are a few species with some "interesting" features and some really cool museum exhibits.

Show me EXACTLY how life originated through evolution (perhaps the process of abiogenesis). If you don't have that, then there's really no point to this discussion.

That is the problem of biogenesis, which is NOT directly related to evolution.

Biogenesis is a spark, evolution is what leads to a forest fire, the forest fire is a highly developed process which barely resembles the initial spark.

I am not an evolutionist, I am a scientist, a physicist, and I understand evolution. Someone who specifically studies the field is called an evolutionary biologist.

No one should believe in science, science is different than things you believe in.

Science is about what you know because of observation, evidence, experiment, and reason.

Belief is about what you know because of personal feelings, preference, tradition, and faith.

Science is not a religion, it does not compete with religion, and it can actually help strengthen your faith to accept it, rather than closemindedly attacking it.



We KNOW evolution happens, we don't KNOW how it started in the first place yet, but we have working hypothetical models for it, many of which have been tested, and show promise.

What we do know, is that life started, and began evolving into the forms we see today.

This is a fact, it happened, you don't need to believe that part, you can pretend it doesn't exist, or you can find a way to incorporate it into your understanding in a way that is compatible with your faith.

I don't have that problem, I lack faith entirely, but I understand some people enjoy having it.

I would rather see you gain knowledge of the world, and maintain your faith, than sacrifice either.



You're asking me to show you exactly how the chemical structure of a phosphorus match originated through the process by which fires burn.

You've got your effect before your cause, works fine for quantum processes, but above a certain size scale, causality generally holds.

The cause which started life is still uncertain, the effect that life evolves is well known.