On Evolution & Creation

[Valjean]

What you are doing is deliberately distorting and misrepresenting. That you cannot understand that God always was, always is, and will always be is understandable because it does not reach you right now. But have a good day as long as there are days...

He understands your claim of an eternal, causeless, beginningless God fine. He's pointing out that this claim violates your apologetic claim that everything must have a cause and a beginning.

 

[Frank Buffalo]

In discussing evolution, I'm always surprised at how few people have ever bothered to read Darwin's book on it. I've read it a couple of times, and my understanding of his theory is that evolution is a matter of random mutations as species procreate. Some mutations benefit survival, and others don't. There's no necessary progress, here, except insofar as a species survives better in relation to its environment as a result of random mutations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Biology textbooks still show DNA, without the double helix of water, that is needed to make the DNA bioactive. Those textbook images are obsolete and misleading. It is like a computer without software, pretending the hardware does the work of the software; black box. That is obsolete mythology. If you extrapolate from that weak foundation, how can the current conclusions be considered state of the art? This is why the black box cheat is needed. Real science does not need to cheat. Margin or error means bad data from an obsolete theory, fudged to look better.

We need to add water to the DNA foundation, and then start doing the real 2024 biology, needed to explain the true nature of evolution. I already did it.

It turns out that water is the key, since it impacts more just the DNA. Life will not work without water and nothing in the cell works without water, nor will these work in other solvents. You add water, you add life. Natural selection behind evolution is not just outside life, but life also evolves internally, by natural selection, via the internal nano-scale water environment. How else can you explain everything in cells tuned to just water? Water selected them all. Bad science has fried too many brains to where the obvious is not obvious.

For example, cell membranes form because of water. Water and oil do not mix but will separate. Amphipathic lipids has both polar ends and non polar tails, when the bulk water and this oily material separates, you get a micelle, with the polar ends touch water and the oily tails avoiding water to lower the system surface tension. This is not black box but follows simple logic. It would not have taken million years of random trial and error form a membrane, but rather with the right materials, it can happens in minutes. Water gives order.

I'm as sick as the proverbial dog right now, but I'm aware of your obsession with water in the biological chemistry of macromolecules. What I'm not sure of is why pushing a derivative concept, significant or not, would be of much use to a novice as learning the basics biology and theory. A derivative concept that would require a sound understanding of those basics for them to begin to understand whether it is significant or just someone's personal obsession.

When I'm feeling better and more cogent, perhaps I may find interest to pick this back up. All I can muster at the moment is that no one is claiming water isn't significant to biological processes. Perhaps you have found details of that significance, but I cannot say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution, as is currently modeled, is a blend of logic and dice/cards. Natural selection is rational, being based on selective pressures that come from the environment, based on the laws of physics and nature. If it was a cold place, selection will be based on what can best endure the cold; cause and effect. The dice and cards come in via the genetic aspect of the model; random mutations. Darwin tried to stay rational; just natural selection and breeding. It is modern biology that added dice and cards. It was part of a trend in science, that started in 1920's Physics, that led to the end of the golden age; movement to black box science away from rational science.

It is those dice and cards, that make it pseudo-science. The random addendum is there to fill in lack of logic. If one had a reasonable theory, for genetic change who would resort to dice and cards? It is an admission of not being a fully rational theory. Odds allow you to have a source of faith in the unknown future or past, making it a religion. If you can reason the future, you do not need faith. Natural selection offers a way to anticipate the future based on local pressures. But the dice and cards; mutation, needs faith, since you cannot reason that detail. It is fortune telling and blind man's prophesy.

If we throw dice, the rolls will appear random in the short term, but each side will repeat in the longer term. If we assume genetic dice, over time, like dice, they should repeat, even if randomly. Natural selection, as you said, will have changed its variables for selection. However, even though these repeats may not be selected, we as scientists should be able find living examples of these not selected, repeats. The double sixes should appear here and there, so even if the rules of the game change; natural selection evolves, double sixes still come up. They may not be selected, but they should still come up to be observed. Is that the case?

Below is an interesting observation about a small fern plant. It currently holds the record for the largest DNA, with 50 times the DNA of humans. Size of DNA does not matter in terms of the level of sophistication of life. It is not the meat but the motion. You cannot just add DNA and get a Einstein Tree.

Would it make more sense to have selective pressure not just from the environment, but also internally at the nano-scale via the nature of the chemicals used? Life and DNA use hydrogen bonding, as does water. This is nanoscale selection. Life evolved in water, so the meat and potato chemicals of life should shares this secondary bonding with water; internal chemical environment for natural selection. This replaces the random assumption with chemical logic.

My approach uses the logic of natural selection, but at both the macro and micro levels. Where they meet we have evolution. Life is an extremely complex integration of parts, that scales into the multicellular with billions of integrated cells that also integrate with each other. You need internal and external cooperation to sustain and evolve.

This Tiny Fern Has the World's Largest Known Genome

I may be back to this when I can focus. No promises.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To me it wouldn't matter if it was only one person.

Wouldn't it be more important why they dissent and not the numbers? Does the mere existence of dissent, even in one person, automatically mean that the dissent is valid? What if they were tricked into seeming to dissent? Wouldn't that matter? What if the dissenters aren't people that have much knowledge of the subject? Wouldn't that matter?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I got it from Pogo's Wikipedia article

On Evolution & Creation

Do you ever read what people posted and respond to it? Or just make random responses? I read your post and responded to it.

www.religiousforums.com

I wouldn't care if it was 4 scientists versus 20,000. What makes better sense, considering all the information?

Considering all the information, the theory of evolution makes the best sense. Besides, most of the dissent if from those that don't have the information or understand what they do have.

To me, the quality of the dissent and the ability to represent it is what matters. After 150 years, none of the dissent has held up and remains using the same tactics, flawed reasoning, pore understanding and logical fallacies that it started with.

One flawed attempt is that controversy in science means that theory falls automatically. Controversy in science is how theory and understanding grows.

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory of evolution is observable, well evidenced, productive, predictive, and tested . Magic poofing is none of these. You choose to believe the evidenced over the unevidenced. So be it.
You keep bringing up finches and birds' beaks. Nobody's using these as evidence for evolution these days. They were observations that originally gave Darwin the idea of species changing over time; historically interesting, but not what biologists are studying today.

Small changes accumulate into big changes, given enough time. You seem to be ignoring the time and accumulation aspect and expecting major changes to occur suddenly and overnight.

You and others may say it's observable, but if that which you think is observable is the changing of beak sizes, or differences of skin color, no, sorry, in my opinion that's not observing evolution from a cell or few cells on upward. Or expanding. However you want to put it. Not at all. But that honest viewpoint will likely be thrown aside.

 

[YoursTrue]

He understands your claim of an eternal, causeless, beginningless God fine. He's pointing out that this claim violates your apologetic claim that everything must have a cause and a beginning.

My God (the God I worship) is beyond understanding in entirety. We face death. He does not. How do I know that? Because it makes sense to me now that I understand the Bible more than I used to. Moses himself had to learn about Him. And did not know everything. I learn about Him basically from the Bible along with others. I used to wonder like some do, who made God? I no longer do because it is clear to me now that God always was, is, and will always be. Do I understand everything? I think you know the answer to that....(have a nice day)...

 

[YoursTrue]

He understands your claim of an eternal, causeless, beginningless God fine. He's pointing out that this claim violates your apologetic claim that everything must have a cause and a beginning.

Causeless? What do you mean by causeless? In actuality, by the way, it absolutely must be that according to the theory of evolution "everything must have a cause and a beginning,." Mutation is the "cause" for change according to the theory, isn't it? Random events--are you telling me they are not "cause" for change?

 

[F1fan]

You and others may say it's observable, but if that which you think is observable is the changing of beak sizes, or differences of skin color, no, sorry, in my opinion that's not observing evolution from a cell or few cells on upward. Or expanding. However you want to put it. Not at all. But that honest viewpoint will likely be thrown aside.

Your opinion only means that you have contempt for science and refuse to learn anything about it. It’s not something to feel proud of.

 

[blü 2]

My God (the God I worship) is beyond understanding in entirety.

That seems to be as a result of your choosing not to enquire too far, no? The institution is more valuable to you than the facts?

 

[YoursTrue]

That seems to be as a result of your choosing not to enquire too far, no?

No. But you bring up an interesting point.
Looking at the psalms and pleading for help shows that we surely do not understand everything about God but there is hope as exemplified in the famous "Lord's Prayer..." and prophecies such as Revelation 21:1-5.

 

[Esteban X]

Causeless? What do you mean by causeless? In actuality, by the way, it absolutely must be that according to the theory of evolution "everything must have a cause and a beginning,." Mutation is the "cause" for change according to the theory, isn't it? Random events--are you telling me they are not "cause" for change?

Mutation is change, not the cause of change.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mutation is change, not the cause of change.

So there's no cause according to scientists for random mutation?

 

[Pogo]

So there's no cause according to scientists for random mutation?

No, again, the causes of the mutations are chemistry and physics etc that are random with respect to the outcome which is the mutation.

Of course now you will go and dig up some irrelevant article about how some parts of DNA are more likely to mutate than others which will justify your tiny little doubt somehow while missing the entire point.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, again, the causes of the mutations are chemistry and physics etc that are random with respect to the outcome which is the mutation.

So are you saying there is no cause physically for mutations? Ok sorry, I think you are saying there is a PHYSICAL cause for mutation.

 

[YoursTrue]

So are you saying there is no cause physically for mutations?

Also @Esteban X Please explain if you believe there is nothing to CAUSE mutations.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, again, the causes of the mutations are chemistry and physics etc that are random with respect to the outcome which is the mutation.

So there is cause for mutation.

 

[blü 2]

No. But you bring up an interesting point.
Looking at the psalms and pleading for help shows that we surely do not understand everything about God but there is hope as exemplified in the famous "Lord's Prayer..." and prophecies such as Revelation 21:1-5.

Only if chance has brought you up in a Christian culture. Were you born into a Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Confucian, or Shinto, or Great Spirit, or Rainbow Serpent &c &c culture, likely you'd never have heard of Revelation, or if you had, have any inclination to read it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where did the exploding star come from?

Enjoy,

I do have certain people on ignore. So I am responding to your post. You were a farmer. I respect that and of course, we city people need farmers . Can't live without them. I worked for publishers,some of their authors were famous scientists who also wrote sci-fi materials.