Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism

[Jose Fly]

Pre-existing processes is probably the wrong word.

Ok.

If the changes in living things are biased or set to develop along certain paths which are not open to selection or if creatures have control over their destiny as far as adaptating to their environment or development processes produce certain outcomes besides adaptations then these processes are inbuilt and a part of how living things can change.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inbuilt". I mean, in a way all processes are "inbuilt", right?

They are made that way and these are mechanisms that are not subject to the processes of natural selection shifting through a multitude of possibilities to find beneficial changes that can be used. In that sense these mechanisms are already existing within creatures and are a part of how they are able to change and adapt to different environments.

Sure, in the same sense that the process of erosion "already exists" before a river carves a canyon.

In other words though natural selectionis a mechanism in evolution it is only something that may refine what is already produced by other mechanisms and is not something that creates the feature in the first place which is the result of non adpative processes. This would point to early life havingan inbuilt ability to change and adapt without much input from natural selection.

That's the debate within evolutionary biology. And as far as I'm aware the debate continues.

However life was able to evolve complexity it was not becuase of natural selection.

I don't think that because some folks advocate for mechanisms other than selection, that means they're saying selection plays no role at all.

In fact the mechanism of selection and random mutations is a threat to complex life and increasing complexity as it introduces harmful mutations that will undermine and destroy what needs to be stable and precise and remthe same. Thats the way I have come to understand it anyway.

Well keep in mind, every organism has mutations and if those confer changes to an organisms fitness level, they will be subjected to selective pressures. This isn't an all or none, black or white question. It's not like it's "either selection is responsible for everything, or it's responsible for nothing".

 

[Polymath257]

I would not say they are solidly proven. Remember a theory is just the best guess based on the available evidence and measuring and like theories in the past can be proven wrong and discarded. There is also evidence or rather theorising that says that black holes, dark matter, the big bang etc are wrong.

For black holes, we have actual observations. For dark matter, the alternatives (such as MOND) have been disproved. And for the Big Bang, it is a fact that the universe is expanding from hot and dense enough for fusion reactions to occur.

Now, we may run into a terminology problem. For example, when atoms were first introduced, they were envisioned as indivisible pieces of matter. Dalton used this concept to explain much of known chemistry. But, later, we found out that the chemical atoms were, in fact, made other things: proton, neutrons, and electrons.

So do atoms exist? If your definition includes the concept of indivisibility, then perhaps not. But that would be a perverse use of language at this point.

In the same way, black holes were originally envisioned as things where nothing could escape, not even light. Today, it is recognized as possible that Hawking radiation makes that definition obsolete. But, we can still ask if the objects we see are reasonably well described (to a certain level of approximation) by the equations used to predict black holes. Of that, there is no question.

Similarly, some people, when talking about the Big Bang, imagine all of space coming out of nothing. That is NOT what most scientists mean when they talk about the Big Bang. In fact, all that is usually meant is that the universe is expanding and was once hot and dense enough for fusion reactions to occur. What happened before that is a matter of speculation. It is further a matter of speculation whether there is even *time* before the start of the expansion of the universe.

So, the Big Bang is demonstrated at least back to about a microsecond into the current expansion.

If geocentrism and phlogston were regarded as correct based on observational evidence and then later shoown to be wrong doesnt that show that theories based on observation are at best a temporary guess at what is going on and more than likely incorrect in the greater scheme of things. That would make the theories of today the same and when new discoveries come along this will change the status of what was thought to be correct. The problem I find is that some believe in these theories as though they are the complete and final answer becuase they fit with the observations so well rather than being verifiable.

Nope, I do NOT think these theories are the complete and final answers. As science progresses, we get better and better *approximations* to the truth. ALL measurements have error bars: they are never perfectly accurate. So it is *always* possible that adding another 3 decimal places will show the old approximation no longer works. But that isn't reason to throw away the old approximation.

So, for example, Newtonian mechanics is 'wrong'. it has been 'replaced' by much more accurate descriptions (relativity and quantum mechanics). But, for most things that happen on a human scale, Newtonian mechanics gives a good enough approximation (several decimal places) to be 'good enough' to use to design cars, build buildings, and send probes to other planets.

SO, even though Newtonian mechanics is 'wrong' it is still a very, very good approximation in many situations and can be used to obtain reliable conclusions.

Geocentrism and phlogiston were also approximations, but not nearly as good as those from later discoveries.

What does that mean for future theories?

Well, in part it means that all those things that we have been able to test are still going to work. No future theory will completely do away with an expanding universe with a hot dense phase. No future theory will negate the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. No future theory will be able to get around the fact that biological species change over geological time (evolution). The details may very well change. In fact, they probably will. But that doesn't negate the conclusions we have reached so far.

That wpould make many of the current hypothesis and even theories not scientific as they cannot be tested or verified such as multiverses and string theory.

String theory isn't *currently* testable in detail, but there are observational consequences that may well be testable with the LHC. If those don't show up, string theory is in trouble (and it might already be so). Multiverse theories are not things in themselves, but happen in a broader context of attempting to resolve the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics (both of which are well supported). The underlying theories that predict multiverses are testable through observations in *this* universe.

My point wasnt that God or an intelligent agent can be verified directly by scientific testing but that there is indirect evidence that can be logically reasoned just as other ideas in science are reasoned with indirect evidence and put forward as an alternative.

Those alternatives are, in fact, testable. Dark matter, for example, has consequences outside of just velocity curves for galaxies. The descriptions of dark matter give very precise predictions for many observations (and those have been verified).

Simply having indirect evidence, however, with no prospect *even in theory* for testing, makes the God hypothesis not a scientific theory.

I have given some of the support for this in my previous posts. But God or an intelligent agent will never be directly verified scientifically as we would have to be in the realm of God which is not of this reality to be even able to see God. That is why people say the evidence has to be indirect with things such as creation ie the fine tuning argument.

OK, what is a measurement that would distinguish a God-created universe from one that isn't? Be clear. It need not be one we can do today, or even in the next century. But give one test that would distinguish the two. Without that, the God hypothesis has no explanatory power at all.

It would be the same as saying what tests can be made to prove a multiverse or a hologram world yet these are valid ideas put forward by science to account for what we see. Like I said it can only ever by presented as indirect support and I have put forward some supports in my other posts.

First these are acknowledged as speculation and in need of testing. Because of the difficulty of testing, they are, in fact, looked at as speculation and highly provisional. But they also *do* have specific tests that can be used to verify or refute them, a least in theory. What does *your* viewpoint have?

 

[Polymath257]

I have presented those in my other posts. How do you think science can prove some of their ideas about how something came into existence from nothing.

Define what you mean by the term 'nothing'. Then define what you mean by 'coming from'.

I suspect that *nobody* makes the claim you say they are. Even in 'the universe from nothing', there is still a quantum state of a vacuum that decays. Is that 'nothing'? if not, all you are doing is presenting a red herring.

Do you think that the answer to this lies in the standard understanding and measuremnets of physics or will it require something that is beyond the parameters of current cause and effect. How do you account for quantum fluctuations, virtual particles or quantum entanglemnet. Not explaining how it works within quantum phycis but how can something like that happen.

When you ask 'how' something 'like that' can happen, you are actually asking for a more fundamental law of physics that can be used to derive these results. But if quantum physics (or some extension of it) *is* the fundamental law, then it is silly to ask how it can be 'like that'. It just is. You won't be able to explain quantum mechanics with classical ideas.

Causality only makes sense in the context of laws of physics. Once you step away from those, it makes no sense at all. Furthermore, it only makes sense when there is time. So, since time is part of our universe, the 'cause' of the universe isn't anything that is a sensible concept.

 

[Polymath257]

Pre-existing processes is probably the wrong word. If the changes in living things are biased or set to develop along certain paths which are not open to selection or if creatures have control over their destiny as far as adaptating to their environment or development processes produce certain outcomes besides adaptations then these processes are inbuilt and a part of how living things can change. They are made that way and these are mechanisms that are not subject to the processes of natural selection shifting through a multitude of possibilities to find beneficial changes that can be used. In that sense these mechanisms are already existing within creatures and are a part of how they are able to change and adapt to different environments.

Well, the range of possible mutations is finite. For any particular protein, we can change an amino acid, we can duplicate the DNA, we can change the length of the piece read, we can change the promoters and how strongly they bind to the DNA, etc. In this sense, the range of mutations is limited. But it is not directed.

In other words though natural selectionis a mechanism in evolution it is only something that may refine what is already produced by other mechanisms and is not something that creates the feature in the first place which is the result of non adpative processes.

Yes, mutation. It is common for genes to be duplicated and for the copies to be independently mutated and selected for. This is what produces new information.

This would point to early life havingan inbuilt ability to change and adapt without much input from natural selection.

No. Both mutation and natural selection are required. Mutation provides the variability and selection changes the averages.

However life was able to evolve complexity it was not becuase of natural selection. In fact the mechanism of selection and random mutations is a threat to complex life and increasing complexity as it introduces harmful mutations that will undermine and destroy what needs to be stable and precise and remthe same. Thats the way I have come to understand it anyway.

And that is wrong. By far the majority of mutations are neutral. Those are neither selected for nor against. Once a feature is produced that *can* be selected for or against, it is. Harmful mutations are quickly eliminated. So the beneficial ones are the ones that survive.

There is extensive modeling of this in a wide variety of contexts. Once you have reproduction, mutation, and a selective force, complexity will naturally arise. There has to be a certian balance between the rate of mutation and the selection pressure, but the tolerances are quite wide.

 

[Milton Platt]

Ok.


I'm not sure what you mean by "inbuilt". I mean, in a way all processes are "inbuilt", right?


Sure, in the same sense that the process of erosion "already exists" before a river carves a canyon.


That's the debate within evolutionary biology. And as far as I'm aware the debate continues.


I don't think that because some folks advocate for mechanisms other than selection, that means they're saying selection plays no role at all.


Well keep in mind, every organism has mutations and if those confer changes to an organisms fitness level, they will be subjected to selective pressures. This isn't an all or none, black or white question. It's not like it's "either selection is responsible for everything, or it's responsible for nothing".

For black holes, we have actual observations. For dark matter, the alternatives (such as MOND) have been disproved. And for the Big Bang, it is a fact that the universe is expanding from hot and dense enough for fusion reactions to occur.

Now, we may run into a terminology problem. For example, when atoms were first introduced, they were envisioned as indivisible pieces of matter. Dalton used this concept to explain much of known chemistry. But, later, we found out that the chemical atoms were, in fact, made other things: proton, neutrons, and electrons.



So do atoms exist? If your definition includes the concept of indivisibility, then perhaps not. But that would be a perverse use of language at this point.





Nope, I do NOT think these theories are the complete and final answers. As science progresses, we get better and better *approximations* to the truth. ALL measurements have error bars: they are never perfectly accurate. So it is *always* possible that adding another 3 decimal places will show the old approximation no longer works. But that isn't reason to throw away the old approximation.

So, for example, Newtonian mechanics is 'wrong'. it has been 'replaced' by much more accurate descriptions (relativity and quantum mechanics). But, for most things that happen on a human scale, Newtonian mechanics gives a good enough approximation (several decimal places) to be 'good enough' to use to design cars, build buildings, and send probes to other planets.

SO, even though Newtonian mechanics is 'wrong' it is still a very, very good approximation in many situations and can be used to obtain reliable conclusions.

Geocentrism and phlogiston were also approximations, but not nearly as good as those from later discoveries.

What does that mean for future theories?

Well, in part it means that all those things that we have been able to test are still going to work. No future theory will completely do away with an expanding universe with a hot dense phase. No future theory will negate the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. No future theory will be able to get around the fact that biological species change over geological time (evolution). The details may very well change. In fact, they probably will. But that doesn't negate the conclusions we have reached so far.


String theory isn't *currently* testable in detail, but there are observational consequences that may well be testable with the LHC. If those don't show up, string theory is in trouble (and it might already be so). Multiverse theories are not things in themselves, but happen in a broader context of attempting to resolve the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics (both of which are well supported). The underlying theories that predict multiverses are testable through observations in *this* universe.


Those alternatives are, in fact, testable. Dark matter, for example, has consequences outside of just velocity curves for galaxies. The descriptions of dark matter give very precise predictions for many observations (and those have been verified).

Simply having indirect evidence, however, with no prospect *even in theory* for testing, makes the God hypothesis not a scientific theory.



OK, what is a measurement that would distinguish a God-created universe from one that isn't? Be clear. It need not be one we can do today, or even in the next century. But give one test that would distinguish the two. Without that, the God hypothesis has no explanatory power at all.



First these are acknowledged as speculation and in need of testing. Because of the difficulty of testing, they are, in fact, looked at as speculation and highly provisional. But they also *do* have specific tests that can be used to verify or refute them, a least in theory. What does *your* viewpoint have?

I think you can save time by first pointing out that the OP was asking for the best argument FOR a god, not an argument against evolution, biology, physics, cosmology, etc.

If virtually every bit of scientific theory on any or all of these subjects was proven wrong tomorrow, it does in no way support a belief in a god. We would just be left not knowing. Trying to insert a deity into a blank space within our knowledge is the classical argument from ignorance.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you can save time by first pointing out that the OP was asking for the best argument FOR a god, not an argument against evolution, biology, physics, cosmology, etc.

If virtually every bit of scientific theory on any or all of these subjects was proven wrong tomorrow, it does in no way support a belief in a god. We would just be left not knowing. Trying to insert a deity into a blank space within our knowledge is the classical argument from ignorance.

I agree. But there is a question of whether ID and creationism (they are the same thing) are testable hypotheses.

And, yes, it *is* possible to test, at times, whether an intelligence is involved in certain phenomena. It is commonplace in archeology, for example, to have to decide whether a certain rock was the result of human intervention or is just due to weathering. But the way to determine intelligent intervention is to know what can happen naturally. And for things like the origin of life, we simply don't know what the range of natural phenomena is, so it is simply impossible to deduce the intervention of an intelligence.

So far, the best evidence for creationism presented is "gee, it's so amazing I can't imagine it is all due to natural laws!".

 

[Skwim]

I think you can save time by first pointing out that the OP was asking for the best argument FOR a god, not an argument against evolution, biology, physics, cosmology, etc.

Actually, all I'm asking for is one's best argument for creationism. The religious belief that each species originated from a specific act of divine creation, as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through evolution.

.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think you can save time by first pointing out that the OP was asking for the best argument FOR a god, not an argument against evolution, biology, physics, cosmology, etc.

If virtually every bit of scientific theory on any or all of these subjects was proven wrong tomorrow, it does in no way support a belief in a god. We would just be left not knowing. Trying to insert a deity into a blank space within our knowledge is the classical argument from ignorance.

Very true, although that's been repeatedly pointed out since this thread began, and still no creationist can do it.

 

[stevevw]

Well, the range of possible mutations is finite. For any particular protein, we can change an amino acid, we can duplicate the DNA, we can change the length of the piece read, we can change the promoters and how strongly they bind to the DNA, etc. In this sense, the range of mutations is limited. But it is not directed.

According to Lynch the non-adaptive forces of mutation, recombination and genetic drift can direct evolution along certain lines where they discourage beneficial mutation and encourage slightly deleterious ones and this would minimize the opportunities for natural selection.

Because all three nonadaptive forces of evolution are stochastic in nature, this conclusion raises some significant technical challenges. It is tempting to think that stochastic processes have no implications for the direction of evolution. However, the effects of mutation and recombination are nonrandom, and by magnifying the role of chance, genetic drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

Yes, mutation. It is common for genes to be duplicated and for the copies to be independently mutated and selected for. This is what produces new information.

Yes but I think the papers I linked were saying that the non-adaptive processes such as mutations can overcome the force of selection. It seems that most people only understand evolution in terms of natural selection and selection is being credited with every change that happens when there are other mechanisms that are responsible.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change. (for a review, see ref. 17). This view derives from two types of arguments. First, hundreds of artificial selection experiments have generated changes in mean phenotypes well beyond the observed range in the base population in just a few dozen generations (18), inspiring the view that quantitative variation is distributed over an effectively infinite number of loci with minuscule effects (19⇓–21). Second, much of the earliest work in theoretical population genetics downplayed the ability of mutation to overcome the force of selection (22, 23). Both arguments ignore significant complications that arise in finite populations, and it is now known that genome composition is governed by biases in mutation and gene conversion, some of which (e.g., mobile-element proliferation) operate via internal drive-like mechanisms (13).


The notion that mutation pressure can be a driving force in evolution is not new (6, 24⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–31), and the conditions that must be fulfilled if mutation is to alter the direction of evolution relative to adaptive expectations are readily derived. (refer to paper).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

No. Both mutation and natural selection are required. Mutation provides the variability and selection changes the averages.

There seem to be several processes that can produce variations and change without the need for natural selection ie mutation, drift, recombination, HGT, epigentic influences, symbiosis, plasticity, extra gene inheritance. Animals can also change their enviroment to suit rather than having to evolve to adapt to their enviroment.

And that is wrong. By far the majority of mutations are neutral. Those are neither selected for nor against. Once a feature is produced that *can* be selected for or against, it is. Harmful mutations are quickly eliminated. So the beneficial ones are the ones that survive.

There is extensive modeling of this in a wide variety of contexts. Once you have reproduction, mutation, and a selective force, complexity will naturally arise. There has to be a certian balance between the rate of mutation and the selection pressure, but the tolerances are quite wide.[/QUOTE]
It seems many mutations are slightly deletrious and therefore to small to be selected out. They can accumulate and become a fitness cost. A mutations would have to have a significant benefit to be selected for which would be very rare. As mentioned above non-adaptive forces can direct evolution and minimize the effect of natural selection by imposing directionality and encouraging the fixation of slightly deleterious mutations and minmizing beneficial ones.

According to Lynches paper it is difficult to see how Natural selection can evolve complex organisms.

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).

Evolvability
All replicating populations are capable of evolution, but it has recently been argued that some species are better at it than others, with natural selection directly advancing features of genomic architecture, genetic networks, and developmental pathways to promote the future ability of a species to adaptively evolve. Such speculation, which is almost entirely restricted to molecular and cell biologists and those who study digital organisms (e.g., refs. 1, 2, and 81⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–88), has been subject to considerable criticism by evolutionary biologists (e.g., refs. 89⇓⇓⇓–93). The term evolvability has long been in use in quantitative genetics, where is it has a precise definition closely related to the concept of heritability, i.e., the relative amount of standing variation that is subject to a response to natural selection (94, 95). However, the above-mentioned authors use the word in a rather different way, loosely defining evolvability to be the ability of a lineage to generate useful adaptive variation via mutational flexibility. Regardless of the definition, the idea that variation in evolvability exists among species is secure, as it has long been known that organisms and classes of traits vary in their propensities to respond to natural selection (18). Less secure is the idea that the ability to evolve itself is actively promoted by directional selection. Four reasons for skepticism follow. (Refer to paper)

 

[stevevw]

Define what you mean by the term 'nothing'. Then define what you mean by 'coming from'.

This is the big $64 question.

I suspect that *nobody* makes the claim you say they are. Even in 'the universe from nothing', there is still a quantum state of a vacuum that decays. Is that 'nothing'? if not, all you are doing is presenting a red herring.

This is something Lawrence Krauss and his offsider Richard Dawkins have been promoting that nothing is really a sort of something. But what they dont tell us is where did the laws of quantum physics come from to produce a quantum vacuum. Krauss readily admits he doesnt know but that just acknowledges that the nothing he is talking about still requires something. Where did that something come from. So I guess the nothing I am talking about is the nothing without the quantum stuff as well and also who created that quantum stuff.
‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss

When you ask 'how' something 'like that' can happen, you are actually asking for a more fundamental law of physics that can be used to derive these results. But if quantum physics (or some extension of it) *is* the fundamental law, then it is silly to ask how it can be 'like that'. It just is. You won't be able to explain quantum mechanics with classical ideas.

Yes I agree and thats the interesting thing that the quantum world cannot be explained by classic physic and acts in ways that defy classical cause and effect. I guess that is why scientists are appealing to unreal ideas to explain the difficult questions like virtual particiles that pop in and out of existence or that a particle can be in more than one place at a time. Funny enough though these are the qualities also attributed to God.

Causality only makes sense in the context of laws of physics. Once you step away from those, it makes no sense at all. Furthermore, it only makes sense when there is time. So, since time is part of our universe, the 'cause' of the universe isn't anything that is a sensible concept.

But does that take away from the question of how did our universe come about. Its almost as though becuase it doesnt make sense then we should just accept that it doesnt have an answer. Yet at tyhe same time scientists keep coming up with unreal ideas to try and answer the question. Is this something beyond science. Maybe there are some things that science just can answer and require other fields to attempt to account for these things such as theology or philosophy.

Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing

 

[stevevw]

Ok.


I'm not sure what you mean by "inbuilt". I mean, in a way all processes are "inbuilt", right?

I guess what I mean by inbuilt is that these processes are more guided as opposed to natural selection and adpatations which is unguided. Probably the question should be asked where did these mechanisms come from if they were not selected for. If a development process always goes down a certain path and ends up with a certain outcome that is the same regardless of adaptations then how does that process come about. It must have certain systems that guide it and where did they come from. This is opposed to how many promote natural selection as being the creator of just about everything we see when we know that this is not the case and in fact may only be a small part of how life comes about and changes. There are many processes that seem to be setup that are meant to be a part of how living things can live on planat earth.

Sure, in the same sense that the process of erosion "already exists" before a river carves a canyon.

Maaybe not erosion as that is a passive process in the sense that there is not input formthe actor being able to change its course as well. Erosion will follow the path of least resistence. In some ways thats similar to selection in that whatever works works and there is no envisioned direction.

That's the debate within evolutionary biology. And as far as I'm aware the debate continues.


I don't think that because some folks advocate for mechanisms other than selection, that means they're saying selection plays no role at all.


Well keep in mind, every organism has mutations and if those confer changes to an organisms fitness level, they will be subjected to selective pressures. This isn't an all or none, black or white question. It's not like it's "either selection is responsible for everything, or it's responsible for nothing".[/QUOTE]
Yes I agree natural selection plays its part but it is what part and this is what is being debated and changing in the light of discoveries and a better understanding of developmental processes. Certainly it has changed since Darwins understanding but as Lynch states some or maybe many still want to hold onto that traditional understanding and promote natural selection as an all powerful force that is responsible for just about everything that we see in life. This is almost giving selection a god like quality and in some ways I believe some are doing this becuase of the difficulty of accounting for what we are seeing in things like the DNA. Explanations have to account for more and more situations that are beyond natural selection and random mutations to account for so the ability is increased or the difficult to explain observations are put aside as fringe occurances within the theory which as Lynch and the nature paper say are just consequences or of minor significance for Darwins evolution.

For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation. It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins' (7⇓–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

The story that SET (Standard Evolution Theory) tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.


In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[Polymath257]

This is the big $64 question.

This is something Lawrence Krauss and his offsider Richard Dawkins have been promoting that nothing is really a sort of something. But what they dont tell us is where did the laws of quantum physics come from to produce a quantum vacuum. Krauss readily admits he doesnt know but that just acknowledges that the nothing he is talking about still requires something. Where did that something come from. So I guess the nothing I am talking about is the nothing without the quantum stuff as well and also who created that quantum stuff.
‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss

Of course, even the theists don't start with *nothing*. Even they start with *something*: a deity. To ask why there is something rather than nothing is simply an unanswerable question.

What Krauss suggests is that starting with laws of physics similar to what we already know, and with a quantum state with no matter in it, all the rest may follow.

Yes I agree and thats the interesting thing that the quantum world cannot be explained by classic physic and acts in ways that defy classical cause and effect. I guess that is why scientists are appealing to unreal ideas to explain the difficult questions like virtual particiles that pop in and out of existence or that a particle can be in more than one place at a time. Funny enough though these are the qualities also attributed to God.

Virtual particles are the natural result of quantization and the uncertainty principle, both of which are dictated by quantum mechanics. The same, and even more so, for saying particles have a non-zero *probability* at more than one place at a time.

These are *real* effects that are measured and verified, not simply theoretical speculations. Why you consider them to be 'unreal' is unclear: they are counter-intuitive, but they are certainly 'real'.

But does that take away from the question of how did our universe come about. Its almost as though becuase it doesnt make sense then we should just accept that it doesnt have an answer. Yet at tyhe same time scientists keep coming up with unreal ideas to try and answer the question. Is this something beyond science. Maybe there are some things that science just can answer and require other fields to attempt to account for these things such as theology or philosophy.

Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing

And neither will theology explain such. From *absolutely nothing*, there is no time, no space, no causality, no properties, no logic, and no deities. There cannot be a 'reason' for there being 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'. Once *anything* exists, there is *something*.

 

[Polymath257]

According to Lynch the non-adaptive forces of mutation, recombination and genetic drift can direct evolution along certain lines where they discourage beneficial mutation and encourage slightly deleterious ones and this would minimize the opportunities for natural selection.

Because all three nonadaptive forces of evolution are stochastic in nature, this conclusion raises some significant technical challenges. It is tempting to think that stochastic processes have no implications for the direction of evolution. However, the effects of mutation and recombination are nonrandom, and by magnifying the role of chance, genetic drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Yes but I think the papers I linked were saying that the non-adaptive processes such as mutations can overcome the force of selection. It seems that most people only understand evolution in terms of natural selection and selection is being credited with every change that happens when there are other mechanisms that are responsible.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change. (for a review, see ref. 17). This view derives from two types of arguments. First, hundreds of artificial selection experiments have generated changes in mean phenotypes well beyond the observed range in the base population in just a few dozen generations (18), inspiring the view that quantitative variation is distributed over an effectively infinite number of loci with minuscule effects (19⇓–21). Second, much of the earliest work in theoretical population genetics downplayed the ability of mutation to overcome the force of selection (22, 23). Both arguments ignore significant complications that arise in finite populations, and it is now known that genome composition is governed by biases in mutation and gene conversion, some of which (e.g., mobile-element proliferation) operate via internal drive-like mechanisms (13).


The notion that mutation pressure can be a driving force in evolution is not new (6, 24⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–31), and the conditions that must be fulfilled if mutation is to alter the direction of evolution relative to adaptive expectations are readily derived. (refer to paper).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

There seem to be several processes that can produce variations and change without the need for natural selection ie mutation, drift, recombination, HGT, epigentic influences, symbiosis, plasticity, extra gene inheritance. Animals can also change their enviroment to suit rather than having to evolve to adapt to their enviroment.

And that is wrong. By far the majority of mutations are neutral. Those are neither selected for nor against. Once a feature is produced that *can* be selected for or against, it is. Harmful mutations are quickly eliminated. So the beneficial ones are the ones that survive.

There is extensive modeling of this in a wide variety of contexts. Once you have reproduction, mutation, and a selective force, complexity will naturally arise. There has to be a certian balance between the rate of mutation and the selection pressure, but the tolerances are quite wide.

It seems many mutations are slightly deletrious and therefore to small to be selected out. They can accumulate and become a fitness cost. A mutations would have to have a significant benefit to be selected for which would be very rare. As mentioned above non-adaptive forces can direct evolution and minimize the effect of natural selection by imposing directionality and encouraging the fixation of slightly deleterious mutations and minmizing beneficial ones.

According to Lynches paper it is difficult to see how Natural selection can evolve complex organisms.

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).

Evolvability
All replicating populations are capable of evolution, but it has recently been argued that some species are better at it than others, with natural selection directly advancing features of genomic architecture, genetic networks, and developmental pathways to promote the future ability of a species to adaptively evolve. Such speculation, which is almost entirely restricted to molecular and cell biologists and those who study digital organisms (e.g., refs. 1, 2, and 81⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–88), has been subject to considerable criticism by evolutionary biologists (e.g., refs. 89⇓⇓⇓–93). The term evolvability has long been in use in quantitative genetics, where is it has a precise definition closely related to the concept of heritability, i.e., the relative amount of standing variation that is subject to a response to natural selection (94, 95). However, the above-mentioned authors use the word in a rather different way, loosely defining evolvability to be the ability of a lineage to generate useful adaptive variation via mutational flexibility. Regardless of the definition, the idea that variation in evolvability exists among species is secure, as it has long been known that organisms and classes of traits vary in their propensities to respond to natural selection (18). Less secure is the idea that the ability to evolve itself is actively promoted by directional selection. Four reasons for skepticism follow. (Refer to paper)[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are such effects. Genetic drift, recombination, etc, are aspects that become more important in small populations, and hence can be significant in speciation. That doesn't mean there is a force driving the direction evolution, as opposed to statistical effects being more relevant to such populations.

 

[Jose Fly]

I guess what I mean by inbuilt is that these processes are more guided as opposed to natural selection and adpatations which is unguided. Probably the question should be asked where did these mechanisms come from if they were not selected for. If a development process always goes down a certain path and ends up with a certain outcome that is the same regardless of adaptations then how does that process come about. It must have certain systems that guide it and where did they come from. This is opposed to how many promote natural selection as being the creator of just about everything we see when we know that this is not the case and in fact may only be a small part of how life comes about and changes. There are many processes that seem to be setup that are meant to be a part of how living things can live on planat earth.

So this is basically no different than "where did the laws of physics come from"....IOW, the infinite regression that seems to be common with creationists nowdays.

Now that science can explain the origins of much of what we see around us by identifying the various processes that produced those things, those advocating for a creator God now are saying "But where did the processes come from". It used to be "where did all these species come from", but now that the process of evolution has been identified as the source, folks like you have moved to "where did the processes that drive evolution come from".

The problem with that to me is that the question itself assumes there was an original, deliberate origin for those processes, rather than them being something that "just is". We don't know if it's even possible for those process to be anything than what they are. Further, it gets into the arena of the arguments over the existence of God, which is something I really have no interest in debating or discussing.

 

[stevevw]

So this is basically no different than "where did the laws of physics come from"....IOW, the infinite regression that seems to be common with creationists nowdays.

Now that science can explain the origins of much of what we see around us by identifying the various processes that produced those things, those advocating for a creator God now are saying "But where did the processes come from". It used to be "where did all these species come from", but now that the process of evolution has been identified as the source, folks like you have moved to "where did the processes that drive evolution come from".

The problem with that to me is that the question itself assumes there was an original, deliberate origin for those processes, rather than them being something that "just is". We don't know if it's even possible for those process to be anything than what they are. Further, it gets into the arena of the arguments over the existence of God, which is something I really have no interest in debating or discussing.

Well I am not a cretionists and I believe in evolution so maybe you are assuming things or stereotyping people who ask those sort of questions. I think they are normal logical questions for anyone who is inquisitive just like the big questions that most people ask about where do we come from and and inquirey about the details of the processes for how life works are just extentions of these big questions and a natural part of being human. Scientists like Michael Lynch also question the processes of how things work and where they come from but he also dispels myths about what some have claimed about the processes of evolution. So even though you say the processes have been explained people including scientists still question those explanations as part of scientific inquirey and are continuing to redefine what those processes are. The problem comes when some take those expolanations and use them to support their beliefs and make more of them than what is there. To say that these difficult questions should be left as being "just is" would seem either dismissive or even going against scientific inquirey.

 

[stevevw]

Of course, even the theists don't start with *nothing*. Even they start with *something*: a deity. To ask why there is something rather than nothing is simply an unanswerable question.

The benefit of having a diety or creator God as the first casue is that God does not have a cause and the bible says that He is the creator of the laws and physics that science uses to explain things yet science cannot explain where those laws come from. It can also be argued that the qualities of God are like the laws of physics including the quantum world as God is all seeing, all knowing and can be in all places at the same time. Another advantage of a God being the first cause is that a God supports a conscious being behind what we see and this is also the direction many in science are supporting that there is a consciousness behind things like the universe.

The bible mentions that in the beginning was the word and all things were created by this word and this word became flesh in the form of God. So this speaks of an non material entity rather than any physical structure which is what science is trying to understand with things like virtual particles. It is like God spoke existence into reality which can be likened to the observer effect in quantum physics.

What Krauss suggests is that starting with laws of physics similar to what we already know, and with a quantum state with no matter in it, all the rest may follow.

This is really an extension and part of what we see but he is correct that everything stems back to the quantum world. still the quantum world has some active ingredients that need to be accounted for.

Virtual particles are the natural result of quantization and the uncertainty principle, both of which are dictated by quantum mechanics. The same, and even more so, for saying particles have a non-zero *probability* at more than one place at a time.

These are *real* effects that are measured and verified, not simply theoretical speculations. Why you consider them to be 'unreal' is unclear: they are counter-intuitive, but they are certainly 'real'.

I dont consider the verified quantum physics as being unreal in the sense of not being a real occurance. I mean it seems an unreal act compared to clasical phyics.

And neither will theology explain such. From *absolutely nothing*, there is no time, no space, no causality, no properties, no logic, and no deities. There cannot be a 'reason' for there being 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'. Once *anything* exists, there is *something*.

Yet scientific theory says the big bang brought time, space, and the laws of physics into being. Something had to have started the big bang as it does not just happened for no reason. Then it is natural to ask what caused the big bang which is said to be the result of quantum fluctuations.
So it is a natural progression to ask what caused quantum fluctuations and this goes back to how the quantum world works. But after this it hits a brick wall and if there is nothing found to support how quantum physics can be created from nothing then this can bring into question the other hypothesis about what science claims to have created the universe.

The big band is just an idea put forward which is not verified by direct testable science. As with many ideas in science the idea is supported becuase it fits the observations and calculations but we have seen in the past that this has been the case but ended up being wrong. Mathematical calculations and scientific explanations do not equate to causes of things. They just attempt to explain what is happening but do not have any creative ability. As mentioned earlier the way the quantum world works compared to classical physics seems unreal. So even if the big bang is verified something unreal that defies the way classical physics explains cause and effect is at work and this could include almost anything including a supernatural cause.

 

[Polymath257]

The benefit of having a diety or creator God as the first casue is that God does not have a cause and the bible says that He is the creator of the laws and physics that science uses to explain things yet science cannot explain where those laws come from. It can also be argued that the qualities of God are like the laws of physics including the quantum world as God is all seeing, all knowing and can be in all places at the same time. Another advantage of a God being the first cause is that a God supports a conscious being behind what we see and this is also the direction many in science are supporting that there is a consciousness behind things like the universe.

You haven't shown the necessity of a first cause. Identifying God with the laws of physics is a type of pantheism that is probably the least objectionable form of theism. I'm not sure it is what most people mean by the term 'God'. And I don't see how the laws of physics would be conscious or even why consciousness is supposed to be fundamental (not even in quantum mechanics).

I don't really care what the Bible says.

The bible mentions that in the beginning was the word and all things were created by this word and this word became flesh in the form of God. So this speaks of an non material entity rather than any physical structure which is what science is trying to understand with things like virtual particles. It is like God spoke existence into reality which can be likened to the observer effect in quantum physics.

Imagining that the Bible in *any* way relates to virtual particles is a rewriting of grand proportions.

This is really an extension and part of what we see but he is correct that everything stems back to the quantum world. still the quantum world has some active ingredients that need to be accounted for.

Such as?

I dont consider the verified quantum physics as being unreal in the sense of not being a real occurance. I mean it seems an unreal act compared to clasical phyics.

Good. So we should ignore classical physics when it comes to things dominated by quantum effects. That doesn't make those effects 'unreal'. Quite the opposite.

Yet scientific theory says the big bang brought time, space, and the laws of physics into being. Something had to have started the big bang as it does not just happened for no reason. Then it is natural to ask what caused the big bang which is said to be the result of quantum fluctuations.

Without time there is no causality. If time began, there cannot be a cause for time. Since time is part of the universe, there cannot be a cause for the universe. Even in the quantum world, a quantum state for a vacuum must exist before the Big Bang starts.

So it is a natural progression to ask what caused quantum fluctuations and this goes back to how the quantum world works. But after this it hits a brick wall and if there is nothing found to support how quantum physics can be created from nothing then this can bring into question the other hypothesis about what science claims to have created the universe.

Quantum mechanics is not a causal description. It is inherently a probabilistic description of the universe. To talk about a 'cause' for quantum fluctuations is most likely (at least if quantum mechanics is anything close to being correct) simply a fantasy.

The big band is just an idea put forward which is not verified by direct testable science. As with many ideas in science the idea is supported becuase it fits the observations and calculations but we have seen in the past that this has been the case but ended up being wrong. Mathematical calculations and scientific explanations do not equate to causes of things. They just attempt to explain what is happening but do not have any creative ability. As mentioned earlier the way the quantum world works compared to classical physics seems unreal. So even if the big bang is verified something unreal that defies the way classical physics explains cause and effect is at work and this could include almost anything including a supernatural cause.

What is typically meant by scientists when they say 'Big Bang' is the expansion from a hot dense state where nuclear reactions happened. Whether there was *actually* an origin of space, time, etc is, as you say, beyond out ability to test currently. The mathematics shows how the physical principles *explain* what happened. Causality is another question.

Classical physics is dead except as an approximation. To call the aspects of the universe that are not classical 'unreal' is a bias. The world *is* probabilistic and quantum in nature. It is not classical. But that in no way shows the existence of a supernatural.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't shown the necessity of a first cause.

I would have thought that logic would have shown that if there is a need to show what caused the big bang with quantum fluctuations then the nextlogical step would be what caused quantum fluctuations. It may not be the first cause but it is still an important question that needs to be addressed. But the basic premise is the cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore it cannot be physical or material.

Identifying God with the laws of physics is a type of pantheism that is probably the least objectionable form of theism. I'm not sure it is what most people mean by the term 'God'. And I don't see how the laws of physics would be conscious or even why consciousness is supposed to be fundamental (not even in quantum mechanics).

It is probably not as important to identify which God as opposed to there being an intelligent agent behind what we see. Though I think there are some basic similarities about gods that apply to all beliefs such as a creator of some sort that has a supernatural power to create the material world and inhabits a realm beyond the material world. It seems to me that there are some in science who are supporting a consciousness behind what we see. Scientists can use the observations and apply this to an hypothesis for God or an intelligent agent behind things just as well as the other hypothesis they make such as multiverses and hologram worlds. In fact in recent times more and more scientists are thinking this way becuase the direction for which the observations and findings are going is something that steps outside the parameters of scientific thinking and verification ie

Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'
Michio Kaku, who is highly regarded in the scientific community thanks to his work in helping to popularise the String Theory, has developed a new theory which he says points to the existence of God or an intelligent designer for the universe.

These tachyons are theoretical particles that have the ability to “unstick” matter in the universe or vacuum space between particles, essentially leaving everything free from the influence of the universe. This led Mr Kaku to the conclusion that the universe was created through design, and not random chaos and that we could be living in a type of “matrix”.
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'

Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory.
The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically 'orchestrated' coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi-Penrose (DP) scheme of 'objective reduction' ('OR') of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity ('Orch OR') is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space-time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of 'beat frequencies' of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic ('EEG') correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.
Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. - PubMed - NCBI

Concept The mental Universe
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html

Imagining that the Bible in *any* way relates to virtual particles is a rewriting of grand proportions.

I agree that the bible is not a scientific book and does not set out to prove anything scientifically but ome of what the bible says can be related to what some scientists have claimed such as consciousness altering the material world. This may be how miracles work and other things mentioned in the bible which appear to be supernatural but may just be an ability to alter the physical with non physical forces.

Such as?

Entanglement for one. How does that even happen and what does it mean. How can one particle influence another no matter how far apart they are without any physical connection.

Good. So we should ignore classical physics when it comes to things dominated by quantum effects. That doesn't make those effects 'unreal'. Quite the opposite.

I am not saying the macro world is unreal. Science is just as concerned about the effects of the quantum world as the macro world and both need to be taken into consideration. That is why thereis such an interest and conflict in finding a theory that unites both. That is why the ideas proposed so far are quite elaborate and unreal to be able to unite these worlds.

Without time there is no causality. If time began, there cannot be a cause for time. Since time is part of the universe, there cannot be a cause for the universe. Even in the quantum world, a quantum state for a vacuum must exist before the Big Bang starts.

Yes well how can a quantum state exists if there was no time or physics before the big bang. How can you be so confident that there is no cause for the universe. This is based on the measurements we use in our reality for cause and effect which may not be the case before time. If the universe had a beginning that in itself indicates a first cause. It doesnt seem to stop scientists from presenting their ideas about how the universe began before the big bang. We already know that causes and effects go out the window in the quantum world let alone some realm beyond time and space so we cannot know or make any bold claims about there being no cause. It may be some sort of condition that we do not even understand and as some scientists are alluding to there may be a non-material aspect to the universe which may not be measured by time anyway.

Quantum mechanics is not a causal description. It is inherently a probabilistic description of the universe. To talk about a 'cause' for quantum fluctuations is most likely (at least if quantum mechanics is anything close to being correct) simply a fantasy.

Then that would make the idea of a big bang caused by quantum fluctuations based in fantasy as well. It does allow for many possibilities for which science presents their own ideas for and for which many do not conform to scientific verification.

What is typically meant by scientists when they say 'Big Bang' is the expansion from a hot dense state where nuclear reactions happened. Whether there was *actually* an origin of space, time, etc is, as you say, beyond out ability to test currently. The mathematics shows how the physical principles *explain* what happened. Causality is another question.

Yes none of the ideas can be scientifically verified. But just becuase it may fit with the data and be elaborate doesnt mean that it should be accpeted as being correct. The big bang theory is one idea that seem to fit with the observations but it is not verified. At the same time many believe it to be true. But as we have seen in the past this can change with new discoveries. In fact there are already some who disagree with the big bang theory.

Classical physics is dead except as an approximation. To call the aspects of the universe that are not classical 'unreal' is a bias. The world *is* probabilistic and quantum in nature. It is not classical. But that in no way shows the existence of a supernatural.

But arguments can be made based on quantum physics can be made to support what acts like the supernatural. What we call supernatural may just be the effects of the quantum world popping its head into our world.

 

[Polymath257]

I would have thought that logic would have shown that if there is a need to show what caused the big bang with quantum fluctuations then the nextlogical step would be what caused quantum fluctuations. It may not be the first cause but it is still an important question that needs to be addressed. But the basic premise is the cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore it cannot be physical or material.

The fundamental assumption here is that everything has a cause. That is clearly untrue, even in your system. For you, God has no cause. For me, quantum fluctuations have no cause.

The difference is that we know quantum fluctuations exist.

It is probably not as important to identify which God as opposed to there being an intelligent agent behind what we see. Though I think there are some basic similarities about gods that apply to all beliefs such as a creator of some sort that has a supernatural power to create the material world and inhabits a realm beyond the material world. It seems to me that there are some in science who are supporting a consciousness behind what we see. Scientists can use the observations and apply this to an hypothesis for God or an intelligent agent behind things just as well as the other hypothesis they make such as multiverses and hologram worlds. In fact in recent times more and more scientists are thinking this way becuase the direction for which the observations and findings are going is something that steps outside the parameters of scientific thinking and verification ie

Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'
Michio Kaku, who is highly regarded in the scientific community thanks to his work in helping to popularise the String Theory, has developed a new theory which he says points to the existence of God or an intelligent designer for the universe.

These tachyons are theoretical particles that have the ability to “unstick” matter in the universe or vacuum space between particles, essentially leaving everything free from the influence of the universe. This led Mr Kaku to the conclusion that the universe was created through design, and not random chaos and that we could be living in a type of “matrix”.
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'

Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory.
The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically 'orchestrated' coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi-Penrose (DP) scheme of 'objective reduction' ('OR') of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity ('Orch OR') is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space-time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of 'beat frequencies' of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic ('EEG') correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.
Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. - PubMed - NCBI

Concept The mental Universe
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html

I agree that the bible is not a scientific book and does not set out to prove anything scientifically but ome of what the bible says can be related to what some scientists have claimed such as consciousness altering the material world. This may be how miracles work and other things mentioned in the bible which appear to be supernatural but may just be an ability to alter the physical with non physical forces.

What you showed above is *speculation* and is very far from proof. Kaku proposed one idea that could, if shown to be true, support the concept of a conscious deity.

The idea that consciousness arises from quantum effects in microtubules is, again, speculation in the extreme.

Entanglement for one. How does that even happen and what does it mean. How can one particle influence another no matter how far apart they are without any physical connection.

Well, entangled particles are created together in some reaction. That reaction is what produces the correlations in states and that correlation is maintained afterwards. There is no 'influence' between the two particles. There is simply correlation between the states that was formed when the particles were.

I am not saying the macro world is unreal. Science is just as concerned about the effects of the quantum world as the macro world and both need to be taken into consideration. That is why thereis such an interest and conflict in finding a theory that unites both. That is why the ideas proposed so far are quite elaborate and unreal to be able to unite these worlds.

The classical world is described as an approximation of the quantum world for 'large' things. The point is that Planck's constant is small, so the quantum effects tend not to be relevant for things larger than, say, large proteins.

Yes well how can a quantum state exists if there was no time or physics before the big bang. How can you be so confident that there is no cause for the universe. This is based on the measurements we use in our reality for cause and effect which may not be the case before time. If the universe had a beginning that in itself indicates a first cause.

No, it doesn't. And that is the point. Causality only makes sense in the context of time.

It doesnt seem to stop scientists from presenting their ideas about how the universe began before the big bang. We already know that causes and effects go out the window in the quantum world let alone some realm beyond time and space so we cannot know or make any bold claims about there being no cause. It may be some sort of condition that we do not even understand and as some scientists are alluding to there may be a non-material aspect to the universe which may not be measured by time anyway.

In models where there is a previous, contracting state, or where there is a multiverse with smaller universes, there is time throughout and time in our universe is either a continuation of the multiverse time or a projection of it. Causality makes sense in the multiverse, but that only pushes the question of origins back. The multiverse is then uncaused.

Then that would make the idea of a big bang caused by quantum fluctuations based in fantasy as well. It does allow for many possibilities for which science presents their own ideas for and for which many do not conform to scientific verification.

Yes, *anything* having to do with quantum gravity is speculation at this point. That is just as true for string theory as for quantum loop gravity. Once you get to events before the inflation stage, it is speculation, pure and simple. It will remain so until we gain the ability to test these proposals.

But *none* of this supports the existence of a supernatural. it is *all* natural and subject to the laws of nature: quantum mechanics and gravity.

 

[Corvus]

Well, entangled particles are created together in some reaction. That reaction is what produces the correlations in states and that correlation is maintained afterwards. There is no 'influence' between the two particles. There is simply correlation between the states that was formed when the particles were.

''Quantum teleportation is a process by which quantum information (e.g. the exact state of an atom or photon) can be transmitted (exactly, in principle) from one location to another, with the help of classical communication and previously shared quantum entanglement between the sending and receiving location. Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot be used for faster-than-light transport or communication of classical bits. While it has proven possible to teleport one or more qubits of information between two (entangled) atoms,[1][2][3] this has not yet been achieved between molecules or anything larger.'' Does this count?