Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[TagliatelliMonster]

You’re wrong, to some degree.

I'm not.

Not genetic manipulation

Then there's nothing artificial about the mutations.

, but Lenski and his associates, in several experiments, have reduced certain pressures, and increased others, to rates that aren’t normally found.

Pressures are just environmental conditions. If a volcano erupts, it drasticially changes selection pressures in the immediate environment as well.

This isn't any different from changing the temperature in a freezer.

In such experiments, researchers will typically alter the environment on a relatively frequent basis. And they'll do that in order to accelerate evolution. This is the principle of Punctuated Equilibrium. At some point, a species living in an unchanging environment will reach a "local optimum". Meaning that it will have reached some sort of "maximum adaption" level, from where there no longer are any easy evolutionary pathways towards more improvement / optimization.

At that point, natural selection will favour the status quo and evolutionary change will slow down heavily or even come to an as-good-as halt. Changing the environment, changes the selection pressures. Changing the selection pressures, moves the species out of its local optimum. At this point, the status quo is no longer favoured. Evolution accelerates again.

Again, this is not unlike what we see in nature. In nature, conditions rarely, if every, stay the same. There are periods of stability, sure, but they will never stay that way. Sooner or later, change will happen. Sometimes sudden "shock" changes (like when a volcano erupts", other times slow and gradual changes (like geological activity slowly making a river form with all the consequences it brings).

Return that E. coil strain to the wild...it couldn’t defend itself; it would lead to extinction. Why? Because it lost function.

No. Rather because it evolved to fit a different habitat. That habitat being, the enivronment of the experiment.

This is just like taking a salt water fish and putting it in sweet water. It won't survive either.
Not because it "lost function", but simply because it evolved to fit the salt environment, to the point where it can only survive there. A "shock" change like suddenly ending up sweet water, usually means certain death.

In the “Long Term”? Bacteria will stay bacteria.

And eukaryotes will stay eukaryotes.
And vertebrates will stay vertebrates.
And tetrapods will stay tetrapods.
And mammals will stay mammals.
And primates will stay primates.
And homo sapiens will stay homo sapiens.

And, you guessed it, homo sapiens still ARE: homo sapiens, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates and eukaryotes.

A new species, maybe. But that’s not disputed.

Sounds like what you are disputing, is nothing but a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster , ‘skin over moles’ eyes’?

Again, we’re talking micro-evolution. No dispute,

It was an example to show you how nonsensical your whole "loss of function" rant is in context of evolution.

Clearly it went over your head. Which isn't very surprising, off course.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It was an example to show you how nonsensical your whole "loss of function" rant is in context of evolution.

Clearly it went over your head. Which isn't very surprising, off course.

Yeah, you’d think so...you’re “off course”.

 

[Etritonakin]

Religious-type faith is unjustified belief, that is, blind.



I can feel electrons coursing through my body. And I can see them light up an electric light. Not so much any gods.



Righteousness, like sinner, implies a religious judgment. I define my own standards for ethical behavior.



Once again, I don't go to the religions or religious for ethical instruction.

Still -religious -not biblical.
You -a new being -likely less than a hundred years old -define your own standards -within an 18.3 billion-year-old universe (and what preceded it).
As right and wrong would reference the whole of reality..... points for effort, but the universe (and beyond) would logically define your standards.
That which you are within IS THE STANDARD.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, you’d think so...you’re “off course”.

Well, it clearly did went over your head, since your reply didn't address the point being made at all.

 

[We Never Know]

How does that question even make sense? The most fundamental laws *cannot* be caused for exactly this reason.

So nothing can predict the laws would form as they did?

 

[We Never Know]

As far as we understand, the laws governing how polymerism and vesicle formation work. But we don't fully know.

Unknown and not predictable

Well, that goes two ways. One is the formation of life, which is determined primarily, again as far as we know, by the distribution of chemicals like water and ammonis and distance from the sun. After that, life adapts to the environment.

Not predictable

General laws usually don't predict specifics like that. However, they do provide the range of possibilities. Our solar system is one of many we know about.

Not predictable

This is being actively worked on. It gets into the nature of quantum gravity, which we don't fully understand partly because it isn't easy to test.

Not predictable

It isn't clear to me that this is even a meaningful question. Why do you think the laws 'formed'?

They didn't always exist. Were formed, were created, came into existence, or whatever you would like to say. Btw, did the laws create the universe or did the universe create the laws?

We know a little, but at least we know that much. And even knowing that little bit limits the possibilities.

IMO opinion we don't even know all the possibilities in our own little world let alone all of the universe.

I will even go a little further. Something existed pre-big bang because something had to expand. And if time didn't start until the big bang something existed pre-time.
Then we have to ask ourself if there was no universe what did that something pre-big bang exist in and where did it come from, did that something have a cause. Then if a rapid heat up is what caused the big bang, did the heat up have cause. There are probably a million questions we may never be able to answer.

 

[We Never Know]

First, again, again, and again . . . 99% of scientists, regardless of what they believe concerning God do not believe the complexity of life came about by chance nor randomly.

Second, I lake many scientists believe in God, and consider the natural history of abiogenesis and evolution described by science is Creation by God that occurs naturally.

Your post goes down hill from here in the fundamentalist rabbit hole.

Btw, mutations which are responsible for the diversity in life are random.

 

[Polymath257]

So nothing can predict the laws would form as they did?

And regularity that you could use would be itself a law, right?

Polymath257 said: ↑
As far as we understand, the laws governing how polymerism and vesicle formation work. But we don't fully know.

Unknown and not predictable

Nope, both are known and predictable.

Polymath257 said: ↑
Well, that goes two ways. One is the formation of life, which is determined primarily, again as far as we know, by the distribution of chemicals like water and ammonis and distance from the sun. After that, life adapts to the environment.

Not predictable

Actually, these are predictable (which is why we can use them) and largely known.

Polymath257 said: ↑
General laws usually don't predict specifics like that. However, they do provide the range of possibilities. Our solar system is one of many we know about.

Not predictable

I think you have a misconception about what it means to be predictable. If you know the preconditions, a predictable law will tell you what happens afterwards. If you don't know the preconditions, it won't.

The problem we have with many origins questions is we don't know the initial conditions.

Polymath257 said: ↑
This is being actively worked on. It gets into the nature of quantum gravity, which we don't fully understand partly because it isn't easy to test.

Not predictable

Here, at least, you are correct. We need more information to distinguish between different views of quantum gravity.

Polymath257 said: ↑
It isn't clear to me that this is even a meaningful question. Why do you think the laws 'formed'?

They didn't always exist. Were formed, were created, came into existence, or whatever you would like to say. Btw, did the laws create the universe or did the universe create the laws?

Why do you think the universe was created? I think the universe, the laws, matter, time, energy, etc are all co-existent and uncaused.

Polymath257 said: ↑
We know a little, but at least we know that much. And even knowing that little bit limits the possibilities.

IMO opinion we don't even know all the possibilities in our own little world let alone all of the universe.

I will even go a little further. Something existed pre-big bang because something had to expand. And if time didn't start until the big bang something existed pre-time.

You don't even see the contradiction in the term 'pre-time'? To have a 'pre' means there is time.

Then we have to ask ourself if there was no universe what did that something pre-big bang exist in and where did it come from, did that something have a cause. Then if a rapid heat up is what caused the big bang, did the heat up have cause. There are probably a million questions we may never be able to answer.

I think of the universe throughout space and time as a single geometric entity that is uncaused (because causality only makes sense within the universe), and has no precursor (because time only makes sense within the universe). Matter, energy, space, time, and the universe are all co-existent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think of the universe throughout space and time as a single geometric entity that is uncaused (because causality only makes sense within the universe), and has no precursor (because time only makes sense within the universe). Matter, energy, space, time, and the universe are all co-existent.

Don't hold me to this, but your comment strikes me as a case of elegant circular reasoning. But let me ask you a more fundamental question.

Given the options:

• the universe is uncaused
• the universe is of unknown cause

what are your grounds for believing that assertion [a] is clearly superior to assertion ?

 

[Polymath257]

Don't hold me to this, but your comment strikes me as a case of elegant circular reasoning. But let me ask you a more fundamental question.

Given the options:

• the universe is uncaused
• the universe is of unknown cause

what are your grounds for believing that assertion [a] is clearly superior to assertion ?

Primarily because I think causality is something that happens *inside* of the universe. It is an expression of physical laws. So to even talk about the cause of the universe means, in a sense, asking about the cause of causality, which seems to me to be nonsense.

it is similar to the issue of asking what is 'before time'. The very notion of 'before' requires the notion of time, so the question itself has problems. It *looks* well constructed initially, but some thought shows that it doesn't make any sense at all.

/E: I also see causality and time to be intimately intertwined. Since time is part of the universe, that is an additional reason to see causality as a part also.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Primarily because I think causality is something that happens *inside* of the universe.

Yes, and this is obviously the case if the universe (or, perhaps better, 'multiverse') is seen as eternal. Of course, in this case, this view is wholly tautological. If, on the other hand, there was indeed a 'beginning,' to claim that it was uncaused simply by virtue of the fact that you've defined 'cause' to be an inapplicable term strikes me as little more than semantics.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and this is obviously the case if the universe (or, perhaps better, 'multiverse') is seen as eternal. Of course, in this case, this view is wholly tautological. If, on the other hand, there was indeed a 'beginning,' to claim that it was uncaused simply by virtue of the fact that you've defined 'cause' to be an inapplicable term strikes me as little more than semantics.

Well, what does the word 'cause' mean? Ultimately, it means (as far as I can determine) the application of natural laws to one condition leads to another condition after a period of time. Essentially every part of that requires the existence of time and thereby the universe.

If time has a beginning, it makes no sense to say there was a 'before'. The very use of the word means there had to be time before, and so you didn't have the beginning of time. And since causality itself is so tied with time, it also makes no sense to talk about a cause. Causality is constrained by the nature of time (and the future light cone).

 

[We Never Know]

And regularity that you could use would be itself a law, right?



Nope, both are known and predictable.




Actually, these are predictable (which is why we can use them) and largely known.



I think you have a misconception about what it means to be predictable. If you know the preconditions, a predictable law will tell you what happens afterwards. If you don't know the preconditions, it won't.

The problem we have with many origins questions is we don't know the initial conditions.



Here, at least, you are correct. We need more information to distinguish between different views of quantum gravity.



Why do you think the universe was created? I think the universe, the laws, matter, time, energy, etc are all co-existent and uncaused.



You don't even see the contradiction in the term 'pre-time'? To have a 'pre' means there is time.



I think of the universe throughout space and time as a single geometric entity that is uncaused (because causality only makes sense within the universe), and has no precursor (because time only makes sense within the universe). Matter, energy, space, time, and the universe are all co-existent.

My time is short today so I will address a few for now.

"Why do you think the universe was created? I think the universe, the laws, matter, time, energy, etc are all co-existent and uncaused."

Either the universe always existed or it came into existence, appeared, formed, was created(not creation created) or use your own word.

"You don't even see the contradiction in the term 'pre-time'? To have a 'pre' means there is time."

Pre-time is before time. Hence the "pre" which is before. If time started with the big bang and the singularity(let's call it that) existed pre-big bang, then some thing existed pre-time(there is time now). Yes that is hard to wrap our mind around but that's exactly what is laid out. If nothing can exists pre-time then either time always existed or in the least existed before the singularity existed.

 

[Polymath257]

My time is short today so I will address a few for now.

"Why do you think the universe was created? I think the universe, the laws, matter, time, energy, etc are all co-existent and uncaused."

Either the universe always existed or it came into existence, appeared, formed, was created(not creation created) or use your own word.

Your dichotomy is false if time itself had a start. You seem to be assuming that *time* is eternal, but there is no reason that must be the case. To 'come into existence' itself implies time is existent.

And I do think that time, space, matter, energy, etc are all co-existent: all of them existed whenever any of them did.

"You don't even see the contradiction in the term 'pre-time'? To have a 'pre' means there is time."

Pre-time is before time. Hence the "pre" which is before.

Exactly. And what does it mean to be 'before' if there isn't time?

If time started with the big bang and the singularity(let's call it that) existed pre-big bang, then some thing existed pre-time(there is time now). Yes that is hard to wrap our mind around but that's exactly what is laid out. If nothing can exists pre-time then either time always existed or in the least existed before the singularity existed.

First of all, the singularity isn't a 'thing': it is a description of what happens as we approach the beginning of time. So, no, the 'singularity' did NOT exist 'pre-time'. That is a misreading of what the physics and math says.

In the Big Bang model, NOTHING exists before the universe because there *is no* 'before the Big Bang'.

Once again, you are assuming that time itself must be 'eternal' (of infinite duration), but nothing requires that logically.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If time has a beginning, it makes no sense to say there was a 'before'.

I prefer beige time, but no more than two or three units a day. Otherwise one simply gags on reification fallacy.

On the other hand, this may all be moot. To the best of my knowledge, shaky though it may well be, there seems to be an evolving consensus among string theorists that time has no beginning and that, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on "before the Big Bang."

 

[Polymath257]

I prefer beige time, but no more than two or three units a day. Otherwise one simply gags on reification fallacy.

On the other hand, this may all be moot. To the best of my knowledge, shaky though it may well be, there seems to be an evolving consensus among string theorists that time has no beginning and that, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on "before the Big Bang."

Indeed. But it is far from clear string theory is the last word on the subject.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Indeed. But it is far from clear string theory is the last word on the subject.

Agreed. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

I prefer beige time, but no more than two or three units a day. Otherwise one simply gags on reification fallacy.

I fail to see how that fallacy is relevant here. Time is an actual, physical, aspect of our universe (as are space, energy, etc).

On the other hand, this may all be moot. To the best of my knowledge, shaky though it may well be, there seems to be an evolving consensus among string theorists that time has no beginning and that, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on "before the Big Bang."

I'd point out here that time, space, mass, and energy are all co-existent in the string theory model.

 

[tas8831]

“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”

That means 'argument from ignorance' or 'argument from awe' to me - fallacious.

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So... He's been a JW longer than he's been a scientist - and doesn't JW REQUIRE its adherents to be anti-evolution?

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/
"... Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. ...Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible."

Also - why did he write a book on dogs if he is a plant researcher? Creationists and their argumentum ad verecundiam...

▪ BYRON LEON MEADOWS

PROFILE: I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. ...In my research I often work with the principles of physics.

'Nuff said.

“Something Cannot Come From Nothing”

▪ KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

Blah blah blah - since all f these JWs are faith-bound to reject evolution, their goofy and irrelevant testimonial "witnessing" is moot.