Does Contemporary Evolution use a Pseudo-Creationism schema?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wellwisher, Feb 10, 2016.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The random theory that biology uses predicted that proteins will fold with average folds. The reason was protein are easily denatured being weakly held together. Thermal vibrations in the water was considered sufficient to overcome these weak force. It turned out protein fold with exact folds, which is repeatable. The statistical assumption for protein folding was proven wrong. There is still no statistical explanation for this, even though this was demonstrated over 50 years ago. Does biology need more time? Or does it need to ignore the facts to perpetuate the myth? This same theory also predicts random mutations.

    If we go back to evolution, say we assume that folding of protein is random and based on averages, like is assumed by the random model. That means at every step in evolution from replicators, to now, there can never be two exact cells with the same reaction kinetics. since there will be variations in protein shapes. How could life evolve if there is no consistency in its enzymes? The analogy is building houses with no building codes. All the crafts can do whatever they wish.

    Water is responsible for folding protein into exact folds so there are standard building codes. If had all the amino acids, protein, nucleic acids, RNA molecules needed for life, but these are not folded properly, you will not have life. Structure equals dynamics. All you have is a warehouse of building supplies. You need skilled craftsmen to make a house. Water is the carpenter that shapes the raw materials via secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures. It is essential to life.

    What assumptions did biology use when it predicted random or average folds in protein? Is any of this applied to mutations?

    The fact remains whoever knows how to define the co-partnership of water, controls the future of the industry.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    You have a very confused understanding of evolution and biology. The specific way in which protiens fold is a consequence of evolution. Proteins fold in a specific way and if they fold in a different way it will not be conducive to survival. In the same light people have a specific number of limbs sometimes they will have more or less but this is not conducive to survival.

    Animals do not have a random number of heads. The number of heads that an animal has is not a random thing. That does not in anyway mean that mutations are not random. What it means is evolution has resulted in single headed animals being the norm.

    The folding that is not conducive to survival will cause the animal to perish and it will not transfer the random mutation that caused the faulty folding.

    Biology does not assume random folding.

    How could the mutations not be random? You still have given no reason why they would not be random. Your discussion of folding proteins has nothing to do with mutations being random or not. The number of limbs of an animal is not random - that does not mean that mutations are not random.

    Now you are just being silly
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Mutations from radiation may be randomly placed along the DNA. However these mutations are not typically selected. On the other hand, internal changes on the DNA; replication errors, so not occur at the same rates in all areas of the DNA. How does a cell know enough to conserve some genes, while allowing others to change? Random would mean all the DNA should be subject to the same rates of change. The DNA is exhibiting loaded dice, since some genes (sides) appear more often.

    Over the past few days, I have been reading about abiogenesis in Wikipedia to refresh my knowledge. What I learned is there are many possible paths to the basic materials needed by life. This is based on various work done by many research groups. Amino acids can form in air, land and sea as well as in outer space. Protein and RNA can also be made. Protein can be make at about 80C using phosphoric acid and at cooler temperature with polyphosphates.

    What appears to be missing are the hows and why of self assembly, not only into active structures, but also into a working cell. In other words, there are many reasonable paths to make the primary structures of life; covalent bonded materials. But what was missing, is how these primary fold to become bioactive, and then how do thousands of such folded units, learn to work as a team. The entire cell acts like a very complicated example of quaternary structure. Just as the enzyme is integrated, so is the entire cell.

    From what I read, it sort implies we have made all the materials needed to build a house, to show these are possible from the young earth. However, how these materials assemble to make a house is not addressed. It assumes selection picks how all the things are supposed to fit together. This sounds to mystical to me, since what are the criteria used by selection?

    Does selection, early on, look at the biggest picture of the full working cell and pick that way? Or is selection more near sighted and looks at the smaller picture and choose that way? If a protein folds right or wrong, how does selection know, before there is any cell, which of the two is correct? If selection already has a picture of a working cell in its mind, then it would be easy to say, this will not work. But if it is can only see one step ahead, how does it know what it will need, ten steps ahead?

    Another thing I noticed was nobody was talking about water, other than as a solvent, reactant or product. The discussion was about water in terms of primary reactions. But there was no discussion of the impact of water on the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures, which is what makes biomaterials active. The reason appears to be water is the last frontier.

    There is a concept in physical chemistry called activity which is a measure of the hydrating power of water. Pure water is defined as 1.0 since water has all its groups available to hydrate other materials. As we add materials to water, water will hydrate those materials, and will therefore lose some hydration power. This cause the activity to fall below 1.0.

    In terms of the co-partnership, the organic and ions, in the cell water impact the activity of the water. The water, in turn, will impact the organics, based this partnership activity. An early cell does not have too much stuff to deal with. Therefore, the water would be operating at higher activity. As more and more things accumulator, there is a changing criteria since the activity of the water, falls. Water can picks the foundation of cells with higher activity, and then do finish work, as the activity falls. It can stay nearsighted and still work.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    It seems this is your case for nonrandom mutations. Could you cite the source of the above information.
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The topic is about the contemporary schema for evolution being pseudo-creationism. I have discussed random. Another aspect that needs to be discussed is the idea of natural selection, as applied to abiogenesis leading to life. What were the criteria for selection? Does selection already know what it needs for the future; long term vision, with a goal in mind. Or is selection short sighted and works in the here and now?

    For example, our oxygen atmosphere is based on photosynthesis and life. Therefore, before life there was little oxygen in the atmosphere, and therefore no ozone layer to protect the earth from UV. This meant the surface was high in UV, which tends to break covalent bonds. If selection was short sighted, it would choose only the sturdiest of materials, which are often not part of life. This is survival of the fitness in terms of high UV. If it is long sighted, it will not just pick tough useless materials, but will have a plan that allows some wimpy things to be retained that may be needed for life as conditions change.

    Science connected to abiogenesis and evolution knows how the movie ends; modern life. So we can reverse engineer knowing what the future will need. From this we look to the past to find parallels. But how does selection know where to go, if it starts from scratch? Or does it know the future and does it reverse engineer? Is selection all knowing?

    As an analogy, say I decide to build a building. I visualize a small modest company. However, my product does very well, such that my company gets huge. But since I have a shorter vision, I build a modest foundation in line with my real time needs. That foundation will not be good enough in the long term, when my company expands rapidly. If this was life, it would have to start from scratch, unless I can anticipate better. Does selection have special powers to see the future; pseudo-god.

    If we cannot define the nature of selection, do we project divine powers into it so it always seems to find a way to solve any problem? Maybe someone can define the logic of selection leading to life but before life appears, to make sure we are not making this a pseudo-god?
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    It seems this is your case for nonrandom mutations. Could you cite the source of the above information.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    This is not my case for nonrandom mutations. My case would require that I develop the chemistry that allows nonrandom mutations. But this is philosophy and not chemistry, so it would diverge too much.

    The topic is the random approach for evolution being pseudo-creationism? There are many philosophies with different people preferring one over the other. Philosophy is subjective, but is justified with logic. If I believe in hedonism or epicurism, this is a subjective choice, that I can justify and make a case, with logic and arguments. If pseudo-creationism is a philosophy, it is also subjective and it also can be justified with logic and arguments.

    Random implies that humans have no control over the outcome. The whims of the gods make these choices and you just have to accept what hand is dealt. Philosophically it is opposite to determinism where choices are anticipated by logical connections.

    If you look at a lottery, millions of people might buy a lottery ticket hoping to win. The winner is random. In the end, someone will win, but there are always way more losers than winners. The winner gains a lot while the many loses, lose a little. Also in the end, the state makes money, beyond what the winner will make. There is always net loss in terms of the players. Random and life, means a net loss over time, not a net win. There are more things that can go wrong, incrementally, for every one lottery winner right.

    If you look at medicine, when you hear about genetic conditions, they tend to be a liability and not an asset. Maybe someone can cite a case where a mutation/genetic condition on a human, discovered by medicine, is something that natural selection will select; winning ticket. The appeal of random is the lottery winner is selected to live large, but it never addresses all those who bought tickets and loss.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,505
    wellwisher:

    One example is the gene that causes sickle cell anaemia. This was, of course, caused by a mutation.

    People who have this gene are more likely to be anaemic, which is not generally considered to be a good thing. You might people who possess this gene people who bought ticked and lost.

    Why didn't this gene disappear from the population, then? If it is harmful, why wasn't it a victim of natural selection?

    The answer is that it turns out that the sickle cell gene is a "winning" gene under a particular environmental condition. If you happen to live in a region where malaria is common, then it turns out that the sickle cell trait is moderately protective against malaria. This means that you're less likely to die from malaria if you have the gene, so in this environment it can be a beneficial mutation.

    What we see here is an example of both a "winning ticket" and a "losing ticket". What makes the difference is the environment in which the ticket-holder finds him- or herself.
     
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The entire foundation of evolutionary theory is that tons and tons of organisms die.
     
  13. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Another one is the genetic mutations that allow Tibetans to live at high altitudes with out suffering the effects of hypoxia.
    Tibetans beneficial genetic mutations.
     
  14. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Sure evolution addresses that. It is estimated that 99.9% of the species that have lived on earth are extinct.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Here is a consideration that came to me, a few hours ago.

    If you look at the schema of evolution, we start with mutations, which randomly form on the DNA. Then natural selection chooses among these alternatives, based on environmental circumstances. This schema has two separate aspects. The first is blind and rolls the dice, while the second can see and selects an alternative based on logical criteria in the environment. If it is cold, all types of randomly generated fur may appear, over time, with the warmest fur selected.

    The question I have is, since selection has the final say, for the future of life, then why doesn't selection choose the first step to be more rational, instead of allow it to persist as random? If cells appeared that randomly developed a cause and affect for change on the DNA, why would selection prefer to ignore this and pick cell with DNA that changes randomly? What was/is the selective advantage of the extra waste implicit of random? Why didn't selection pick an alternative for the DNA process, that shows signs of being rational, so that selection unifies the binary process.

    Since the random aspect is connected to changes in the DNA , is the DNA immune to the logic of selection, so it never changes from random?
     
  16. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    OK! That is essentially correct and logical.
    Because there is nothing choosing anything. Who do you think it is that could possibly choose to make mutations nonrandom??
    Are you asking if there could develop smart cells that somehow could predict the future so they could change their DNA to have offspring that would be able to adapt to a change in climate? Do you really need an answer for that?
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    You don't seem to understand my point. So let me rephrase so you can see the pitfalls in the current evolutionary schema.

    The current schema for evolution uses natural selection, to select between available options, based on the needs of the circumstances. Natural selection is not done randomly. Selection has an inner logic, connected to the environmental needs and potentials. If it is cold, selection does not put on the blindfold and say I will choose you. Selection has an inner sense of intelligence, albeit, based on how natural environmental potentials add up. If is it cold, cold can adversely impact the rates of biochemical reactions. Therefore whatever change keeps these reaction rates closest to optimism will be chosen. This may mean warmer fur. This is not random, but logically adds up to the best choice.

    The choices that are given to natural selection, on the other hand, supposedly stem from randomness on the DNA. This randomness is analogous to, I will close my eyes and reach into a basket and pull out five random objects, some of which don't even have any shape. According to the current theory, these five random choices have little to do with the situation at hand, but is purely arbitrary; throwing dice. Selections looks at these five random choices, and has to make a logical selection, based on environmental potentials.

    The question is, why does evolution, have the moron principle lead; random choices, while the smart principle; selection, is required to work only with random options, the moron principle, generates?

    The analogy is, I need to find my way across the country, without a map. The approach I will take, to parallel the current theory of evolution, is to get a travel companion with an IQ of 80, to generation all the options for me, at each crossroads. I can continue to walk forward, but if I need to change direction, I will have to pick one of the choices from my companion, who has no brains or sense of cause and affect or the needs of the day. I will need to analyze the situation, do my best to pick the lessor of evils, based on a collection of moron choices.

    The question I asked is, why doesn't selection choose a smarter companion principle? Is it because opposite personalities attract? After going in a circle a few times, why didn't selection, just leave the moron principle at the bus station with a ticket, and then find a more reasonable partner to generate the available choices? The more reasonable partner, may not know all the answers, but his/her choices will be more thought out; internal selection process, before offered to me, to make a final selection. The current model is not a good partnership model unless the goal is disaster. Life did not lead to disaster, so this relationship could not have been the way.

    This current schema also parallels Creationism. In bible tradition, there is God the creator, who laid the foundation and there determines the future; determinism. If you set all the potentials and rules, you know where things should be heading. He is the selection principle.

    God then creates Lucifer/Satan as an opposing principle. Satan is similar to the random principle, who instead of following logical rules of creation, tends to go off in random ways; free choice. Free choice allows subjective options that are indeterminate.

    Since the impact of the randomness; Satan, is due to the subjectivity of free will, this leads to human suffering. The atheist then pose the question, why does God allow so much suffering, if he is a God of goodness. The reason has to do with his moron companion, Satan, providing non rational choices, that depart from the original determinism of selection. When the moron principle leads, and the smart principle has to choose options from this lead, it does not turn out right.

    In the bible tradition, Jesus eventually replaces Satan. The random principle is given the boot and replaced with a smarter companion principle, who knows the needs of selection, so it can offer better choices. This is the next step in pseudo-creationism.

    Why does the current theory prefer the moron principle lead; moron principle offers alternatives for selection? Why is replacing the moron with something smarter difficult to accept? Why is Satan, in the symbolic sense, the leader of evolution?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2016
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    The randomness is a necessary component of the creativity and novelty of evolution. That we get random mutations that are selected according to environmental fitness means there is always a wide range of possibilities always being presented such that innovative changes can actually occur. Randomness in mutations answers the almost infinite and equally random variability of demands each organism encounters in their own unique habitat. A million members of the same species randomly subjected to different constraints and challenges all at the same time. Only random mutability across all those members' offspring adequately addresses such a vast diversity of selective and ever changing circumstances.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2016
  19. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    OK
    Essentially correct except for some strange areas. Selection does not have an 'inner logic'. Natural selection does not have an 'inner sense of intelligence'. For instance the portion of a population that has a low tolerence for cold will die when it is cold - there is no 'inelligence' involved.
    Again essentially correct except for that 'logical' comment. Natural selection does not use logic or intelligence. When a tornado destroys a house it does not do that because it is mean. You keep trying to personify natural selection which is crazy.

    You are giving human type attributes to evolution which is crazy. Natural selection is not smart. Mutations are not moronic.
    Crappy strawman.
    Because natural selection is not sentient. Do you think it is?
    Now natural selection has a personality? WTF?
    If God was directing evolution it may be different, but there is no intelligence directing evolution just natural laws.
    It led to the disaster of extinction for 99.9% of the species that have ever lived.
    No, religion is nothing like science.
    Randomness is the devil? Well, at least I see why you are so dead set against randomness...

    This is just getting weirder and weirder.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,505
    wellwisher:

    "Selection" is not a conscious process. There's no agent of selection who decides what will be good or better for an organism. Selection doesn't want anything. Selection is not an agent. It has no intelligence. It does not think about things or decide things consciously. It is not a kind of God.

    Selection is merely the tendency of more successful genes to survive in populations.

    Selection is not an agent. It does not make choices. It has no mind to make choices with. It is not a kind of God.

    Selection is not an agent. Neither is random variation. Neither is a kind of God. Neither makes choices.

    Selection is not an agent. Selection does not consciously analyse anything. Selection has no consciousness. Selection is not a kind of God.

    Selection is not an agent. It does not choose anything.

    God is an agent. Selection is not an agent. There is no comparison.

    Selection is not an agent. Selection does not create anything.

    This religious stuff would be better in the Religion forum.
     
    wellwisher likes this.
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The idea of natural selection came before the idea of genes. Darwin was decades earlier than the discovery of DNA. Natural selection is not a personification, like mother nature, who has intelligence to make selection decisions. Rather selection works based on logic stemming from the laws of science acting, within the unique parameters of different environments. Selection was never assumed to be a random process, since it seemed to pick better than average, allowing life to evolve; age of reason.

    The random factor was added later, in the 20th century, via the theory of random mutations. This topic I started was about evolution using a pseudo-creationism schema; philosophy. To prove my claim, I need to show some basic religious symbolism so you can see the parallel and prove my claim.

    Darwin paralleled the God assumption. He replaced the living personification of God, with an abstract principle of selection, that would make the right choices based on how the logic of science principles work in the context of each unique environment. Darwin showed selection did not need a personified God doing this, but rather logic and natural laws led to the same results.

    In Creationism, God creates the universe. This universe is logical and ordered as inferred by determinism. It was not subject to chance or change. God then creates an opposing principle called Lucifer/Satan, who is able to buck the closed system with free will. Satan does not have to follow the logic of creation or even divine selection due to free choice.

    In the modern evolutionary model, the Satan parallel is connected to mutations, which do not have to obey the laws of selection, but have free choice; randomize. Selection can pick a critter and it can still have a mutation. Satan was a randomizing principle. Random is added to creation/evolution after the original concept of ordering.

    In the bible, Satan has the ear of God. Satan has control over many outcomes. In science, although selection has the final choice based on laws of science, mutations are a wild card that can change the direction of evolution by offering new choices to selection. Mutation has the ear of selection.

    The next step in the parallel, based on Creationism, is Satan will lose his status. He is replaced by a principle that is closer to the God principle; son of God. Relative to the science parallel, this means the theory of mutations; free will, is replaced with another aspect of selection; chemical selection; macro (father) and micro (son) selection work as a team.

    I have anticipated the next step in the pseudo-creation scenario of evolution, and I am ready to show how chemical selection works. We already know not all areas of the DNA mutate at the same rate. This precludes random. The question its how do you load the dice using internal chemical selection?

    Once Satan;mutation, gets the boot, he has great wrath trying to destroy that which has led to his downfall.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Darwin emphasized that it was the selection that accumulated the results of variation that was important, not the specific mechanism that created the variation. For the most part, that seems to be a part of contemporary evolutionary theory as well. In the science done since Darwin, the mechanism of genetic expression and change was, for the most part, discovered; but it is the selection of what this produces that is most important in generating the properties of existing organisms and populations.
    Only in a very few creation myths. There are thousands.
    This seems to have little to do with either biology or chemistry. A mutation in a gene must be chemically viable and it must be able to be incorporated into a functioning organism in order for it to enter a population. So there are a number of selective pressures acting on a gene, mitigated by an organism in one sense and analogously through chemistry.
    Random mutation was added because that was what was discovered. This seems to be a relevant dis-analogy to the case of religion.

    There doesn't seem to be any wisdom here; merely the refusal to engage in the evidence available to biology.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,505
    Natural selection is simply the tendency of organisms that are better adapted to their environments to survive, compared to those that are less well adapted.

    Random mutation is just one way of generating variation among organisms. There are other ways. Sex is a very important way, for example.

    I don't think your attempt at an anology works. God is supposed to be a conscious agent. Selection is not an agent and it is not conscious.

    I don't know what you mean by "laws of selection". What laws?

    That's a strange way of putting things. Selection is not an agent. Selection doesn't "pick" anything.

    Also, no "critter" is an archetype. There is no "perfect critter", compared to which all other critters are mutants. It would be more accurate to say that every critter is a mutant.

    You continue to speak about selection as if it were an agent. It isn't.

    I think your religious-inspired imagination is running away with you and you're not really talking about anything scientific in the majority of your post here.
     

Share This Page