Does Contemporary Evolution use a Pseudo-Creationism schema?

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

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned


    Science is different from religion in that it addresses nature in terms of the laws and principles of science. Principles of science, replaced the will and whim stemming from personified deities. The movement of the sun, is no longer due to Helios riding his chariot. Rather the same observation is explained in terms of gravity and inertia. Humans see the same thing, but explanations change with time.

    God is a conscious agent behind actions and choices in nature; divine selection based on a plan. Science developed a non personified parallel for these same actions and reactions, observed in nature, based on principles of science. Both will explain the waterfall, but in its own way. Just as God has the final say in creation, selection has the final say in evolution. The first uses a conscious personified agent, while the second, in the spirit of the scientific method, does this via physical laws and logic.

    Our theories of physical and organic nature, continue to evolve and change as new data appears. These allow humans to play the role of God; we via theory get to form the universe. For example, we come up with a theory, such as string theory. Some will use this to define cosmology and physical laws. We as humans have created the universe in our image; image of the theory. This theory, in the long run, may be right, wrong or temporary. If it is wrong or just a stepping stone, then humans have replaced God with themselves, deciding the fate of the universe via theory.

    Selection is a theory, created by man, that parallels creation, using physical explanations. Random is also man playing God, defining the universe based on the rolling of dice. Einstein said, that I don't believe God would choose to play dice with the universe. Man decided to create and maintain they universe this way, in his own image via the theory.

    By laws of selection, I mean the logical physical parameters of any given environment and their impact on life. These rules may take ingenuity to see, since there are many possible scenarios. For example, if the oceans were to rise, we (humans) can sort of look at the animals in that ecosystem and tell which species will be naturally selected. We can use a process of logic based on cause and affect. Those animals that live in burrows in the ground, may not make it. To much water means flood, which means their homes are gone. Without a burrow there is little protection from predators. All I am doing is adding up the potentials for and against survival.

    Those that climb and fly will have a better shot of being selected. Those that swim should be selected, with swimmers who like brackish water, having even a better chance to be selected This analysis, which may predict selection, has to do with applying logic to the needs of life, in light of the change in environmental parameters. The analysis not a random process, but results from the sum of many physical laws. Selection does not pick anything in the sense of a person picking; subjectivity, but rather it picks based on logic. Selection logically defaulting, may be a better way to explain it.

    The ancients would call this God's will, now we call it selection. Both were considered based on wisdom of sorts, just the agents are different. It may not always be obvious what will be selected, but that is more a result of humans not considering all the environmental parameters. Some situations are easier to infer than others. This is also true of creation. If humans follow the laws of God, ye shall be saved/selected. The schema is already there.

    Both God's will and selection are logical, and consistently follow certain parameters. Once we set the environmental parameters and the life forms that result are deterministic; predictable. This is what Darwin was shooting for. Any change, in his day, away from God and religion was a huge political step in terms of controversy. He took one step, which was to replace God with physical laws subject to science. Darwin still used a form of determinism, which he called selection.

    In terms of Creation, God after the plan had been made; physical laws, creates a randomizing agent called Lucifer/Satan. Satan had free will and therefore does not have to follow the logic of the physical laws. Rather he can randomize, with no apparent cause and affect to any law. This science parallel is done with statistics and random mutations.

    A mutation does not have to consider anything logical in chemistry, since it has free will, of sorts. Once mutations appear, they are subject to selection. In the Old Testament, Satan was an adviser to God and would influence God's selections. He is was the mutation that is subject to selection, but which can alter the trajectory of selection. Adam and Eve are confronted with a randomizer called Satan in the tree, which deflects the path of human evolution, away from paradise. Evolution still occurs but selection made a new branch due to the random mutation. Science would say a mutation appeared that altered which humans will be selected.

    The reason evolution is the single area of science subject to the most intense debate between science and religion is because both use the same schema and compete for the same thing. I am pointing this out so it is easier to see by both sides. Theory is man's way of playing God, because he assumes the theory reflects reality and therefore define how the minions need to worship creation. Since theory tends to advance with time, these gods are displaced. i

    In the bible, the parallel between creation and evolution goes one step further. Step one is God;selection, which are deterministic principles based on logic and law. Step two is Satan/randomizing principle due to choice and free will. Humans can freely call the universe random is this makes factories more cost effective by allowing science assembly lines.

    Step three is Satan/random principle is replaced by the son of God, who is one with God. This symbolism implies a secondary selection process, that replaces random, that works with the primary selection process of evolution. I call this chemical selection at the nano-scale. This selection may not be easy to see, if you are not aware of the laws that govern organics in water in various cellular environments.

    The brain and consciousness is an extension of this, If the oceans were to rise, we would not wait around for random mutations to grow gills, while there is huge attrition. The potential created one life, will trigger a conscious survival reaction; the stress causes cause and affect action. We would move to higher ground where the parameters allows us to be selected. It makes sense for this to extrapolate back to a foundation and not appear in the air. It begins with micro-selection; chemical selection.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    And with that I think I can say there is no need to for further discussion because you have brought out the wild card of God and you no longer require logic to the driver in the conversation.

    Have a nice day, and praise Jesus.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    It looks like this whole thread ought to be chucked into the religion section. And that is not just some Satan/random thought.

    At least you had the nads to finaly admit what your real issue with evolution is - and for that I commend you (seriously)!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    On the other hand, having arrived late to the party and having read through the thread I find the dissembling, misdirection, contrived ambiguity and the like spewed forth by wellwisher to be deeply dishonest and worthy of condemnation rather than commendation.
    Daecon likes this.
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I can't disagree with you. I am just happy to see after several years that he has admitted his religious agenda against evolution.
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I still don't understand the point that you are trying to make.

    I guess that evolution might resemble "pseudo-Creationism" to the extent that it provides accounts (or at least the framework for accounts) for origins of complex things. So both naturalistic evolution and divine creationism do address the same origin questions.

    But I don't think that was your point.

    If we are talking about chemical replicators, the crucial variable would be effectiveness in replicating. The better they are at that, the more of them there would eventually be.

    Selection isn't conscious, operating according to a plan in order to realize some goal.

    If one type of replicator manages to leave more offspring than its competitors in subsequent generations, then there will be more of that kind of replicator in subsequent generations. That's basically all that 'selection' amounts to. It isn't anything more cosmic than that.

    I agree that 'reverse engineering' can be danger in evolutionary speculation.

    Selection didn't have any particular destination in mind. It wasn't always aimed at producing us.

    What evolution does is expand out into possibility space. What works, works.

    You're losing me. If you are suggesting that there may be limitations on the possibilities that are attainable by Earth-type biochemistries, then sure, I'll agree with you. That's one reason why exploration of the wider universe might be so mind-expanding, since we might encounter amazing possibilities being realized elsewhere that we might not have even imagined while stuck here on Earth.

    I don't see any problem with the logic and nature of selection. That seems kind of self-explanatory to me.

    The difficulties with evolutionary speculation concerning pre-biotic origins concern the small details of how it happened -- how pre-biotic chemical replicators first appeared, what they precisely were, and how they all came together to become hugely complex living cells. Nobody currently knows the answers to those questions, it's all still speculation at this point. Informed speculation certainly, but still speculation.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2016
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Sort-of randomly. If you are using 'mutation' to mean changes in base sequences, then those changes are going have likelihoods of occurring based on the chemistry. Some changes will be more likely than others. And in living cells, mutations often consists of transpositions of segments of DNA or RNA. Chunks of the genetic code end up in new positions or get repeated. So if we are talking about 'mutations' we have to consider what kinds of mutations they are and their intrinsic likelihoods, based on the mechanisms of their occurrance.

    Genetic mutations are happening down at the level of nucleic acids. Survival in ecological niches happens on the level of entire organisms. So the missing link in evolutionary theorizing is developmental biology, the consideration of how events on the genomic level result in differences on the organism level. That's why "evo-devo" (evolutionary developmental biology) is such a hot field hot right now.

    Exploring all available possibilities is a much stronger strategy in the long term than "rational planning" that restricts the range of possibilities to whatever fits some preexisting plan. (Whose plan?)

    You lost me. I don't understand that.

    Of course not. The DNA is where natural selection is happening. It's the DNA sequences that have positive effects on a developed organism's reproductive fitness that are being selected for, since there will be more examples of those DNA-variants in subsequent generations.
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I understand what you are saying in terms of how observations are currently correlated. What I am saying is, there is another layer of chemical dynamics underlying these affects. What you describing are secondary affects stemming from something more fundamental. Let me see of I can develop this idea, with tangibles, by beginning with the italicized quote below;

    The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 Å 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 Å 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31Å 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 Å 8 bp and the left handed Z-DNA pitch 43Å 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.

    The same molecule of DNA can have five different helical pitches and different number of based pairs per turn of the helix. These have all been observed. We can correlate these differences in the configuration, in an empirical way, which can lead to useful results. But we can also explain these difference, directly, by the degree of hydration.

    The water is able to alter the conformation of the DNA. Any correlation, in terms of jumps in the DNA conformation, is also a correlation in terms of the number of water molecules. Both say the same thing. The water, however, allows one to say more. It can fill in the blanks, currently filled in with randomness, since intermediate water is possible.

    There is an advantage of describing these different conformation with water, over just five conformations of the DNA. If we explain in terms of DNA, then we jump between these 5 states, but if we model in terms of the water, the transition is more continuous; places in between. Random is more necessary when the models has gaps, but less necessary when the model is continuous. One could postulate intermediate hydration; between these five states, if occurring on some genes, can render those genes, inactive.

    That aside, if you do a thorough energy balance, around any gene, that is being transcribed, there is not enough energy within the monomers and enzyme complexes, alone, to explain how the reaction can go forward. Before anything can happen, there are hundreds of water molecules hydrogen bonded to the DNA . These water need to be displaced. The enzyme complex needs a dry surface.

    To break one or two hydrogen bonds of water, we need as much energy as about one molecule of ATP. Conceptually you would need about 500 ATP to clear the water off one gene, before the enzyme complex can bind. This is not available from the organics alone. If we assume DNA in a vacuum, it should not be able to react.

    You need another energy source. This comes from the water. If we ignore the water, we have to assume something random is doing this, such as thermal vibrations or quantum mechanics, which don't add up to enough energy.

    Here is an another example;

    The elucidation of catalytic mechanisms has made rapid progress over the last decade, especially as a result of the use of genetic engineering to modify active sites. The results of kinetic studies are usually interpreted in terms of the Michaelis -Menton theory, which is itself based on classical chemical kinetics. Here too, the approach gives rise to puzzling conclusions. For example, the central tenet of the theory holds that enzymes use the energy of substrate binding to lower the activation energy barrier to the transition state, where the configuration of the substrate has a high affinity for the active site. The energy (Free Energy of Binding) released on binding a substrate with a KM of 1 μ M (a moderate affinity) to the active site is about 30 kJ/mol. Again we see that this corresponds to the formation of a few H-bonds.

    Like many readers, I find these values confusing, not enlightening. Most biochemists imagine the binding of substrate to form the enzyme-substrate complex as a stabilizing step. They picture these partners locking together. But if the enzyme retains the energy made available on binding, it must become less stable – in fact, as we have seen above, 30 kJ/mol is enough to denature some proteins!

    To summarize, studies that denature protein has shown that protein are easily denatured. They are held together by the energy equivalent of a few hydrogen bonds. It is easy to render a protein inactive. In terms of an enzyme gaining the binding energy, when attaching to the substrate, the binding energy is often about as much as needed to denature the same enzyme. This should render the enzyme, inactive. What holds the enzyme in an active configuration, and counters inactivity; water. Water helps to fortify the enzyme. If you replace water, with other solvents, you lose the energy leverage.

    Sorry this is so long.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2016
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    So, you are trying to say that every study of DNA, which were done in water somehow miss an effect of the water that they were all in, and that you, without a single experiment, somehow discovered this effect of water that was never noticed before by any single researcher.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Yeah, and religion addresses nature in terms of the laws and principles of religion. Deep.

    Say "God makes the water fall" doesn't help us to understand why the water falls. It's about as useful as saying "Kevin wants the water to fall".

    "God did it" is the answer that you given by people who really aren't concerned about how the world works. It's a non-explanation, fundamentally.

    You've heard of "God of the gaps", I assume. "God made the waterfall" is really just code for "There's this thing here and I don't know what makes the water fall, and I'm not really interested in investigating it, so instead I'll pretend I know by inventing a place-filler explanation called 'God'."

    [Admittedly, I am being a little uncharitable here to scientists and the like who also happen to believe in God. Those people aren't content to settle for the place-filler cop-out, though.]

    The difference is that God can do what he wants. He is bound by no rules, we are told. So God's will is arbitrary. Physical laws, on the other hand, are mutually constraining. New scientific laws have to fit in with what we already know about everything else.

    A scientific hypothesis is not humans deciding how the universe must work. Scientific hypotheses must be tested experimentally. Nature gets the final say, not humans.

    Natural selection does not "parallel" creationism in any obvious way.

    Biblical creationists, for example, tell us that all current species were created in a single act of divine fiat at more or less the same time. This is actually inconsistent with factual data. It's a myth.

    Man must be powerful indeed if he can dictate to nature how it should work. Try standing on the beach and ordering the tide not to come in some time. Let me know how that goes for you.

    You are confusing a human analysis of factors or traits that may be selected under certain conditions with the actual process of natural selection. In nature, traits are only selected for or against when an organism either leaves descendants or fails to do so. There is nothing "picking" anything; that is just a manner of speaking - a useful "as if..." that allows us to explain the process in a useful kind of shorthand.

    There is a fundamental distinction between the conscious choice of an omnipotent deity and a blind natural process. You somehow keep missing it.

    I don't think you have an inkling of how wrong you are.

    If you were to be presented with some early forms of life - bacteria, some algae perhaps - there's no conceivable way you could predict that anything like an ape or a human being would necessarily arise hundreds of millions of years later.

    This is both bad theology and bad science. But I'm really not that interested in trying to engage with you on the details of your strained God/Satan analogy. Sometimes I think you only write this kind of nonsense because you have time on your hands.

    Nonsense. Something - DNA - is mutating. DNA obeys the rules of physics and chemistry all the time. There is no magical process that suspends those rules when a mutation occurs.

    They do not use the same schema.

    When it comes down to it, it's all very well for you to say this. But what use is it? How does this idea help anybody?

    It's not clear to me what you're trying to achieve (if anything) by running this line. Are you trying to claim that science is like - or maybe the same as - a religion? If so, you haven't supported that claim in any useful way, as far as I can see.

    Or are you claiming perhaps that religion is as useful a means for understanding biology as science? If so, you need to demonstrate the predictive power of religion in that field, and to compare it to the predictive power of science.

    The thing is this: calling the universe something doesn't make the universe change to being what you say it is. Things either are or are not random. This is empirically testable. Calling something random doesn't make it so.

    Here's another idea: you want to argue that science - or scientific thinking - is a kind of conspiracy used by some human beings to attempt to control others. Maybe you're saying that science isn't really about find out about nature as scientists claim. Rather, it is about thought control to make people into sheep in order to empower some kind of scientific elite. Is that what you think?

Share This Page