Why do theists reject evolution?

[exchemist]

Just so. In line with Hazen's focus on mineralogy and its relation to abiogenesis I was intrigued by the ideas of Cairns-Smith who believed the first life actually arose in clay and then transferred to an organic form. From what I have read many biologists thought it was a neat idea, but one that sadly lacked any telling evidence in its favour (but, equally, no telling evidence against it). The frontier science is the thrilling stuff - I just object when some one acts like a lead writer for a tabloid newspaper and misrepresents the status and meaning of such research.

His publications are listed on his site. The first couple I've looked at are behind paywalls. I'll link to any I manage to access that seem interesting.

Thanks for the link. I found one from 2009, about emergence of patterns in nature, which is to say the least very bold in its claims. http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=092936rh

The proposition is that nature tends to select for configurations with as much functionality as possible - whatever "function*" means in such a context. It attempts to define something called functional information and then gives examples of how this can be applied to various biological systems. I read this with growing scepticism, as it seemed to me his characterisation of function appears a bit tendentious, subjective and teleological. He doesn't seem to do a very thorough job of showing how his concept can be utilised to explain first of all how the patterns of inanimate nature arise, let alone that they are somehow selected for among the other possible arrangements, before jumping on to the biological examples. I have difficulty seeing how "function" or "functional information" can be associated with a galaxy or a sand dune (to use two examples he employs in opening sections of the paper) in a way that is not arbitrary and subjective. To me, claiming a galaxy has a function is a teleological claim and not appropriate.


* WARNING: The word "function" is one concerning which Write4U has a mental block. He is incapable of distinguishing between its physical sense, in the "function" of a physical system and its mathematical, f(x), sense. It is extremely unproductive to get into any discussion with him which involves this word, as he will flip-flop between the two meanings, as needed, in order to further his "mathematical universe" religious agenda.

 

[Write4U]

* WARNING: The word "function" is one concerning which Write4U has a mental block. He is incapable of distinguishing between its physical sense, in the "function" of a physical system and its mathematical, f(x), sense. It is extremely unproductive to get into any discussion with him which involves this word, as he will flip-flop between the two meanings, as needed, in order to further his "mathematical universe" religious agenda

* WARNING: exchemist does not read my posts (I'm on his ignore list). Therefore any statement he makes about my understanding of anything is a total figment of his prejudicial imagination. He is now gratuitously pulling ad hominems out of his ass.

 

[Michael 345]

Right, I only post what I find interesting. I would not presume to critique something I am not interested in to begin with.

OK I can go with that BU BUT BUT instead of posting
only post what I find interesting ****
Which sounds like

Me like, you read. You will like also. Look me find new like. You read this you will like to. Look new shiney bauble me like.

TRY
only post what I find interesting ****
Which sounds like

I only post what I find interesting. I would not presume to critique something I am not interested in to begin with.

HINT HINT HINT **** these are the same "what I find interesting"

dismissal without any due consideration

Ever considered what YOU have found as a new shiny bauble someone else knows more about the bauble than yourself?

Case - recently mentioned in this thread was "How clay might have played on role in the formation of DNA. The was considered to be possible because the matrix of clay seemed to match DNA, perhaps a set of chemicals was fitted together by accident in said matrix and BINGO found itself alive". Good pick up

I READ ABOUT THAT ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO. Not seen anything else about the idea until now. So I am thinking "Ummmm not read anything past five years so, for me, why is this old news being dragged up as being cutting edge?

I refrain from posting it altogether

WHY???? If others are only seeing what YOU believe in might fit with the impression

I am accused of displaying religious fervor

by those who are so entrenched in their own belief systems that they cannot accept new perspectives

Ummm ironic you don't see in yourself what you see in others

Will you apply a tranche of my post to your future post?

 

[Hipparchia]

No. You see you do not understand the significance of how I TREATED the text

Me like, you read. You will like also. Look me find new like. You read this you will like to. Look new shiney bauble me like

Contrast with

I read this other day. Has some good ideas, but I don't agree with some of them. What do you think?

Try the second approach for a while

I wish you had posted this earlier, then all of my posts on the matter would have been superflous. Cheers.
(Although, on reflection, I suspect your post will also be superflous in the sense that Write4U will either misunderstand it or ignore it.)

 

[Write4U]

Ever considered what YOU have found as a new shiny bauble someone else knows more about the bauble than yourself?

Case - recently mentioned in this thread was "How clay might have played on role in the formation of DNA. The was considered to be possible because the matrix of clay seemed to match DNA, perhaps a set of chemicals was fitted together by accident in said matrix and BINGO found itself alive". Good pick up

Well, the Hazen lecture at Carnegie does address that little bauble of the surface area of clay as being the ideal medium for chemical activity.
It all rests on the surface area of clay. Did you know that a cubic cm of clay has enough surface area to coat an entire tennis court? How's that for a bauble? I considered that a "good pick up" on my part. Do you agree?

p.s. (conservative estimate); Hazen calculates that the earth has about 500,000 cubic km of clay minerals and if that information is extrapolated over the life of earth, the earth has performed some: 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical spontaneous chemical reactions during its lifetime. I consider that a "bauble".

My links are full with "baubles". That's why I share them for public consumption, which is often dismissed by some, as a post by a moron who has no inkling of science and the scientific method. Then someone comes up with the exact same bauble that I have been talking about and it becomes the Holy f....g Grail because there is a paper on file.
Now do you understand my use of the term "entrenched"?

And to add insult to injury, I am the one being accused as a religious nutcase, because I dare agree with Tegmark that mathematical functions are a logical potential of spacetime ????????

What a cheap and duplicitous way of attacking a person's character and integrity. It is disgusting and sometimes makes me wonder if my baubles are just "pearls before swine"...

 

[Hipparchia]

Your writing is indeed ambiguous and confusing.
I'd have preferred that you used a completely different phrase altogether. Neither tranche nor trench even remotely describe what you are trying to convey.

Tranche perfectly describes what I wished to convey. Reference the third meaning in this online dictionary:

A slice, section or portion.​

Let's substitute that into the sentence you fatuously object to:

There are two possible explanations for that slice, section or portion of nonsense.

Why that is exactly what I was aiming for. Based upon my limited observation of your posts, supplemented by assessments of other members (who appear to be reasonable, objective and logical in their posts), you are prone to posting nonsense. The specific nonsense I am commenting on is thus a mere slice, section or portion of your cornucopia of nonsense, in short - a tranche of nonsense.

Perhaps you need to pay more attention to your own writings.

I readily admit my writing will include:

• Thoughtless errors, such as "their" for "there"
• Typing errors, such as "nissing" for "missing".
  
• Careless errors, such as missing punctuation.
• Catch up errors - wherein I change my mind mid-sentence as to precise structure and overlook the now inappropriate words I have typed.

However, I rarely - oh, so very rarely - choose the wrong word to convey what I mean. Any failure in conveying meaning will be down to inadequate structure, or bombast, or a third rate audience.

Perhaps you need to pay more attention to your own writings. I have an excuse, you don't..

So you assume that:

• I do not have dyslexia
• I am a native English speaker
• I have not suffered one or more strokes

You spoke earlier, I think, of being competent at critical analysis. Your assumption here belies that claim. Still, I've sprinkled this post with a few words that may be less familiar to you. Feel free to try to demonstrate that my word choice in those instances is faulty. However, I suggest you do this in a separate thread as this is way off-topic.

 

[Hipparchia]

The proposition is that nature tends to select for configurations with as much functionality as possible - whatever "function*" means in such a context. It attempts to define something called functional information and then gives examples of how this can be applied to various biological systems. I read this with growing scepticism, as it seemed to me his characterisation of function appears a bit tendentious, subjective and teleological. He doesn't seem to do a very thorough job of showing how his concept can be utilised to explain first of all how the patterns of inanimate nature arise, let alone that they are somehow selected for among the other possible arrangements, before jumping on to the biological examples. I have difficulty seeing how "function" or "functional information" can be associated with a galaxy or a sand dune (to use two examples he employs in opening sections of the paper) in a way that is not arbitrary and subjective. To me, claiming a galaxy has a function is a teleological claim and not appropriate.

So, in essence, he is evoking Aristotle's Final Cause and equating it to Function? If that is the case I'm not totally averse to that usage.

Assuming we live in a Godless Universe the answer to the question "What is the purpose of life?" becomes "Whatever we make of it." And the Purpose, Final Cause or Function of a galaxy is what it is/does. Just some of-the-cuff thoughts.

But the nice thing about his speculations is that they do seem thought provoking. I will have a deeper look at that paper. Cheers.

 

[exchemist]

So, in essence, he is evoking Aristotle's Final Cause and equating it to Function? If that is the case I'm not totally averse to that usage.

Assuming we live in a Godless Universe the answer to the question "What is the purpose of life?" becomes "Whatever we make of it." And the Purpose, Final Cause or Function of a galaxy is what it is/does. Just some of-the-cuff thoughts.

But the nice thing about his speculations is that they do seem thought provoking. I will have a deeper look at that paper. Cheers.

Yes, I thought in some ways he might be getting at the same sort of thing as Jeremy English, in that he has the idea that gradients in an environment provoke order and patterns. But he didn't develop that idea enough, for my taste, in inorganic settings first. (Of course it is in a way not surprising that gradients lead to ordering, since the symmetry of the environment has been reduced and one expects some alignments in consequence.)

I do feel both of them may be onto something with these ideas, but it doesn't feel to me as if we yet have a real principle to latch onto. That paper was in 2009 so I wonder what has come of it since.

 

[Write4U]

Tranche perfectly describes what I wished to convey. Reference the third meaning in this online dictionary: A slice, section or portion.

How about a "tranche of bread" or a "tranche of bullshit".

Great, I learned a new phrase. Thank you. I'll be sure to use it next time.......

 

[Write4U]

Assuming we live in a Godless Universe the answer to the question "What is the purpose of life?" becomes "Whatever we make of it." And the Purpose, Final Cause or Function of a galaxy is what it is/does. Just some of-the-cuff thoughts.

Oh, I am soooo tempted, but I will restrain myself .......

 

[Hipparchia]

Oh, I am soooo tempted, but I will restrain myself .......

Why bother? There is little evidence that you normally do. Go for it.

 

[Write4U]

Tranche perfectly describes what I wished to convey. Reference the third meaning in this online dictionary:

A slice, section or portion.​

Let's substitute that into the sentence you fatuously object to:

There are two possible explanations for that slice, section or portion of nonsense.

Why that is exactly what I was aiming for. Based upon my limited observation of your posts, supplemented by assessments of other members (who appear to be reasonable, objective and logical in their posts), you are prone to posting nonsense. The specific nonsense I am commenting on is thus a mere slice, section or portion of your cornucopia of nonsense, in short - a tranche of nonsense.

I readily admit my writing will include:

• Thoughtless errors, such as "their" for "there"
• Typing errors, such as "nissing" for "missing".
  
• Careless errors, such as missing punctuation.
• Catch up errors - wherein I change my mind mid-sentence as to precise structure and overlook the now inappropriate words I have typed.

However, I rarely - oh, so very rarely - choose the wrong word to convey what I mean. Any failure in conveying meaning will be down to inadequate structure, or bombast, or a third rate audience.

So you assume that:

• I do not have dyslexia
• I am a native English speaker
• I have not suffered one or more strokes

You spoke earlier, I think, of being competent at critical analysis. Your assumption here belies that claim. Still, I've sprinkled this post with a few words that may be less familiar to you. Feel free to try to demonstrate that my word choice in those instances is faulty. However, I suggest you do this in a separate thread as this is way off-topic.

You missed the one that really counts. AD HOMINEM! And the only one I respond to "in kind".

I consider that "faulty" under all circumstances, unless perhaps if you are Autistic.

I can live with any and all of the other reasons. I make mistakes also.
But I'll never intentionally attack someone's character, intelligence, or lack of credentials, in order to gain a debate advantage.

 

[Write4U]

However, I suggest you do this in a separate thread as this is way off-topic.

I am responsible for this "off topic" segue, that is taking almost an entire page?
How about following your own "suggestion"...

 

[Hipparchia]

You missed the one that really counts. AD HOMINEM!

I have made no ad hominem. My critique of your presentation style (not your writing style as you erroneously claimed) is is directly pertinent to the discussion, since it underpins the error in your assertions.
I don't generally do ad hominems, but if I did you would provide fertile ground.

I am responsible for this "off topic" segue, that is taking almost an entire page?

Of course you are. As am I. I accept the responsibility, you seem to wish to reject it. Quelle suprise!
On some forums it is against the rules, or certainly against etiquette to announce that someone will be placed on Ignore. I don't know if that is the case here, but I feel it is simply courteous to inform the subject so that they are not puzzled by the absence of replies to their posts. Consider yourself so informed.

 

[Write4U]

I wish you had posted this earlier, then all of my posts on the matter would have been superflous. Cheers.
(Although, on reflection, I suspect your post will also be superflous in the sense that Write4U will either misunderstand it or ignore it.)

We have another convert!!!!! How quaint.

p.s. being that you used the term "superfluous" in another ad hominem, I will bring your attention to your misspelling of the word "superfluous".

If you are going to critique (insult) my "writing style", perhaps you may want to use proper English to begin with.
This is just too easy.....

 

[exchemist]

I have made no ad hominem. My critique of your presentation style (not your writing style as you erroneously claimed) is is directly pertinent to the discussion, since it underpins the error in your assertions.
I don't generally do ad hominems, but if I did you would provide fertile ground.
Of course you are. As am I. I accept the responsibility, you seem to wish to reject it. Quelle suprise!
On some forums it is against the rules, or certainly against etiquette to announce that someone will be placed on Ignore. I don't know if that is the case here, but I feel it is simply courteous to inform the subject so that they are not puzzled by the absence of replies to their posts. Consider yourself so informed.

Ah so you have decided to join the club.

 

[river]

Why should he?
I make no claim he has or should....

IMO, Robert Hazen is beginning to identify and connect the processes of Abiogensis, i.e. Evolution .

Robert Hazen - Mineral Evolution and Ecology and the Co-evolution of Life and Rocks (March 11, 2015)

Based on the Physical Real Objects .

It doesn't support you mathematical based Universe .

Whats your point Write4U .

 

[Write4U]

Based on the Physical Real Objects .
It doesn't support you mathematical based Universe .
Whats your point Write4U .

I'm sure you have heard of Heisenberg.

Werner Karl Heisenberg
was a German theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics. He published his work in 1925 in a breakthrough paper. In the subsequent series of papers with Max Born and Pascual Jordan, during the same year, this matrix formulation of quantum mechanics was substantially elaborated. He is known for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which he published in 1927. Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics".[4]

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg

That's the point river, mainstream science...

 

[river]

theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics. He published his work in 1925 in a breakthrough paper. In the subsequent series of papers with Max Born and Pascual Jordan, during the same year, this matrix formulation of quantum mechanics was substantially elaborated. He is known for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which he published in 1927. Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics".[4]

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg​

I'm sure you have heard of Heisenberg. That's the point river.......

They were wrong Write4U . The whole lot of them .

The smallest units of matter are Physical Real Objects . Nothing is the consequence of this thinking becoming something . Which is not possible . Something can never transform into nothing .

 

[Write4U]

I READ ABOUT THAT ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO. Not seen anything else about the idea until now. So I am thinking "Ummmm not read anything past five years so, for me, why is this old news being dragged up as being cutting edge?

Have you any idea of how fast science is evolving?
That is exactly what Hazen demonstrates. Three years ago.

A network diagram for 403 carbon minerals reveals previously hidden patterns in their diversity and distribution.

Applying big data analysis to mineralogy offers a way to predict minerals missing from those known to science, as well as where to find new deposits, according to a groundbreaking study.

In a paper published by American Mineralogist, Hazen and colleagues report the first application to mineralogy of network theory (best known for analysis of e.g. the spread of disease, terrorist networks, or Facebook connections).

Led by Shaunna Morrison of the Deep Carbon Observatory and DCO Executive Director Robert Hazen (both at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C.), the paper’s 12 authors include DCO colleagues Peter Fox and Ahmed Eleish at the Keck Foundation sponsored Deep-Time Data Infrastructure Data Science Teams at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY.

The results, they say, pioneer a potential way to reveal mineral diversity and distribution
worldwide, their evolution through deep time, new trends, and new deposits of valuable minerals such as gold or copper.

Says Dr. Hazen: “Network analysis can provide visual clues to mineralogists regarding where to go and what to look for. This is a brand new idea in the paper and I think it will open up an entirely new direction in mineralogy.”

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/press-release-08012017

Mineralogy is now also using the statistical models of "Large Number of Rare Event" (LNRE) distribution.

In statistics, large number of rare events (LNRE) modeling summarizes methods that allow improvements in frequency distribution estimation over the maximum likelihood estimation when "rare events are common".[1]

It can be applied to problems in linguistics (see Zipf distribution), in various natural phenomena, in chemistry, in demography and in bibliography, amongst others.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_number_of_rare_events