Evolution through the Back Door

Various | 6/15/2003 | Alamo-Girl

[ShakeNJake]

Wow. Great start. Yeah, a bit tough to wade through for the non-scientist, but you have put into words much of what I have thought all along, from a religious viewpoint rather than a scientific one. I have many times attempted to explain to others the concept of God, existing outside of time and space, no beginning and no end.

I see you have read Gerald Schroeder's work. His small book about time, relativity and the 6 days of creation is excellent reading.

Please ping me for updates and further discussion along these lines.

[unspun]

A-G, I think you've got yerself a ping list.

[SirAllen]

First off, Alamo-Girl I must say you’ve done a fine job of gathering information and putting it all together. It’s going to take me some time to explore all the resources you listed and read up on some books I now want to read. I also must say that we share the same world views, and I agree with almost all of your conclusions, it’s great to see one’s views (mine in this case) backed up by another who has put a lot more effort into it then I ever have, and it’s great to see it arrived at from a different angle than I have ever thought about it. Thanks for taking the time and effort and compiling this.

As some of this stuff was new to me, and I can’t speak to a lot of the details or to a lot of the current cellular debate going on, hopefully I can provide you with some support. I like to look at things logically and to step back and view the bigger picture. Logically things become much simpler and clearer I believe. I also think my logic stands up even without the religious aspect I’ve mixed into it. Here is some of my random musings that I have long subscribed to and refined as needed, I’ll get them out of the way and then discuss some of your points.

1. Something can NOT come from Nothing
Everything pretty much boils down to this. Everything in our universe tells us this, yet here we are. It doesn’t matter if all charges in the universe add up to zero, or if all anti-matter would annihilate matter leaving nothing, the fact is that matter and antimatter exist violating this fundamental law. Something outside the laws of this universe not confined to the laws of this universe had to have created us. For me this is God. This also helps me to understand time, or the lack thereof for God. He created time for this universe, he is not constricted by time.

2. Big Bang
My religious beliefs do not conflict with the Big Bang. As a matter of fact, I find it the most likely scenario in which God set this universe into motion. In Hebrew the word “day” used in Genesis means a period of time. I don’t take it to mean a literal 24 hour period because how could there have been a day before God created it?

3. Life
Life is tremendously complex, and for life to just have happened does not make sense logically. Things in this universe (apart from the aftermath of the big bang) do not seek complexity, they seek simplicity. To say that life evolved from lightning or some other cosmic event interacting with primordial soup creating the first cell that later miraculously “evolved” into all life is ludicrous IMHO. That is akin to saying that the fleet of F-16’s over there were created by a tornado passing over a junkyard, actually the odds of that happening are vastly better than that in which the evolutionists surmise.

4. Evolution
Evolution doesn’t necessarily conflict with my religious beliefs per se. I just think it’s illogical and full of holes. I subscribe to certain parts of the theory, but the part of the theory that things started out very simple and “evolved” is illogical and not backed up by any science I’ve ever seen. I still leave room that everything started as a single cell and evolved – but that the single cell was pre-programmed for all of life and is how God initially created us (with the exception of consciousness/spirit of man), but there are still too many holes in that possibility for me to currently subscribe to it.

The example I once heard that has stuck with me, and the biggest problem with the theory of evolution IMHO is that of a common mousetrap. Now a common mousetrap is vastly simplistic compared to that of living organisms but to show the point logically let’s use this simplified example. For a mousetrap to serve its purpose all of its parts must be there. There is a tightly wound spring, a metal catcher, and a hook to hold the catcher down, the cheese holder and of course the wooden board. Now, evolutionists are basically saying that the wooden board slowly turns into this complex machine, and that this happens through billions of mutations, etc. which of course does not stand up to common sense and logic because none of the parts serve any purpose unless they are all there. Also see the junkyard example above. It’s mathematically implausible. And there are thousands – if not millions – of vastly complex mousetraps found in living organisms today. The only valid explanation for this is if it knew ahead of time the “master plan”, which of course points to a creator. BTW, I think there’s nothing sadder or more ignorant than an atheist scientist (I say this lovingly). Even an Islamic terrorist recognizes there is a God (even if I believe it’s the wrong God), whereas the atheist scientist is confronted everyday with the amazing beauty and function of God’s great design staring them in the face yet denies it.

Now to specifically address some of your points:

Time
I agree with your conclusions 100%. There was no time before our universe (well, unless God wanted it elsewhere). We are so constrained and consumed by time that we can’t even comprehend a place without it. It just doesn’t make sense logically to us, because all we know are the laws of this universe. And even then we don’t truly understand time. Einstein was probably the first to change our perception of time in how it exists in this universe. We’ve probably just scratched the surface in truly understanding time in our own universe, let alone understand something without time!

Consciousness
I agree that our comprehension is limited by space and time, and there are other dimensions either yet undiscovered or undiscoverable (outside our physical universe) in which the spirit realm operates. I always put the spirit realm outside the laws and physical universe, thus I cannot logically explore them since logic breaks down outside this universe thus the need for faith. I like how you stated that our brains are transmitter/receivers for the soul. I never thought of it like that but it makes a lot of sense.

Predestination v. Free Will
I believe I agree with your assertion (I think) that predestination is the outcome of free will independent of time. Like you said, God knows all – he is not constrained by time – so when he gave us free choice he knew (knows) what we will choose. But because he knows, does not mean we the choice isn’t up to us. It is, he just already knows what it is. (You know I kidded about being in a Matrix in my earlier message, but it’s interesting because a lot of these issues are explored in the Matrix movies).

Functional Complexity
I think you stated much more eloquently and elaborately what I was trying to say with the mousetrap example ;)

Great thought provoking post Alamo-Girl! It’s also good to see the evolutionists and others having a “civil” discussion of it.

[djf]

I have speant a great deal of time trying to formulate thought experiments to find (or create, if need be) some type of solid foundation of reality.
I started like this: Make some sort of causal statement that is always true, eg. "It's raining outside, so the road is wet"
Well, mostly true, but not always. There might be a car parked on the road, it's dry underneath. Part of the road might be very warm from the sun, the first few drops evaporated, etc.

So I abandoned any attempts at finding some sort of absolute causation. So now I work on tautologies, like this one:
A) The fire truck is lime green
B) Statement A) is either true or false
C) Statement B) is true

Anytime we can find things that nust be true, we are approaching the grand scheme of things. Eventually, perhaps we will discover whether we are discovering things or in fact actualy creating realities. I am certainly very comfortable with us simply being discoverers, but I think the science is pointing in the direction that we are in fact active participants, and in some respect minor players, but co-creators. If that is true, it would bear an incredible moral burden.

[Nebullis]

System dynamics offers a number of possibilities, so-called "evolution" is just one possible mechanism described, and one fixated on because some famous dude wrote a book on it many years ago.

I think you are confusing "evolution" with the Darwinian model of random mutation and natural selection. There are quite a number of acceptable non-Darwinian evolutionary paradigms, like self-organization, emergence, and symbiosis. They are not mutually exclusive. And they all fall under the umbrella of evolution in biology.

[betty boop]

I am certainly very comfortable with us simply being discoverers, but I think the science is pointing in the direction that we are in fact active participants, and in some respect minor players, but co-creators. If that is true, it would bear an incredible moral burden.

Funny you should mention that, djf. My own recent speculations have been running along similar lines. And I've drawn the same provisional corollary: "It's an incredible moral burden."

[unspun]

...incredible moral burden.

Yes a moral burden -- very credibly so. Bearing it, may we accept the way of ceasing our incredible regards and behavior.

[djf]

I'm very pleasantly surprised that this thread has not turned into the greatest flame war ever on FR. Kudos to all for their restraint and civility.

[unspun]

I think the intellect, intellectual humility and honesty, also the thoroughness, and graciousness of it's original poster has something to do with that. :-` Qualities that may be found in others, too. (I'm just observing, of course..;-)

[unspun]

"has...."
I don't think my grammar has much to do with it, though.

[unspun]

Posted by unspun to Djk On News/Activism 06/18/2003 4:41 PM CDT #330 of 330
"has...." I don't think my grammar has much to do with it, though.

Nor my own typing skills.

[djf]

My speling leeves alott to be desird.

[tortoise]

I think you are confusing "evolution" with the Darwinian model of random mutation and natural selection.

It's a definitional thing. By "evolution", most people are referring to Darwinian models rather than Lamarckian ones, but there are quasi-Lamarckian models that are actually quite plausible.

Selection is pretty clear cut. The biggest argument (to me) is identifying what the major source of variation is. For strict Darwinians that is usually "mutation", but other possibilities exist.

[unspun]

Thanks for the observations. Interesting how since Christ (and the Dark Ages) we've been able to lengthen our lifespan just a bit in our more orderly and learned culture. Wouldn't count on that continuing. Certainly wasn't true for the hundreds of millions murdered in the last century. No those who died in wars, nor from iniquitous pursuits.

unspun's Theory of Relationality     ...?

Others must have summed up things similarly, many times before this Spring. ;-` Come to think of it, I think the set of Authors of the Bible did that, not to mention some big allusions by folks like Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann, form what I hear... and many pastors and just plain folk. Come on, somebody help me out here. This is much too much for a lowly FReeper to bear.

Help, please.

[Nebullis]

I agree completely.

[unspun]

I can't think of a single example in nature of a thing that has a spontaneously self-generated beginning, "out of nothing," as it were. Maybe there are such things; just I haven't seen one yet. Can anyone here point out to me a single instance of such a thing?

Why, will-o'-the wisps, for one, as the name implies. Or is that wills-o'-the wisp?

Hmm. Maybe the Frumious Bandersnatch too, I'm thinking, or did the Cheshire Cat bring him about? Well then how about him?

Dataman, can you think of how we might apply the scientific method to "flesh" this out?

[unspun]

I appreciate the information. May I suggest you read: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, London, 1963 as well as Popper and his 3 Worlds thinking. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Thanks. I see I've put my foot in it. These folks better not be fudging either Socrates or empiricism though. ;-) Don't suppose you have any three sentence synopses...?

[unspun]

I have from time-to-time asked the Evolutionists to give us a cogent, meaningful and testable definition of their "theory" as well as a brief rendition of the evidence in its support, so far without success. "Change over time" is not a scientific definition because everything qualifies, speculation after the fact is not evidence and wordplay is not explanation.

It is conceivable to me that one species could transform into another but that is not science because it has not been shown. Science is about evidence, ultimately.

Yes. I think I've also asked before if a study has ever been authoritatively done, which seeks to estimate all the species to species transitions that by evolution theory have been 'accomplished' --let's say, since the first fish took to land, then average this out, so we can get an idea of how many might be expected to occur in let's say 100 years.

By some exptrapolation, we might even be able to modify that by how many might be expected occur during a very species-rich time (when, since so many species exist, one might expect more transitions to form).

If we knew that, we might have a handle on how many we would expect to find in modern times (or is that post-mod...nevermind).

Anyone know of such a study?

[gore3000]

ndeed there is a tremendous economy in living things.-me-

And there is also tremendous waste.

Evolutionists have often said that only to be proven wrong with the appendix, the tonsils, and now the biggest evolutionist blunder of all - junk DNA.

Without getting too far from my point, it cannot be denied that the reuse of code to make several proteins from a single gene is tremendous efficiency. It is also the kind of efficiency which cannot be achieved by random means because one has to discern what parts to use for another protein, how to splice the parts together again to make what you wish. So this process certainly shows intelligent design.

The following gives a description of the process and also touches on the Hox genes which we have been discussing on this thread:

" Another complication of the homeotic genes is that several of them can produce families of related proteins by alternative RNA splicing. The Ultrabithorax gene produces several proteins by such a mechanism, and these proteins have different, although overlapping, specificities (Figure 3). All of them transform antennae into legs if they are expressed at the time of the second-to-third larval molt. However, in the early embryo, one of the Ubx proteins is important in determining the parasegmental identity of the peripheral nervous system, while other Ubx proteins are not (Mann and Hogness, 1990)."

"FIGURE 3 Ultrabithorax mRNA structures generated by differential RNA processing. (A) Ultrabithorax gene. (B) The mRNAs that include two "microexons." The 5' splicing site of the first exon can vary within this group. (C) The mRNA family that includes one or no microexons. The homeodomain of both sets of Ultrabithorax proteins is encoded in the 3' exon. (After Beachy, 1990.)"
From: Homeotic Gene Regulation

[Heartlander]

When speaking of DNA you are dealing with an information message that is read, translated, and put to use. Bottom line here is that in cryptography (or a CAD database to a CNC), a message must serve a purpose or it cannot be used. What good is an error in a message or DNA (due to chemical mutagens, bad signal, or design) that causes the information to be of no use? Misinformation that causes death or cancer would be seen as toxic as well. If you want to associate evolution with random death or something of no use, that is fine though…

I guess there is no constraint to the randomness of information if there is no constraint to usefulness of information.

But that is what you meant when you stated in regard to DNA:

The constraints just mean limitations of the area over which an event is unpredictable ("perfectly random").