Evolution, Harmony, Dreams, and Consciousness

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

that mutation happened before they were challenged

As I explained it to a high school biology class, you can only play a card if it’s in your hand already when your turn comes around.

@T_aquaticus

If they were able to pull out the correct card 1 out of 60 tries on average, what would this tell you?

That Finagle was correct: the perversity of the universe does trend towards a maximum.

@T_aquaticus

the cephalopod and vertebrate eye

A matter that weighs against immediate (as opposed to system-level) intelligent design.

@SkyReflections

The challenge of demonstrating agency isn’t about proving its existence, but understanding its nature as a fundamental, irreducible creative principle. A is not a directly measurable variable, but the transformative potential that creates emergence.

This is scientifically meaningless – indeed it demonstrates that your ideas are not scientific.

@SkyReflections

The bacterial mutation experiment actually reveals agency’s subtle complexity: mutation occurring “before” the challenge suggests a pre-existing potential configuration.

Sure – every portion of every gene has the potential to be changed. That doesn’t imply agency.

@SkyReflections

The low probability indicates a non-random, information-rich process.

But it doesn’t – it shows that the mutation that actually occurred happened.

@SkyReflections

The precise timing

What “precise timing”? The mutation that allowed a tiny fraction to survive could have been propagated for generations.
This is like pareidolia – the human mind seeing patterns that look like some kind of order.

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

Yes. exactly. That’s the study of epigenetics. That’s why explosions of speciation happened at various times. Primed.

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

Evidence was that they couldn’t understand deep complexity or agency. There’s really no reason to argue this point. It’s a belief. You can believe in randomness as an existent trait of the universe or not.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

Not a single supporting biblical text in all of that…you have gone to great lengths to illustrate the notion of Creation and not a peep from the bible supporting this.

im hoping that your book is not also absent of supporting biblical themes, texts, and inferences?

Update…as expected, nothing, not a single one. This has no religious referencing of any kind…so its purely a humanistic approach to the dilemma of our existence from a perspective that has not remotely considered a Creator God!

See the problem there is this, a Christian cannot ignore the origins outlined in the historical biblical account when using science to make sense of the world around us. The bible clearly says that after the fall, all creation was corrupted…including those performing the science…indeed even science itself (because the earth was also cursed because of what Adam did).

So when science is being conducted that does not draw directly from biblical statements, that science is exposed to making assumptions that are anti God and the results would correlate with that problem.

given Darwinism has eroded away the authenticity of biblical historical narrative, TEists have compromised and therefore consistently fallen into the trap of explaining away bible history as allegorical, mythical, whatever…thus slowly building an alternative interpretation that isnt even supported by the text. They do not cite bible references that are consistent with their theology where those wrongly interpreted and loosely applied texts do not also disagree with sound biblical themes.

An example of the above is found in the death and resurrection of Christ. He clearly died physically, was raised physically, and ascended physically into heaven and yet, science proves a dead body cannot be raised physically after 3 days decomposing in a grave, it cannot rise up into the sky against the law of gavity, nor can it survive in the vacuum of outer space…and yet TEism blindy ignores those parts of Darwinian conclusion about the science anyway.

One cannot have it both ways, Creation in 6 days was a miracle that is unscientific just like the resurrection and ascension of Christ or, under the Darwinian model, both are scientifically demonstrated to be fabricated fairytales and there is no salvation or redemption…no Gospel.

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

I’m not sure if I agree with your logic, but that’s OK. I do have a book, but it’s not about all this. You might like it. Here’s the free version, just for you!

https://interactive-earth.com/downloads/analog_jesus.epub

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

@St.Roymond

This is scientifically meaningless – indeed it demonstrates that your ideas are not scientific.

The scientific process. If you ask a question, seek an answer, test hypothesis, get results, and report your results. Change your tack if you’re demonstrated wrong. How is that meaningless? Science is a process, and if in that process you discover something irreducible and unquantifiable, that’s not science? Can I quantify which pages you’re going to scroll through this evening? Goodness gracious.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

Personally it just sounds like another form of god guiding evolution and I just don’t see any evidence for it or buy into it. I don’t think that humans were desired anymore or less than beetles or that god influenced any of it. I believe that natural selection, epigenetic and abiogenesis all work perfectly fine without then need to stuff magic/supernatural into it. I essentially don’t believe in any intelligent design.

[Apistos]

Me neither. If Love or any other type of God were the ground of infinite, eternal being, then they have instantiated and wilfully sustained the prevenient laws of physics in deist fashion, further theoretically with room to theistically intervene, without any evidence, any coherent, warranted, justified truth whatsoever.

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

Of course. That’s what miracles are. And miracles are real. Seen Him in action.

Humans have a body of evidence just through observation. There are those who wield them against the faith. One my joys is to behold the evidence and ponder Him through it.

And of course, as you can tell, I have no problem whatsoever with evolution (unfolding of life sense). What leaves a bad taste is when people use that and say there is no God or it’s a clockwork, etc.

[Apistos]

I’m glad they’re real for you. I would never use the body of evidence against any honest faith that isn’t evil. To filter the body of evidence through faith is natural.

As evolution; after existence, being, matter, to life, mind, doesn’t require God, I don’t have to deny Him. That’s just how the history of ideas went. And the spectrum of existence is ineffably more complex than the tiny, narrowest, visible band of mesoscopic machinery.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@SkyReflections

The resistance to agency-based frameworks is itself a standing wave pattern of scientific thought. Not really quantifiable, except that you could potentially define it by the level of perceived randomness.

The reason that there is no agency-based framework in the theory of evolution is because there’s no scientific evidence for it. That doesn’t rule out agency that can’t be detected by science, but I think it is best to be accurate as to why agency isn’t currently included in science.

@SkyReflections

The challenge of demonstrating agency isn’t about proving its existence, but understanding its nature as a fundamental, irreducible creative principle.

From a scientific point of view, the challenge is getting empirical measurements and a falsifiable hypothesis. How you prefer to view things is not a measurement, nor is it a hypothesis.

@SkyReflections

The bacterial mutation experiment actually reveals agency’s subtle complexity: mutation occurring “before” the challenge suggests a pre-existing potential configuration. The low probability indicates a non-random, information-rich process. The precise timing suggests a resonance beyond statistical randomness. (Maybe I’m misunderstanding the results.)

You are misunderstanding the results.

If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million and there is 1 winner after 130 million tickets are sold, would you view this as a non-random result? Or is this about what you would expect from a random process?

What scientists are looking for in non-random mutations is a positive and predictable reaction to a challenge. If mutations are agency based, then why wouldn’t every bacteria get the mutation that confers antibiotic resistance when the bacteria are exposed to antibiotic? Why do we instead see millions of mutations that happen, and only a very small percentage confer antibiotic resistance?

You just seem to throw terms around with no real foundation in the actual biology.

@SkyReflections

I’m not proposing agency as an immediate, detectable cause, but as an ultimate, generative principle. The mechanistic, randomness-based model is itself a limited standing wave configuration of thought. Its “neutrality” is an illusion, a way of avoiding deeper questions about consciousness and intentionality.

Perhaps you could present the evidence demonstrating this illusion? Or is this more of a belief than a scientific principle?

@SkyReflections

Yes. exactly. That’s the study of epigenetics. That’s why explosions of speciation happened at various times. Primed.

What evidence are you basing this on?

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

There is some evidence of A. Although some of what Lamarck said was false. There is evidence that through epigenetics, Lamarckian is getting a small revival. Epigenetics has made it clear that by what I do in my lifetime, my overall genetics can shift. And studies show that those traits can be heritable.

Published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, this article by Laurent Loison examines how modern epigenetics relates to Lamarckian inheritance. The author acknowledges that while epigenetics isn’t simply a return to Lamarck’s original theory, it does provide evidence for some form of inheritance of acquired characteristics through environmental influences on gene expression. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2020.0120

From the International Journal of Epidemiology, this peer-reviewed article directly states that “There is evidence that the functional history of a gene in one generation can influence its expression in the next” and concludes that “inherited epigenetic changes in the structure of chromatin can influence neo-Darwinian evolution as well as cause a type of ‘Lamarckian’ inheritance.” https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ije/dyv020?__cf_chl_tk=R5euU2AqNnq9r.R6vJWJiAxliQsNiKf396lkohPgSm8-1758569068-1.0.1.1-3JUASkQn_UcM.2hRhcSJ1KgL38vi6oYMTZeUDtk_RTA

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@SkyReflections

There is some evidence of A. Although some of what Lamarck said was false. There is evidence that through epigenetics, Lamarckian is getting a small revival. Epigenetics has made it clear that by what I do in my lifetime, my overall genetics can shift. And studies show that those traits can be heritable.

I have yet to see any evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in vertebrates, and from my reading of the literature most think it doesn’t happen. Most of the experts are pretty certain it doesn’t happen in humans. In the species where it is known to happen, the differences are pretty small and they can be reversed in just a few generations in some cases.

But yes, your experience in life does alter the patterns of epigenetic markers in the genomes of different somatic cells (those that aren’t used to create the next generation, which are the germ line cells). From my understanding, the processes that lead to alteration of epigenetic markers are very Rube Goldberg like. That is, it is a chain of deterministic interactions between proteins, RNA, etc. and the environment. If you want to introduce agency, then you will need to sift through those pathways and show where agency is active. Needless to say, that’s going to be difficult.

You also state that epigenetics is the cause for explosions of speciation. I haven’t seen any evidence of this, nor do any of your references mention this.

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

Just speculation and hypothesis with a wee bit of research. I won’t prove anything to anyone. But there is at least some peer-reviewed evidence. And epigenetic studies are the best place to look. That’s all I have now.

I will add that the very best study of evolution is to watch any creature unfold from egg/sperm to adult. Same characteristic process over the “creature” we call the Taxonomical Tree. Is it deterministic? Do we have choices along the way that shape us, where certain genes are expressed or not expressed? Am I a robot or do I have agency? Not provable one way or the other. You choose. Red pill or Blue pill.

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

I have yet to see any evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in vertebrates, and from my reading of the literature most think it doesn’t happen. Most of the experts are pretty certain it doesn’t happen in humans.

I read a summary of a paper that argued that bipolar disorder can be triggered in one generation and be passed on, based on studying people whose bipolar disorder was triggered by trauma and then whose children were much more likely to experience the disorder.

@T_aquaticus

You also state that epigenetics is the cause for explosions of speciation. I haven’t seen any evidence of this

I found that questionable; I figured you’d clear it up! Thanks.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@SkyReflections

Just speculation and hypothesis with a wee bit of research. I won’t prove anything to anyone. But there is at least some peer-reviewed evidence. And epigenetic studies are the best place to look. That’s all I have now.

Speculation is certainly admirable. All good theories start out as speculations. Hopefully my posts have given you a rough and helpful roadmap of where you may want to research next.

@SkyReflections

I will add that the very best study of evolution is to watch any creature unfold from egg/sperm to adult. Same characteristic process over the “creature” we call the Taxonomical Tree. Is it deterministic? Do we have choices along the way that shape us, where certain genes are expressed or not expressed? Am I a robot or do I have agency? Not provable one way or the other. You choose. Red pill or Blue pill.

As you may have learned in your own research, embryonic development does not directly track a species evolutionary history. That would be the infamous “Ontogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny” which was disprove many decades ago. But you are correct that evidence of a species evolutionary history can be found in how they develop.

I also think there is a balance between nature and nurture. The environment does influence us in many ways, and as conscious beings there is no doubt that our actions can produce alterations. How far this rabbit hole goes is a different question.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@St.Roymond

I read a summary of a paper that argued that bipolar disorder can be triggered in one generation and be passed on, based on studying people whose bipolar disorder was triggered by trauma and then whose children were much more likely to experience the disorder.

One of the hurdles for epigenetic inheritance in humans is that nearly all epigenetic patterns are erased during the production of egg and sperm (e.g. the DNA in gametes are strongly demethylated). This is needed for development since many pathways require specific epigenetic patterns for differentiating into different tissues, so you need to start with a somewhat blank slate.

In the studies proposing epigenetic inheritance in humans that I have seen they usually have little more than phenotype associations. I have yet to see a study where they were able to demonstrate an changeable epigenetic pattern in egg or sperm, and how that gives rise to the phenotype.

[SkyReflections (D. Zelenka)]

We tend to think there are impenetrable boundaries that separate the individual from the group. Boundaries exist, but the broader family/species/genus/ecosystem is a system too. That system moves forward. The point is that evolution happens more broadly than the individual. Traits are shared among family members through behaviors. This is just another reason why epigenetics is heritable, because traits are not only stored in the genes or even the epi-. They are stored in the local system too. If a flag is set during an individual’s lifetime, that flat will be set during its offspring’s lifetime too. We are not only the sum of our parts.

The point about analyzing embryonic development is you can see the process and learn a lot, e.g. we lose our tail. Even past the embryonic stage: a flatfish’s eye rolls over to one side.

God’s creation is amazing.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@SkyReflections

The point is that evolution happens more broadly than the individual.

I fully agree. If we focus on a single individual there is no evolution. Evolution only happens at the level of the population. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, and for that you need a population and generations.

@SkyReflections

The point is that evolution happens more broadly than the individual. Traits are shared among family members through behaviors. This is just another reason why epigenetics is heritable, because traits are not only stored in the genes or even the epi-. They are stored in the local system too.

What you would need to show is that epigenetic patterns are inherited. For most species, this isn’t the case. In humans, the genome of gametes are strongly demethylated which erases those epigenetic patterns. Also, any modification that happens in somatic cells through epigenetics are not passed on.

Weismann barrier

@SkyReflections

If a flag is set during an individual’s lifetime, that flat will be set during its offspring’s lifetime too.

Not if that flag is set in a somatic cell. Any changes in somatic cells are not inherited in humans and for all or most vertebrates. However, there are species that derive their gametes from somatic cells, such as the small worm C. elegans. But this isn’t something that is found across all life.

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

Looks like a great illustration of Romans 1:20.