No decay cannot be the basis of the universe, because decay is “coming apart,” while creation is “coming together.”
However, we must first understand that we are trying to make sense of two very different ways of understanding our world,
. the Greek static physical way and the Hebrew dynamic spiritual way.
For the Greek the world is created once and that was it. For the Hebrew world it is continually being created by God and also by human beings, The Kingdom of God is not a place or a thing, but a relationship between God and God’s Creation. It is not
limited by space and time.
Creation Jesus was not Trump in a different guise. Immigration enables people to adapt to their mutual situations.
Cooperation and adaptation is the only real evolutionary. strategy
Once again, the theory of evolution is just one small problem out of many for the claims you are making. According to you, none of us should be here since we all developed from a single cell into a complex human being. If you are claiming entropy can only ever increase, then refrigerators shouldn’t work, but they do.
If the deviations are random then there is no diagnosis, nor direction and certainly n intelligence.
IOW if there is direction there has to be some sort of intelligence.
Are we talking about the conservation of energy/or are we talking about the fact that the moment somethng exiss it starts to deteriorate! That is just a visible, observable fact> It does not matter where that energy goes, it leaves the organism in question. The only difference si when the natural growth outstrips the decay. Even so we change a complete set of teeth, amongst other things. Growth and / or regeneration is in answer to decay. As we get older that capacity decreases and the results are obvious.
The point here is that evolution cannot build, it cannot diagnose, it cannot see an opportunity, or fill a void. There is no discernable logic to the process which is why it is called “random”. If there was then it would be called “guided” which needs some sort of guide, or intelligence.
ToE cannot assign a guide (God or) so it claims random or chance. The facy tht niches are filled and opportunities taken is just happenchance with a little help from Natural selection.
Ok so who told them they could fly? How on earth (or sea) could the first one do it? The usual answer is that leaping was already a known action and the effect of their fins enhanced it. Bt, why did they leap in the first place? Dolphins leap , probably for air, but fish? Air is poison to them, or at least dangerous. Why would any fish do it? To escape perhaps? desperation that becomes a skill? But if those fins never evolved it would never happen. The benefit is an accident, not design. it cannot be design without a designer,
ToE relies on chance. Not only for the type of deviation but also for it to happen to the right creature in the right place. Flying fish could not use that skill in a river, or shallow water, where the landing would be uncertain or even problematic. So even f a fresh water fish got the ability to fly it would not survive, or at least, not dominate.
IOW there is so much luck or chance in ToE it is amazing we ever left the water.
You are forgetting about natural selection which propagates the beneficial changes and restricts the deleterious changes.
Why does it matter? You are claiming that there is no reason to fly. That doesn’t match up with what we see in nature. If what you claim is true then all bird lineages should be losing their wings, but we don’t see that. We also see numerous examples where flight is integral to the survival of bird species.
ToE relies on chance to produce genetic variation. ToE relies on natural selection to adapt species to their environment. Again, beneficial variations are selected for while deleterious changes are selected against. This is a basic concept that you should have learned in your biology classes way back when.
Random changes produce direction all the time–like every time wind blows, those are stochastic movements of air molecules with an average direction that is not (0,0,0). Imagine standing in the corner of a room and flipping a coin–heads you step forwards, tails you step backwards, but you can’t go through walls. What will the net movement be? Forwards, because backwards is an impossible direction.
But more comes in, so entropy is not the issue here. Yes, aging and decay affects (almost) all life, but that doesn’t make increases in complexity impossible.
No, but it can still find one–imagine a machine that blindly shoots darts in random directions with a board on one wall. Eventually, it is virtually guaranteed to get a bullseye, no matter how big the room is (ignoring gravity and air resistance).
The reason it is called “random” is that it is not predictable from a set of starting conditions, at least with finite accuracy to the measurements of the starting conditions.
Seems likely, as even non-flying fish will jump out of water to avoid a predator.
Being in air for a fish is basically like being underwater for us–we can’t breathe, and our eyes can’t focus.
Not in any branch of science I’ve ever studied. If anything, the basis is “matter self-organizes” – that drives chemistry, physics, geology, meteorology, and more. Science is then the effort to understand the principles that drive said self-organization.
Human beings don’t start to deteriorate until after puberty – until then it’s all growth and development.
Odd, since the contents of a can of expanding foam can do those – especially the last one. If a mindless chemical mix can do that, why not life?
Or if you don’t like an example using manufactured stuff, rivers can do all that: they build structures, they ‘diagnose’ topography, they ‘see’ the landforms and take advantage of them, and they most definitely fill voids (or at least try to).
False dichotomy.
The question is at what point is the Designer involved, and how. The traditional Christian (and Jewish) view is that God is every moment creating the universe, and that He does so in accord with rules/laws He chose.
We do see some that spend more time in the air than on the ground by a large factor. If they could, they’d probably spend all the time in the air; after all, what advantage does landing on something give?
The ability to nest is the biggest one for those that almost never land (e.g., frigatebirds). I’m not sure how a bird could get around that, as juveniles require at least some time to get stronger muscles to allow for flight.
All birds I know need to have a nesting place. For examples, swifts live their life in air, even sleep flying but they need nesting places for eggs and chicks. That seems to be a constraint birds cannot cross. Probably having external eggs is one key barrier, as giving birth to larger offspring might be an option if the offspring could develop within the mother. Strengthening the muscles is another barrier.
And how does Nature know that there is an error? How does nature knw to" Try"" at all! You are thinking in terms of understanding and thought. Nature has no brain.
That is not the point. You are not even trying to understand.
So you are right and i am wrong. Ok mover on.
How? Uising what brain or diagnostic tool?
Correcting me again I see.
You do not wnat to know what i think or how I look at it. Fine. move one.
So you can agree wit me then?
That is two statements i made that you agree with. So why am I still wrong?
Lke every one else. You just say i am wrong.
I really wonder why I stay here. I am wasting my time.
When you wish to talk instead of lecture, let me know.
Differential survival rates or reproductive success.
By containing organisms that reproduce with heritable variation.
Then what is the point? The first statement says that random deviations cannot be directed. If you are using that to mean “guided” then please use a term that does not have a standard meaning other than the one intended, the way that “directed” does.
What I want is for terminology to be used consistently–if “random” means “no discernable logic to the process” and “something best described by chaos theory” to different members of the same conversation, no one is going to understand what the other is saying. “Random” in any scientific context means “best described by a probability distribution” or “impossible to predict perfectly from finitely precise measurements of initial conditions”, or other similar meanings.
Darwin did a great job of explaining how, although it is written in denser English than we are used to today.
To break it down:
There is variation within species.
Populations will expand until they reach the carrying capacity of their environment.
This expansion will result in competition between individuals.
Some of those varying characteristics will aid individuals in the struggle of life allowing them to have more offspring than those who don’t have the characteristic they have.
So you are saying it not so much fluke as inevitable?
IOW with so many deviations one will eventually work?
Is that fair?
That would make it a bit like a computer throwing out numbers to break a code until one set works or to put it simpler the Scattershot principle whereby if you fire enough pellets one will hit the target.
I am saying that the effect of any given mutation in any given genome is going to depend on the interaction of the new mutation with the rest of the genome. As genomes accumulate mutations those interactions will change. At any point there could be many pathways that could occur, but not all pathways because some of those pathways require many different mutations that may not be present.
“Fluke” or “accident” carries a lot of philosophical baggage. Science prefers to be more neutral.
If there is a simple mutation (e.g. a single base substitution) that will work in a given environment and in a given genetic background then given enough births it will occur. There are currently enough humans to produce all possible single base substitutions many times over.
That’s a fair comparison. Another analogy is the near inevitability of someone winning the lottery if enough tickets are sold. If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million, selling 1 billion tickets will probably result in someone winning.
Forgive me, simple mutations? Are you claiming that there can be multiple mutations that might jpin together to form a wider deviation? The mid boggles at the probabilities invoved for that.
And
Are we basically making DNA int a preset code whereby all Nature has to do is “find” one to make a viable deviation?
And, forgive me, is that a “plug and Play” or modular view of DNA coding?
(Whereby wings come complete with ancillary workings, such as muscles nerves, motion etc)) That would imply another underlying "law or process within the fabric of the Universe
There is a philosophical viewpoint that such things as the law of gravity do not need to be designed but are the consequence of existence and therefor “must be” for it to exist at all. It is the philosophical denial of the need for God.
I think it is an extension of the “multiverse” theorum whereby every permutation exists somewhere and only some (or even one) is/are viable.
It would give you a get out clause for most if not all of what I have been driving at recently.
“Simple” is a subjective term, relative to how many bases are involved in the mutation and how common they are. A “simple” mutation in my opinion is switching one base for another, like an A for G (point mutation in the picture below). There can also be insertions or deletions of DNA (i.e. indels) that occur less often, and most of those involve just a few bases.
“Hard” mutations would include things like gene duplications and large recombination events. These are relatively rare.
For humans, we are born with around 70 point mutations, and handful of indels, and on rare occasions a large recombination mutation. If a beneficial change only requires a point mutation, then it is relatively easy to get that mutation. For a human population of 8 billion that’s 560 billion point mutations. Our diploid genome is only 6 billion bases with 3 possible mutations at each position for a total of 18 billion possible point mutations. So, 560 billion mutations exist in the current human population and only 18 billion possible places to put them. This means that nearly all non-lethal mutations exist somewhere in the current human population.
I don’t see where you are getting “preset code” from. Do people win the lottery because it has a preset code?
No. Wings (in vertebrates) come from the step-by-step modification of an already existing limb over long time periods. This involves mutations in many different genes. There is no single leg gene or wing gene in the same way there is not a single instrument in an orchestra that is “Beethoven’s Fifth”.
If we catalogued all of the genomes that have ever existed it would be the tiniest fraction of the genomes that could exist.
So you just trot out an assertion that has no foundation other than it must happen for ToE to work.
This is where I get angry.
We chat along nicely and then you just throw in something like this that actually did not answer directly what I said.
Also
this diagram includes an “insertion” which would appear to be a completely new but incomplete pairing. How does that work? How can Nature suddenly, for no apparent reason just Insert a new molecule from somewhere? (And it not be a complete pair yet still work)
One minute yo are talking straight Mendelian inheritance, although a little more complex that the examples used to teach it,and the next you start claiming that the Genome can “invent” things.
If Nature can “invent” new pairings can it also invent a molecule that would not have been in the genome set before? If so then any logical restriction for what could be produced due to the heritage or diversification of the Genome goes out the window. There would be no goo reason why a Mammal could not grow a feather.
In terms of language, mendelian inheritance is the equivalence of anagrams. You have a set of pairings that can change, but only from the pool of the two zygotes (sperm and egg) involved. Now, all of a sudden you can introduce a new letter or even several new letters “Invented”, as they fuse. No wonder there are cancers or other defects. It would basically mean that the cancer is already present from the moment that egg was fertilised, it just depend on when it gets manifested, The "“Insertions” if “random” are more likely to be invasive or damaging than they are to be compatible. In terms of logic (not science) what you are claiming defies any sort of probability figure in terms of the use or viability of a DNA pairing
(I am guessing that what I have just said will be viewed as scientific gibberish)
IOW Science can invent its own “rules” of reality to make things work.
A preset code would be that a specific string = a specific feature or trait.
Means that you do not understand the concept of a preset code!
Means that you do not understand the concept of “plug and play” or modules.
In computers, a “plug and play” module is a piece of hardware that is automatically compatible with the base computer, an optional add on, that does not need any extra coding to work, it come with software that just fits into the original programing. eg, a printer, or a mouse, or a video card, or a sound card. They were not in the computer when purchased but can be added without any technical knowledge or assistance from the user. The computer automatically know how to use it.
So in terms of DNA it would be that a specific string (combination of pairings will automatically produce a heart, or a femur, or a blood cell, and it would automatically be compatible with the original creature’s make up. Or, if you think of a heart transplant, the new heart and the old heart have the same DNA coding.(And that is not how transplants work because you are not growing the new heart from scratch)
So I am now assuming that this is also gibberish, and a false or inaccurate understanding (Analogy)
And here is where we are clearly not understanding each other, because you cannot put into words (or analogy) the concepts you are utilising. You cannot explain them to me in terms of principle, only example. (And that is not the same thing)
All your flash diagrams are what is know as “blinding with science”. (Only scientist understand them) You can’t “dumb them down”, so instead you just call me “dumb” or ignorant.
The net result is that only scientists can argue scientific theories because only scientists understand what they are talking about. (Brilliant) And even someone who has learned science and understood it becomes like a computer programmer who can only work in DOS. Out of touch and therefore clueless
So at this point I need to bow out and admit that in the words of Manuel
