Is evolution hanging on ?

[Xarog]

I am saying that the word "random" in that context does not merely amount to the omission of mentioning God's involvement. It carries the meaning that there is not a deliberate, ordered, intelligent, design by a Creator.

And there's no way to prove it either way. So we're forced to make an assumption, which may turn out to not be the correct one.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You said science not saying anything can be used to reject the notion that it can function credibly alongside the idea of a deity. Not so?

No. Perhaps read this post again.

I am saying that the word "random" in that context does not merely amount to the omission of mentioning God's involvement. It carries the meaning that there is not a deliberate, ordered, intelligent, design by a Creator.

So you're turning a scientific term (which is the context it's being used in i.t.o. evolution) into a philosophical position regarding god(s)? Why do you think that's reasonable?

And yeah, 'random' when used in evolution doesn't refer to god not being involved (why do you even think so?). It means the genetic variation within organisms (beneficial, neutral, harmful) are not pre-determined based on environmental pressures, i.e. humans can't evolve bullet proof skin because we get shot a lot.

 

[wayfarer]

And there's no way to prove it either way. So we're forced to make an assumption, which may turn out to not be the correct one.

Agreed. However, the theistic assumption doubles as a firm belief (faith) as well. Though this can obviously never be presented as evidence.

With regard to what you mentioned about determinism by DNA, I'm not sure if I understood you statement correctly, so I'm not sure whether my question to follow is even valid:

If the DNA directly and deliberately determines mutations, what are the factors or processes which stimulate the DNA to effect such mutations?

 

[Ryansta]

If the DNA directly and deliberately determines mutations, what are the factors or processes which stimulate the DNA to effect such mutations?

Obviously God...

This whole conversation is quite silly, circles! One side will never be disproved because of faith. Does not matter what evidence, study, experiment is done.
Another thing, atheism is not a religion.

 

[Xarog]

No. Perhaps read this post again.

Good thing it doesn't then. It's silent on it, as has already been agreed upon. Still not the same thing as claiming it's a scientifically credible idea, though. Science not declaring it incredible doesn't make it credible. Explain to me why god-determined mutation is scientifically credible, on its own merit.

There is no assumption of incredulity. If you want to say it is incredible, it is up to you to say why.

The point that we cannot determine whether QM is truly random or not is more than a credible enough vehicle for "random" mutations to have been predetermined. This has already been pointed out to you.

Relevance? Are you saying our understanding of randomness (or non-randomness) in mutation is not based on observations and experiments?

Indeed. It's based on an assumption.

 

[Xarog]

Agreed. However, the theistic assumption doubles as a firm belief (faith) as well. Though this can obviously never be presented as evidence.

With regard to what you mentioned about determinism by DNA, I'm not sure if I understood you statement correctly, so I'm not sure whether my question to follow is even valid:

If the DNA directly and deliberately determines mutations, what are the factors or processes which stimulate the DNA to effect such mutations?

We're not entirely sure yet. Learning seems to be part of it. All that we can say is that the observed mutation process does not exhibit randomness. Some parts of the genome are far more prone to mutating than others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRDM9 This guy in particular has been implicated in driving a lot of the mutation and genetic recombination processes.


http://phys.org/news/2015-11-supermodel-aussie-finches-sexy-dna.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-scientists-hotspots-genetic-exchange-chimpanzees.html
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-species.html

 

[OrbitalDawn]

There is no assumption of incredulity. If you want to say it is incredible, it is up to you to say why.

What?

Burden of proof etc. Want me to take it seriously, scientifically speaking? Then explain why I should.

 

[Xarog]

What?

Burden of proof etc. Want me to take it seriously, scientifically speaking? Then explain why I should.

Science doesn't assume that what it cannot explain does not exist, OD. Events happen, but science cannot say whether they are random or pre-determined. Science makes assumptions about these things as part of the way it functions, but it cannot validate those assumptions. Alternative assumptions might not be your preferred perspective, but that alone does not make it implausible.

What evidence do you have to suggest that evolution and mutation or indeed anything is truly random?

You can see an example of how this particular issue impacts science here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

 

[wayfarer]

So you're turning a scientific term (which is the context it's being used in i.t.o. evolution) into a philosophical position regarding god(s)? Why do you think that's reasonable?

While a phenomenon may be an objective reality, our language construction with regard to it, and nomenclature attributed to the phenomenon is not necessarily sans philosophical positions.

And yeah, 'random' when used in evolution doesn't refer to god not being involved (why do you even think so?). It means the genetic variation within organisms (beneficial, neutral, harmful) are not pre-determined based on environmental pressures, i.e. humans can't evolve bullet proof skin because we get shot a lot.

That belies the broad understanding of this concept since the Darwinian era, and the diversity that exists in interpreting that term. Darwin himself even used the term "chance mutations". Over the decades, some biologists have refined the meaning of the term "random" to become more constrictive, limiting its meaning, to the point where the word has even been replaced by "non-random" or "determine" (as can be seen from the links posted by Xarog), or the focus was redirected from randomness to "variation". The Theory continues to evolve with new research, but I think you can appreciate my position and what it is that I refer to, albeit that you disagree with it.

While the term "random" need not have a methaphysical dimension, for many, it does. My "language" demonstrates one metaphysical variation when it comes to speaking about that particular science phenomenon. From the linked articles, it seems that this specific discussion may already be obsolete, as it seems that the loaded term "random" may imminently be exiting modern inflections of the Theory.

OrbitalDawn, my intention is not to labour the point. I merely entered this thread and echoed my awe at the natural world and the awesomeness of evolved creatures. Based on my own worldview, I extended that awe to what I hold to be the Source and Originator thereof, which is natural for a theist to do. That expression, alone, does not make any objectionable statements about the actual science. I did not mean for that very brief mention to become the core topic. It became an issue when someone decided to fixate on that cursory mention, and proceeded to go on a ridiculing tirade based thereon.

 

[Xarog]

While a phenomenon may be an objective reality, our language construction with regard to it, and nomenclature attributed to the phenomenon is not necessarily sans philosophical positions.

It is so refreshing to come across someone who actually appreciates what is meant by the map not being the territory.

Btw, were the links I provided in any way useful to your question?

 

[wayfarer]

Obviously God...

This whole conversation is quite silly, circles! One side will never be disproved because of faith. Does not matter what evidence, study, experiment is done.

Agreed. And that was never meant to become such a major point of discussion in this thread. Also note that the assertion that "obviously God" does it should not in any way require the preclusion of discussions on the physical processes and mechanisms of action within natural science (such as which factors impact on mutation).

 

[wayfarer]

It is so refreshing to come across someone who actually appreciates what is meant by the map not being the territory.

Btw, were the links I provided in any way useful to your question?

Yes, they were, thank you. Especially the one on the supermodel finches... It refers to a "multitude of factors" that guide DNA-swapping hotspots. I shall have to study the articles more closely, and read further about PRDM9 .

 

[Xarog]

Yes, they were, thank you. Especially the one on the supermodel finches... It refers to a "multitude of factors" that guide DNA-swapping hotspots. I shall have to study the articles more closely, and read further about PRDM9 .

My personal take on it is this: The PRDM9 gene is basically sensitive to the genetic factors that most affect the stress levels of individual organisms. It is reasonable to conclude that any individual that is relatively more successful than its peers will be relatively less stressed than its peers.

Evolution has harnessed this as a resource; stress induces mutations. What this means is that successful individuals do not suffer much mutation and their geno/phenotype remains stable. Those who are stressed undergo mutation; in this way the correct evolutionary choices for the environment represent a signal, and the poor choices are basically cancelled out with noise, but with the proviso that should any new mutation yield a relative advantage, that mutation will immediately be discovered by the genome because of sudden drop in stress.

From this perspective, it is easy to see the genome as a problem solving algorithm that is distributed in the species and which literally runs its calculation cycles once per generation.

And from a coder's perspective, the genome is recorded in something like 38MB of data. More than enough space to put such a process into the code, as it were.

It's not survival of the fittest individual, but survival of the fittest genome. The way our brains and neurons are arranged is not the first iteration of information processing, but the second. The first one lies in our DNA, and ultimately operates by many of the same rules. Knowing this, we can use anthropic reasoning to make many educated guesses as to what we should expect to find.

Actually, seems I'm not the only one thinking along these lines. That is encouraging.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/gloves_off_--_r103168.html
http://phys.org/news/2009-08-evolutionarily-mechanism-genes.html

 

[RazedInBlack]

A rock has active processes shaping it

No it doesn't. Elements such as weather conditions, wind, water, and other rocks help shape them.

 

[Xarog]

No it doesn't. Elements such as weather conditions, wind, water, and other rocks help shape them.

Dunno why you're bothering. I already took his argument and put him in the position where to make his point he must deny his own mind.

 

[wayfarer]

My personal take on it is this: The PRDM9 gene is basically sensitive to the genetic factors that most affect the stress levels of individual organisms. It is reasonable to conclude that any individual that is relatively more successful than its peers will be relatively less stressed than its peers.

Evolution has harnessed this as a resource; stress induces mutations. What this means is that successful individuals do not suffer much mutation and their geno/phenotype remains stable. Those who are stressed undergo mutation; in this way the correct evolutionary choices for the environment represent a signal, and the poor choices are basically cancelled out with noise, but with the proviso that should any new mutation yield a relative advantage, that mutation will immediately be discovered by the genome because of sudden drop in stress.

From this perspective, it is easy to see the genome as a problem solving algorithm that is distributed in the species and which literally runs its calculation cycles once per generation.

And from a coder's perspective, the genome is recorded in something like 38MB of data. More than enough space to put such a process into the code, as it were.

It's not survival of the fittest individual, but survival of the fittest genome. The way our brains and neurons are arranged is not the first iteration of information processing, but the second. The first one lies in our DNA, and ultimately operates by many of the same rules. Knowing this, we can use anthropic reasoning to make many educated guesses as to what we should expect to find.

Actually, seems I'm not the only one thinking along these lines. That is encouraging.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/gloves_off_--_r103168.html
http://phys.org/news/2009-08-evolutionarily-mechanism-genes.html

So the fact is that the mutation is not random, but stress related. The linked articles speak about environmental stresses. What about the randomness or non-randomness of the actual nature of the mutation?

May I be so presumptuous as to enquire into your academic background?

 

[Xarog]

So the fact that the mutation occurs is not random, but stress related. The linked articles speak about environmental stresses. What about the randomness or non-randomness of the actual nature of the mutation?

Well that's hard to say. The thing is that when mutations occur, they usually get repaired. It's the mistakes that slip through the net that end up being transmitted to future generations. DNA has many self-repair processes, and who can say definitively why in any one situation the problem wasn't rectified?

But like I said, I personally think that DNA is a natural intelligence and so at least in some cases it must have the agency to provoke/adopt mutations.

May I be so presumptuous as to enquire into your academic background?

No official credentials. I just have a very broad range of subjects I find fascinating.

 

[Bobbin]

You do know that for the major religions who accept a personal God, all sciences, including the natural sciences, originate with God, and return to Him, and any discussion of the extant world may very well include that reference? Or am I not allowed that freedom of speech? You also know that the subject of biological evolution is one of the science topics most affected by ideological bias? Some people are just less open to admit that.

Why, for example, am I to accept the idea of random mutation, instead of God-determined mutation? There is just as much evidence for either. And objective science is silent on the matter. Random mutation presents an atheistic "religious" view, whereas God-determined mutation would present a theistic religious view. If terms such as "random" mutation and "natural" selection can be used in scientific discussion (which carries the assumption of an absence of a creator/designer), why can a religious person not discuss the same science from his/her own world view, in terms of his/her own paradigm, as long as it is not anti-science?

Because it would result in vastly different ideologies in the approach to discovery and advancement. Therefore be thoughtful as to what you choose to believe. Why do you think, whether right or wrong, ol' Neil deGrasse is trying to tell us why the Muslim civilization has lost their intellectual standing in recent history - a civilization that was supposedly once a leader in terms of scientific achievement. There is simply a fear that ideologies on the scale of society will hamper progress.

Let me try keep it straight-forward... If a creator guides evolution then why should we bother trying to discover mechanisms that are no longer guided by physical processes? Capisce? Hell let's take it to the extreme. If evolution doesn't occur AT ALL then why bother studying it AT ALL. Progress fail. I cannot make it more simple than that I'm afraid

No use putting a flower power personality as a machine gunner in the Vietnam war if you want the job done well. They don't belong in the same trench.

 

[Xarog]

Because it would result in vastly different ideologies in the approach to discovery and advancement. Therefore be thoughtful as to what you choose to believe. Why do you think, whether right or wrong, ol' Neil deGrasse is trying to tell us why the Muslim civilization has lost their intellectual standing in recent history - a civilization that was supposedly once a leader in terms of scientific achievement. There is simply a fear that ideologies on the scale of society will hamper progress.

Let me try keep it straight-forward... If a creator guides evolution then why should we bother trying to discover mechanisms that are no longer guided by physical processes? Capisce? Hell let's take it to the extreme. If evolution doesn't occur AT ALL then why bother studying it AT ALL. Progress fail. I cannot make it more simple than that I'm afraid

No use putting a flower power personality as a machine gunner in the Vietnam war if you want the job done well. They don't belong in the same trench.

Sorry, but this is a terrible straw man argument. If all Muslims approached science like Wayfarer, ol' Neil would look like an idiot for trying to make that assertion in public.

 

[Bobbin]

Sorry, but this is a terrible straw man argument. If all Muslims approached science like Wayfarer, ol' Neil would look like an idiot for trying to make that assertion in public.

No straw man at all I feel I was very direct in response to his last paragraph in that post. Don't obfuscate logic with me