A thought on Evolution

[Redzeppelin]

Well no, not quite. There are about three different ways to code for any given protein, making an extremely large variety of different configurations for any given gene. There is no particular reason to suppose that any two organisms will have the same gene, or even remotely similar genes, for the same function, unless the two are related. Then there are things like transpons and endogenous retroviruses that have, at best, no function.

Fine - I'll assume you weren't contradicting my suggested alternative.

No, it will probably be me.

That would surprise me.

And again with abiogenesis straw-man. Abiogenesis is not a theory, but evolution is.

Sorry - I don't mean to argue fallaciously; my understanding of evolution is that the total theory involves the belief that life began "on its own" without a guiding/designing agent and then continued to "morph" from there. If God is not the designer, then - at some point - naturalistic science must answer the question as to what/who began life and created the matter of the universe. That's all I'm trying to say - if I create terminolgy problems or appear to be constructing "straw men" - excuse me - I often lack precise terminology when discussing this topic. (I'm a bit more precise when discussing literature... ).

[cuppajoe_9]

Fine - I'll assume you weren't contradicting my suggested alternative.

It doesn't quite contradict it, but it makes it extremely odd. There is no particular reason for an intelligent designer to code for proteins in exactly the same way in every organism, and there is certainly no reason for him to include the exact same non-functioning (or even harmful) codes.

That would surprise me.

Trust me.

Sorry - I don't mean to argue fallaciously; my understanding of evolution is that the total theory involves the belief that life began "on its own" without a guiding/designing agent and then continued to "morph" from there.

Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.

If God is not the designer, then - at some point - naturalistic science must answer the question as to what/who began life and created the matter of the universe.

And it hasn't. Yet. I agree. That's far outside the scope of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

[Redzeppelin]

It doesn't quite contradict it, but it makes it extremely odd. There is no particular reason for an intelligent designer to code for proteins in exactly the same way in every organism, and there is certainly no reason for him to include the exact same non-functioning (or even harmful) codes.

It makes sense to me that - since all creatures live on the same planet - God might choose to encode us with some similar components. I'm no scientist, so I shouldn't persue this too far at the risk of saying something stupid; nonetheless, I don't know why considering God as designer means that each creature need be completely different from the next, all the way down to the molecular level.

Trust me.

I'll trust your evaluation.

Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.

Fine - then I'm railing (in general) at abiogenesis then?

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm no scientist, so I shouldn't persue this too far at the risk of saying something stupid; nonetheless, I don't know why considering God as designer means that each creature need be completely different from the next, all the way down to the molecular level.

Well, because the specific similar genetic components we're discussing don't do anything. Humans and apes have genetic codes that are 98% similar, and about 70% of that is junk DNA that has no function whatsoever. Why God might see fit that we share inhereted traits that don't have any effect whatsoever on the actual functioning of our bodies is quite beyond me.

Fine - then I'm railing (in general) at abiogenesis then?

Mostly. There isn't much to attack, however. It's only a colection of hypotheses.

[Redzeppelin]

Well, because the specific similar genetic components we're discussing don't do anything. Humans and apes have genetic codes that are 98% similar, and about 70% of that is junk DNA that has no function whatsoever. Why God might see fit that we share inhereted traits that don't have any effect whatsoever on the actual functioning of our bodies is quite beyond me.

Right - and why evolution would do anything similar is beyond me as well.

[atiguhya padma]

Right - and why evolution would do anything similar is beyond me as well.

Presumably because it is more efficient to collect junk dna and keep it stored uselessly, than it is to eradicate it. We inherit dna from our genetic ancestors through evolution, and the dna that we do not need we neutralise, or exile to some safe storage area. Besides, it might come in handy later on in the evolution of the species.

[cuppajoe_9]

Right - and why evolution would do anything similar is beyond me as well.

It's exactly what you'd expect, in fact. The only thing a gene has to do to become common is to be good at replicating itself.

Besides, it might come in handy later on in the evolution of the species.

Maybe, but that's not wh it sticks around. Evolution is a blind force, and cannot anticipate possible opportunities for evolution in the future.

[atiguhya padma]

Cuppajoe 9,

You are right. Of course, there is no ghost in the gene. They can only perform to their abilities which is to replicate. Nevertheless, I presume that 'old' obsolete genes may find some future use, depending on environmental conditions.

[The Atheist]

Cuppajoe 9,

You are right. Of course, there is no ghost in the gene. They can only perform to their abilities which is to replicate. Nevertheless, I presume that 'old' obsolete genes may find some future use, depending on environmental conditions.

That's a very good point, given the difference in time-spans between evolutionary changes and climatic or social changes.

Take human gentic make-up and metabolism as a classic example. Most of humans has had slower metabolism bred into them through natural selection when those with higher metabolic rates die off in famines. Roll forward to the 21st century and genes giving a low metabolic rate are suddenly not all that desirable - fast-food, high fat content foods and sedentary lifestyles are giving us nations of fatties. Anyone doubting that, just go to Google and type in "morbid obesity". Climate changes may exacerbate this, or alternatively may balance it out if food again becomes scarce.

[Redzeppelin]

That's a very good point, given the difference in time-spans between evolutionary changes and climatic or social changes.

Take human gentic make-up and metabolism as a classic example. Most of humans has had slower metabolism bred into them through natural selection when those with higher metabolic rates die off in famines.

REVIVED (in honor of the now closed Evolution vs Creation thread):

Should we assume that some of these "humans" even had slower metabolism? Why would there be any variation? Why should some of these early humans have a slower or faster metabolism?

[Pendragon]

Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.

I find this point good considering that I believe in both God and Evolution. And I also agree, Cuppa, that a lot of arguement could be silenced if people heeded what you have stated here: For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. The theory of evolution need not concern itself with what started it, we know it has taken place. I choose to believe that God started it. Others can choose what they wish. But obviously, things change and evolve. Man thinks that he hasn't evolved still? Go back and look at life expectency over history. And then check out what life expectancy is now. Daniel Boone lived into his 70's and was a very unique man for his time. Now, he would be just another Joe.

[atiguhya padma]

[QUOTE=cuppajoe_9;361905]

Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.

QUOTE]

But whilst none of them have the slightest evidence to support them, they are bear an equal likelihood of being true. However, maybe that is being a bit too generous, after all, god could not be proven to be the creator, not least because the idea of god involves contradictory notions.

[MaryLupin]

but back to evolution . . .

I always thought it was interesting that, in genesis, there is nothing to suggest that there was only one god.

In fact direct evidence to suggest that there are many gods.

[MaryLupin]

You know, practically a lot of the wisdom acquired by men can be derived from mythology (any of them).

Mythology is usually viewed as a culturally specific encoding of the wisdom gained by people through the experience of living.

[MaryLupin]

However, Evolution is still a Theory.

So is gravity as was mentioned earlier. A theory is only as good as its predictive ability. The theory of gravity is therefore a strong theory because it can be used to regularly predict the movement of objects. On the other hand Creationism is not really a theory at all in this sense because it has no predictive ability. Creationism is an act of faith. Gravity (and evolution) are theories. Different animals.

Have you read Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria?

see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html