Evolution vs Creationism

Remove all ads!

I do not think Morgoth literally meant that physical laws don't apply at all. I think he could have used a better word than "bound" there. I agree that algorithms provide a better computational model than physics, but certainly the creature itself, and the molecules in the DNA are bound by the laws of physics.

 

Yes, a creature is due to the fact that it exists in a physical world, bound by the laws of physics.
I was trying to say that evolution is a result of the laws of logic, not of the laws of physics. In the hypothetical case of an alternate universe with different physical laws, evolution would still exist while the law of thermodynamics might be different.

---------- Added 0 hours, 0 minutes and 33 seconds later... ----------

1 + 1 = 2?

 

Well i would disagree that evolution is a result of logic.

In my opinion evolution exists in our universe with its physical laws. Evolution may be logically derived from these laws, maybe "expected" or such if this and such prerequisites applies.

err... uups i think i just said that in THIS way it IS a result of logic...

 

Evolution is a product of chance and physics, not logic. There is no reasoning present anywhere in it. It is bound by physics because it has to make use of the physical, thus it is limited to physically possible options. No matter what chances occur, no creature will ever evolve into a being that can create matter from nowhere. It's physically impossible. In another reality, the laws of physics may be different, but evolution is still bound by those laws, whatever they may be.

 

@NOG
I have to think this out some more to make my theory more consistent. I'll get back to you

 

Actually, it is the product of certain mutations and traits leading to increased reproductive success while other mutations and traits lead to lower reproductive success. The reasons are many and varied, and while physics can in some way play a part, it is rarely the cause. Often, neither logic nor physics has anything to do with the evolutionary success of a specific trait or mutation. The increasing prevalence of poly-dactyl stray cats would be one such example.

 

He basically meant the same thing I think, except he used "chance" instead of "probability". And "physics" instead of "genetics".

 

Chance and probability are not quite the same thing, but I honestly think chance is the better descriptor here. What mutations occur when and where are a product of pure random chance. While probabilities may play a role in overall odds, the details are very unpredictable. On top of that, the survival of the mutation is largely an issue of chance, especially at the early stages. After all, any creature, even the best adapted one, can slip and break a leg, come down with a nasty disease, etc.

Genetics and physics are wildly different, but both play a role, and in a connected sense. Genetics is on the information side, while physics is on the practical side. What I mean is that it is physics* that determines what mutations are beneficial and what aren't.

*Physics and biochemistry and probably a few other sciences, but the natural physical laws in general.

 

This is true. In fact, reproductive success is what the term "fitness" is based on. Most people think when they hear "survival of the fittest" that it means the strongest/fastest/biggest member of a species is most fit. (Note, that the term "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, not Charles Dawin. Darwin came up with the concept in his book On the Origin of Species, but never actually used that term in the book.) However, "fitness" has nothing to do with how strong/big/fast you are. It also has nothing to do with the vernacular use of "fitness" like being physically fit.

"Fitness" is simply a numeric measure of how successful you are reproductively compared with other members of your species. The member with the most kids (or grandkids, great-grandkids, etc, as the generations pass) is the most fit (fitness = 1). A member of a species with no offspring has a fitness of zero.

Granted, being bigger/stronger/faster than most other members of your species may very well increase you chance for survival, and therefore, indirectly improve fitness by giving you more opportunities to be reproductively successful. But regardless of how big/strong/fast you are, if you don't get copies of your genes into future generations (by reproducing) your fitness is zero.

 

In most social species that we study, though, biggest and strongest, and sometimes fastest, play a major role in dominance and thus reproductive power. They're not so standard in isolationist species, though.

 

What if we talked about the evolution of creationism, or the creation of evolution...

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

 

I vote for cockroaches to be the "fittest" then.
Who needs size, speed or strength?

So, is there any way that the creation of evolution /or evolution of creationism to have occured alternatively that there would be harmony instead?

 

Funny you should mention that. As discussed int the documentary Life After People and Alan Weisman's book The World Without Us, the reason cockroaches thrive so greatly stems from humans beings providing them with a climate controlled environment and an easy food source. In our absence, without our central heat, cockroach populations would dwindle to a fraction of their current size. In some regions, cockroach populations would even die out completely in a very short period of time. Welcome to the alleys, by the way.

 

Welcome to the mayhem... I mean Alleys.

As for your question, I think it was mentioned here earlier, but I suggest you read Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. It's a Christian nuclear physicist's attempt to find unity between ancient Jewish interpretations of the Bible and modern cosmology. It works, too. The key issue is the application of the General Theory of relativity to universal history, if that makes any sense to you.

 

... only for some.

 

Absolutely. To use another example, a zebra that can run a bit faster than most other zebras has a lower chance of being caught and eaten by a lion. Being less likely to be eaten increases your life span, and thus also increases the number of opportunities to mate and pass on its genes.

The only reason I brought up the biological definition of fitness was for informational purposes. Most people think that most fit means biggest/strongest/fastest. While that can be (and as you mentioned many times is) true, technically, the organism that gets the most action is the most fit - regardless of whether or not he is the biggest/strongest/fastest.

 

I was actually thinking more along the lines of the lion running a pride. The alpha male will drive off other males, reserving all the females for himself. Even if another male is faster or a more successful hunter, if the alpha male is bigger and stronger, he'll keep his position, and thus his reproductive power. Many social species have something similar when it comes to male hierarchy and mating. Think of rams butting heads, sea lions goring each other, etc.

Hey, the math, science, and theology all work. Whether you believe them or not is something else, but they work.

 

We've been through this already, haven't we? And no, it isn't.

Even in cases of mutation that are closest to being products of "pure random chance" there's enough mechanisms to prevent them to be completely detrimental for the reproduction of the genes of the organism.

So tut, tut, forgetting epigenetics once again... (and yeah, it's a magic word to ward off religion )

 

NOG is right about this actually, at least if I understood his wording. The what/when/where of a mutation happening is completely random and epigenetics has nothing to do with it. Whether a mutation gets selected for and remains (and spreads) in the gene pool is probably what you're thinking of, and that is indeed anything but random. Your wording makes it sound as if mutations are detrimental, but in an absolute sense they're not because it's the selection that will "decide" (bad word because it involves consciousness and a deciding agent, but you know what I mean) whether the mutation is beneficial or detrimental. To put it in fewer words: mutations are random, selection (and hence the evolution process itself) isn't.

On the subject of cockroaches, I'll have to disagree with you Drew. We are certainly helping to make things easier for them but to think that they are thriving thanks to us is a humongous ego trip. Cockroaches have been around for several hundred million years and are notorious for their incredible ability to adapt to just about any kind of condition and for being the hardiest insects - no small feat.

 

Nope, still wrong.

Read it and weep: The Genetics Of a Mutable Gene At The White Locus Of Drosophila Melanogaster

Not enough? I know it's just one article...I can dig up more, but that'll take time...

Now how does this actually affect the randomness of mutations? Let me put it this way: Take out all the jacks of a pack, the random chance of getting a jack from that pack is 0. It's not random then, is it?

This should be interesting enough as well: Extensive repetitive DNA facilitates prokaryotic genome plasticity