Evolution and Politics

[AUDub 11,147]

Let me first state the obvious. I have never touched, seen, or been involved with any science on these subjects for or against. This alone disqualifies me from being anything close to an authoritative source. BUT!!! That does not make my questions and or curiosity any less valid or uneducated as most people that cling to the words of others.

For the most part, we are all laymen. There are a few experts mixed in here, though.

No question lacks validity if asked honestly. Seeking to cure ourselves of ignorance is noble.

My words are not from a college textbook on these subjects but I hope that you can peel back the layman terms to see the questions and thoughts for what they are. The Catholic church used ignorance as a way of bringing the masses into subjection of their reasoning of the world. I wish more atheistic scientists would not use this same tool. "Your stupid myths blind you from scientific fact"

These types are the same people who refuse to acknowledge that most of the LAWS, theories, and hypothesis they practice came from the minds of theistic scientists. Even Darwin was educated as a theist but slowly became an agnostic over the period of his lifetime. If only Darwin was here today and could see how far science has gotten in finding the complexity of this "simple organism". I am quite positive his mind would be blown away but would only push the science of Evolution to higher standards of thinking.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic"

I don't believe most atheist scientists are inherently anti-theist. I believe there is some resentment, and some of it is well founded. For example, when religion is used to reject scientific advancement, such as the idiocy of refusing to teach evolution in science class, or giving equal weight to pseudoscience like intelligent design in science class, stifles scientific progress and does a disservice to society as a whole, particularly the kids.

Please understand that one of the foundational LAWS that govern my state of mind is not to make any graven image of my creator. At it's simplest form this is simply meant about building Idols but it can be applied to forming an idea in my mind about GOD, from my imagination, and stating it as fact. I carry this principle into my understanding of science. if I think I have it all figured out and etched in stone then I am no longer able to learn.

Science is and always should be open to the idea of change. One of the key tenets is falsifiability. Nothing can technically be proven right. In order for a theory to be valid, there must be a way to prove it wrong.

Your answer on probabilities shows to me that "time", in your mind, is an accepted law and not just a state of our consciousness. (my head would explode if you even mention A and B theories) If "time" did not govern our existence as we know it then your answer would have been, "100% probability".

Pretty clear that time is linear from our perspective. Can't violate causation, can we?

This leads down the wormhole of eternal existence of matter vs something from nothing. Both thoughts are firmly planted in speculation and imagination. Listening in on discussions concerning metaphysics and quantum physics is equivalent to me listening in on conversations at a star trek convention. I have no clue!!!

So in my simple mind, I can't reason why a hypothesis on "resurrection" is any less probable than the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I am just ready to admit that the first hypothesis falls flat on its face without outside manipulation or influence.

Science, by nature, must assume a natural cause. Any cause besides that is supernatural, and therefore outside of science's purview.

The Miller-Urey experiment is another example of intelligent manipulation. Here is where I am scratching my head. The variables he used do not match what most scientists consider to be the atmospheric conditions of our early earth. A good majority of scientists feel the earths atmosphere was filled with heavy amounts of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The atmosphere inside the glass of the Miller-Urey experiment seems very hospitable compared to modern views. (still a very important study)

The Miller-Urey experiment has been performed many times, including under conditions that more closely resembled earth's at the time. Complex organic molecules were still produced.

The trick is to fit all these pieces into one cohesive unit. Abiogenesis must agree with accepted carbon dating principles, "time", and decay. Then once we get these in perfect harmony we must observe the creation and sustainability of amino acids in the accepted view of our early atmosphere. Now we have to create Nucleic Acids in harmony with everything already mentioned. Then we have to show how these stubborn Nucleic Acids will stay in a concentrated area long enough to bond into even more complex molecules all while accepting the energy to do this must agree with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You or I defining the the 2nd law of thermodynamics will only introduce more confusion. I think what I am trying to say is abiogenesis is very restricted by the 2LOT as it governs the mechanism. (example photosynthesis) This is why the focus of abiogenesis has quietly walked away from sunlight and moved toward hydrothermal vents. Hydrothermal vents, even to me, seem like the best starting point to focus on.

Aufan59 is addressing this better than I can. The idea on the matter of hydrothermal vents might be a step in the right direction, though it in no way invalidates Miller-Urey.

Now my mind starts to hurt. Let's just assume that I am convinced that a simple organism could have been produced in one of these environments from non biological material. It now seems that evolution(in its current definitions) destroys this living organism the instance it leaves its "goldfish" bowl. The fact that it is a simple organism would mean that it lacks the adaptive complexity to survive outside of this "hellish" paradise. It is stuck in the cavern that it was produced in with no stress from an alien environment. It's like throwing the goldfish on the ground and telling it to evolve or die.

The only observable science I can find on dormant hydrothermal sea vents only points me to ecological succession.

Exactly. Evolve or die. Natural selection. As simple as the earliest organisms may have been, they were still capable of mutating, and every now and again, one of these mutations may have some heretofore unseen benefit. Then maybe one of these organisms may find itself in a situation that may ordinarily kill it. Thanks to this until now innocuous trait it may survive, thrive, and continue to multiply. What we have today is billions of years of this same process repeated ad nauseum.

This is all I got Bigben. I feel no shame in admitting that I am out of my league but I will never give up my curiosity to explore and learn. I most likely can't respond to any reply unless I need clarification on something that might correct my thinking. I hope that you can gather enough from my gibberish to see that I am not anti-evolution. I would be thrilled if any of my children decided to study farther into these fields. I just think to teach my child that evolution is a fact to prove the origin of life is beyond ignorance of known facts and DEFINATELY is held up by faith in the unknown. This is why I have no problem with creationism not being taught in school either. (I do find it strange that they offer mythology in high school but that is another topic)

I still don't know where people get this silly idea that evolution requires faith. Faith is belief in things unseen. A simple examination of the evidence tells you all you need to know regarding evolution.

And evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. It's the path, not the origin.

Hope your daddy doughnut day went well.

It was fun. Been years since I've been to a book fair. I bought a grumpy cat book.

And I never complain about free coffee and donuts.

[AUDub 11,147]

Is all non-biological matter a closed system?

No. A body of water, for instance, is non-biological and an open system. Earth itself is non-biological, and while it is generally conceptualized as a closed system, it is an open system.

Is this not how carbon dating works? Can you carbon date a living organism?

Carbon dating works because a living thing absorbs a radioactive isotope of carbon. When that living thing dies, it stops absorbing this isotope. You can then test for the amount of this isotope in the dead tissue and find out about how long it's been dead within several thousand years.

Therefore, you can not carbon date a living thing. It's still absorbing this isotope.

If I am correct, a living organism is an open system because it exchanges matter and energy with it's environment.

A living thing is indeed an open system, but how you arrived at the conclusion is flawed. As they say, right for the wrong reasons.

This is how I propose the 2LT restricts the jump. How can non-biological matter become a living organism? Where does the code to "exchange energy" come from?

Why does there need to be any sort of "code?" Energy would have been freely available to drive endothermic chemical reactions. Sunlight is abundant. We've been getting tons of it for at least 4.6 billion years. You mentioned hydrothermal vents, which are another abundant energy source. If get lucky enough to get one process that can replicate itself while drawing energy from its surroundings, we'd be off and running. Then it's just a matter of mutations occurring.

A few more studies on the matter. Follow the link. And check the 9th, 10th, 11th and 14th citations.

In 2001, Louis Allamandola demonstrated that organic material can be synthesized in deep space using a "Chill vacuum chamber"--a lot of biomolecules: nitriles, ethers, alcohols, ring-like hydrocarbons, and others.

In a complementary experiment, Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory discovered that: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."

In 2014, a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of RNA by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions.

To the best of my knowledge there is no non-biological matter that has the information to be an open system. We are able to "clone" because the information is still available from LIVING cells. I can't find anywhere that we can even take dead cells by themselves and clone them.

You have some severe misconceptions on closed and open systems that are severely warping your assumptions.

And we technically can clone a dead thing, if it has an intact genome.

If I clone a rock what will I get?

Rocks can not be cloned. No genome.

If we can't even "clone" singular dead cells in a lab, why are we ready to teach the origin of life as a fact?

This last sentence is built on the faulty assertions presented throughout the above post, but I will comment on that last clause.

It shouldn't be presented as fact, but it should be taught in school science class. But by your logic, neither should gravity, electromagnetism, germ theory, chemistry, etc.

Though we haven't produced anything "alive" yet, experiments like Miller-Urey and others have resulted in all of the necessary ingredients. Stuff that composes RNA or a simple precursors to proteins. This provides the most reasonable naturalistic explanation so far.

[homersapien 11,370]

I was simply explaining your misunderstanding of the second law. Something becoming more "organized" or "complex" is not a violation of the second law.

The second law is brilliantly simple: Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Energy does not flow uphill.

The formation of self replicating molecules does not violate the second law.

Please do not think that I am trying to argue from a stance of "my GOD" said so. I am honestly putting my hands into stuff that is way over my head in an attempt to better understand the debate.

So now I will propose yet another question for anyone to help answer for me.

Is all non-biological matter a closed system? Is this not how carbon dating works? Can you carbon date a living organism?

If I am correct, a living organism is an open system because it exchanges matter and energy with it's environment.

This is how I propose the 2LT restricts the jump. How can non-biological matter become a living organism? Where does the code to "exchange energy" come from?

Again I know my words may sound like toddler babble to some but please take the questions seriously.

To the best of my knowledge there is no non-biological matter that has the information to be an open system. We are able to "clone" because the information is still available from LIVING cells. I can't find anywhere that we can even take dead cells by themselves and clone them.

If I clone a rock what will I get?

If we can't even "clone" singular dead cells in a lab, why are we ready to teach the origin of life as a fact?

First, when discussing "life" you have to start with organic chemistry. Rocks don't qualify.

But the question of "life" is an interesting one. Prions can replicate themselves. Does that make them "alive"?

[Aufan59 62]

Please do not think that I am trying to argue from a stance of "my GOD" said so. I am honestly putting my hands into stuff that is way over my head in an attempt to better understand the debate.

So now I will propose yet another question for anyone to help answer for me.

Is all non-biological matter a closed system? Is this not how carbon dating works? Can you carbon date a living organism?

If I am correct, a living organism is an open system because it exchanges matter and energy with it's environment.

This is how I propose the 2LT restricts the jump. How can non-biological matter become a living organism? Where does the code to "exchange energy" come from?

Again I know my words may sound like toddler babble to some but please take the questions seriously.

To the best of my knowledge there is no non-biological matter that has the information to be an open system. We are able to "clone" because the information is still available from LIVING cells. I can't find anywhere that we can even take dead cells by themselves and clone them.

If I clone a rock what will I get?

If we can't even "clone" singular dead cells in a lab, why are we ready to teach the origin of life as a fact?

You are correct in saying that biological matter is an open system, because it exchanges matter and energy with the environment.

You are incorrect in assuming that non-biological matter is a closed system. Non-biological matter can exchange matter and energy with the environment.

The only true "closed system" is the universe (unless there are other universes that this one exchanges energy with). Closed systems are often an imaginary construct to help calculate things like the maximum theoretical efficiency of a heat engine. Entropy, derived from the seemingly common sense conclusion that is the second law, has been invaluable in many areas like chemistry and biology. That is why the second law is so interesting to me.

[AUDub 11,147]

For an interesting look at the physics aspect, aubfaninga, here is an excellent resource to get you started. I've wasted hours on it. It offers good summaries of the second law and thermodynamics in general.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

[quietfan 233]

I also have no interest in fighting the "evolution vs creation" battle again except to say (once again) that evolutionists, like all true scientists, are open to revision, correction, even rejection of ideas if the evidence exists to refute or alter them. Religion is based on the principle of universal truths that cannot or should not be questioned or altered. "Faith" means belief in things not provable. Religion, therefore, has no place in the science classroom. Doesn't necessarily mean religion is wrong, simply that religion cannot be analyzed via the scientific method and science cannot be addressed from a religious approach. The rules of golf are irrelevant in a badminton class, and badminton strategy has little or no value in golf.

But back to the original post and interview:

Asking a trade negotiator about his beliefs regarding evolution is like asking him if he likes puppies, did he watch the Super Bowl, or what he had for breakfast. They all might be interesting questions from a human interest perspective, and journalists may ask such questions because their listeners might be interested in such, but they're all irrelevant to this politician's particular job. Scott Walker refusing to answer a question regarding his personal view of evolution concerns me no more than if he chose not to discuss his opinion of puppies or his dietary preferences.

[AUDub 11,147]

I also have no interest in fighting the "evolution vs creation" battle again except to say (once again) that evolutionists, like all true scientists, are open to revision, correction, even rejection of ideas if the evidence exists to refute or alter them. Religion is based on the principle of universal truths that cannot or should not be questioned or altered. "Faith" means belief in things not provable. Religion, therefore, has no place in the science classroom. Doesn't necessarily mean religion is wrong, simply that religion cannot be analyzed via the scientific method and science cannot be addressed from a religious approach. The rules of golf are irrelevant in a badminton class, and badminton strategy has little or no value in golf.

But back to the original post and interview:

Asking a trade negotiator about his beliefs regarding evolution is like asking him if he likes puppies, did he watch the Super Bowl, or what he had for breakfast. They all might be interesting questions from a human interest perspective, and journalists may ask such questions because their listeners might be interested in such, but they're all irrelevant to this politician's particular job. Scott Walker refusing to answer a question regarding his personal view of evolution concerns me no more than if he chose not to discuss his opinion of puppies or his dietary preferences.

I disagree with this assertion for reasons I've already listed. It's not his personal beliefs I have a problem with, it's his assertion that politicians shouldn't be involved one way or another. They are and they should be. Politicians set educational policy, provide research funding, etc., so this sort of thing is relevant to their job.

If his or her personal beliefs differ, that's fine. If he or she allows those beliefs to dictate policy, that's where I have a problem.

[quietfan 233]

I also have no interest in fighting the "evolution vs creation" battle again except to say (once again) that evolutionists, like all true scientists, are open to revision, correction, even rejection of ideas if the evidence exists to refute or alter them. Religion is based on the principle of universal truths that cannot or should not be questioned or altered. "Faith" means belief in things not provable. Religion, therefore, has no place in the science classroom. Doesn't necessarily mean religion is wrong, simply that religion cannot be analyzed via the scientific method and science cannot be addressed from a religious approach. The rules of golf are irrelevant in a badminton class, and badminton strategy has little or no value in golf.

But back to the original post and interview:

Asking a trade negotiator about his beliefs regarding evolution is like asking him if he likes puppies, did he watch the Super Bowl, or what he had for breakfast. They all might be interesting questions from a human interest perspective, and journalists may ask such questions because their listeners might be interested in such, but they're all irrelevant to this politician's particular job. Scott Walker refusing to answer a question regarding his personal view of evolution concerns me no more than if he chose not to discuss his opinion of puppies or his dietary preferences.

I disagree with this assertion for reasons I've already listed. It's not his personal beliefs I have a problem with, it's his assertion that politicians shouldn't be involved one way or another. They are and they should be. Politicians set educational policy, provide research funding, etc., so this sort of thing is relevant to their job.

If his or her personal beliefs differ, that's fine. If he or she allows those beliefs to dictate policy, that's where I have a problem.

Oh, I fully agree in regards to politicians whose job/office is involved with education policy, funding research, etc.!

I was really only looking at this particular person and his particular duties in trade negotiations. I don't see a reason why beliefs about evolution are relevant there. (But I'm open to the possibility that I've overlooked some relevance.)

[AUDub 11,147]

Oh, I fully agree in regards to politicians whose job/office is involved with education policy, funding research, etc.!

I was really only looking at this particular person and his particular duties in trade negotiations. I don't see a reason why beliefs about evolution are relevant there. (But I'm open to the possibility that I've overlooked some relevance.)

Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin and a presidential hopeful. It is part of his job.

Regarding trade, it's not relevant, but the question wasn't posed with regard to trade negotiations. Probably just some silly Brit wanting to see what all of the fuss was about regarding American conservatism.

[quietfan 233]

Oh, I fully agree in regards to politicians whose job/office is involved with education policy, funding research, etc.!

I was really only looking at this particular person and his particular duties in trade negotiations. I don't see a reason why beliefs about evolution are relevant there. (But I'm open to the possibility that I've overlooked some relevance.)

Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin and a presidential hopeful.

Ahh...the relevance I overlooked. Thanks!

[AUDub 11,147]

One of his high school science teachers does not approve.

[aubfaninga 16]

One of his high school science teachers does not approve.

Nothing like a 73 year old woman saying "man up".

[homersapien 11,370]

One of his high school science teachers does not approve.

Nothing like a 73 year old woman saying "man up".

Seriously.

But she was actually complimentary. So it was a net positive: she complimented him and gave some good advice.

I hope he takes it.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

This is some heady stuff, but very interesting...addressing a question of why God might have chosen to create through evolutionary means rather than special creation:

http://biologos.org/blog/st-thomas-aquinas-and-the-fittingness-of-evolutionary-creation-part-1

[TheBlueVue 177]

Is it just me that believes the media questioning conservatives about evolution is bogus as hell? Its specifically designed in hopes of providing a gotcha moment for the liberal left media. Wonder why they never ask liberal politicians if they believe in God? Presumably, its because they know they don't and don't wish to offend those who do who just might vote for their preferred candidate.

Walker should have answered that "its above my pay grade", after all, that's what Obama said when first asked if he supported gay marriage before he decided, later on, he was for it. Another "I was against it before I was for it" moment. Liberals are always allowed to lie unabashedly and their flip flopping is explained away matter of factly as their position had "evolved." Scott walker was at an EU economics and trade event..why was the question about evolution relevant"? Simple answer, it wasn't.

[homersapien 11,370]

Is it just me that believes the media questioning conservatives about evolution is bogus as hell? Its specifically designed in hopes of providing a gotcha moment for the liberal left media. Wonder why they never ask liberal politicians if they believe in God? Presumably, its because they know they don't and don't wish to offend those who do who just might vote for their preferred candidate.

Walker should have answered that "its above my pay grade", after all, that's what Obama said when first asked if he supported gay marriage before he decided, later on, he was for it. Another "I was against it before I was for it" moment. Liberals are always allowed to lie unabashedly and their flip flopping is explained away matter of factly as their position had "evolved." Scott walker was at an EU economics and trade event..why was the question about evolution relevant"? Simple answer, it wasn't.

You have a good point. Reminds me of the question posed to the general about Obama's impact on morale....

And I am sure both were quite deliberate - an effort to provoke some news. The irony to me is that such a question would be deemed controversial at all. The GOP needs to look within to answer that.

As far as asking liberals do they believe in God, I am sure they would react the same way as conservatives to such a question: They would all say "yes", including the ones - on both sides - who really don't.

Sad to say, atheists have absolutely no chance of being elected to POTUS.

[homersapien 11,370]

This is some heady stuff, but very interesting...addressing a question of why God might have chosen to create through evolutionary means rather than special creation:

http://biologos.org/...creation-part-1

I have often said there is no inherent conflict with science and religion, so whatever works....

Regarding the essay:

As creations of God, our ability to "cause" is the one that really merits contemplation. The fact we can "cause" doesn't mean that whatever we cause is good. We succumbed to the easier and more profitable linear (non-sustainable) mode of development which produces products + waste instead of a circular (recycled) mode that feeds back to nature without waste.

Perhaps that diversion point is represented by the Garden of Eden story in the Bible?

But I digress...

[autigeremt 6,606]

The greatest gift that God has given us since the resurrection of Jesus is free will. We haven't always handled that very well, but it's still the best gift we could have received. We can set our own course in life and know that we will have to answer for our actions but we have options on the table.

That's just my opinion.

[homersapien 11,370]

The greatest gift that God has given us since the resurrection of Jesus is free will. We haven't always handled that very well, but it's still the best gift we could have received. We can set our own course in life and know that we will have to answer for our actions but we have options on the table.

That's just my opinion.

And it's a good one too!

[Aufan59 62]

The greatest gift that God has given us since the resurrection of Jesus is free will. We haven't always handled that very well, but it's still the best gift we could have received. We can set our own course in life and know that we will have to answer for our actions but we have options on the table.

That's just my opinion.

And it's a good one too! :hellyeah:/>

If we follow the evidence and our current understanding of the universe, there is little reason to think free will exists. Much like the idea of evolution makes some people uncomfortable, the idea of a deterministic or random universe can make many uncomfortable, even those who usually base their beliefs on the current scientific understanding.

Maybe in a decade or two we will be asking politicians if they believe in free will, and have various reactions to their response.

[homersapien 11,370]

The greatest gift that God has given us since the resurrection of Jesus is free will. We haven't always handled that very well, but it's still the best gift we could have received. We can set our own course in life and know that we will have to answer for our actions but we have options on the table.

That's just my opinion.

And it's a good one too! :hellyeah:/>

If we follow the evidence and our current understanding of the universe, there is little reason to think free will exists. Much like the idea of evolution makes some people uncomfortable, the idea of a deterministic or random universe can make many uncomfortable, even those who usually base their beliefs on the current scientific understanding.

Maybe in a decade or two we will be asking politicians if they believe in free will, and have various reactions to their response.

Care to elucidate?

Are you implying there is a scientific case - presumably in physics - to be made for a deterministic universe? That would be hard for me to swallow, but neither physics or philosophy are a strong suit of mine.

[Aufan59 62]

A ball falls to the ground in a predictable, deterministic way. Water boils and freezes in a predictable, deterministic way. The entire history scientific effort has been to describe how our environment behaves in a predictable, deterministic way. All of physics is evidence of a deterministic universe. Would physics even be a field of study if the universe weren't deterministic?

The only contrast to this thinking is that at the quantum level, things behave randomly (though in the aggregate they seem to behave predictably). Neither randomness nor predictability bode well for the idea of free will.

It is a hard pill for you to swallow, much like evolution is a hard pill for others to swallow, which is why I find the comparison interesting.

[homersapien 11,370]

A ball falls to the ground in a predictable, deterministic way. Water boils and freezes in a predictable, deterministic way. The entire history scientific effort has been to describe how our environment behaves in a predictable, deterministic way. All of physics is evidence of a deterministic universe. Would physics even be a field of study if the universe weren't deterministic?

The only contrast to this thinking is that at the quantum level, things behave randomly (though in the aggregate they seem to behave predictably). Neither randomness nor predictability bode well for the idea of free will.

It is a hard pill for you to swallow, much like evolution is a hard pill for others to swallow, which is why I find the comparison interesting.

I understand where you are coming from, (I think).

But I am having a hard time with the temporal aspects in applying a deterministic model to the concept of "free will". How could determinism account for options that have yet to be taken? Sure, it kicks in as soon as the option is chosen - the "present" - and the past, but I still have the freedom to choose a particular option.

What am I missing?

Is it every potential option comes with its own built-in determining factors so any conceivable option is deterministic by definition?

It's funny though. I feel pretty comfortable with randomness. (No "set-up" intended )

[aubfaninga 16]

The greatest gift that God has given us since the resurrection of Jesus is free will. We haven't always handled that very well, but it's still the best gift we could have received. We can set our own course in life and know that we will have to answer for our actions but we have options on the table.

That's just my opinion.

I can say Amen to this

[aubfaninga 16]

It is a hard pill for you to swallow, much like evolution is a hard pill for others to swallow, which is why I find the comparison interesting.