Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Your presumption that higher complexity is a natural bottom up process is largely based upon the assumption that there is no higher creative intelligence to guide the process of evolution....

Quite wrong.  The TOE is based on evidence; it is essentially a statement of what we observe.  It isn't based on some negative assumptions about higher powers. Evolution is a fundamental aspect of life and we observe life in the lab and in the field. We see that we live in an imperfect world, cell copying errors occur and this provides diversity and raw material for selection processes to act on.  There isn't any evidence for some inexplicable outside forces acting on this; and quite frankly the idea of some designer god setting up things this way, using an apparently natural mechanism and disguising his interventions as random copying errors is bizarre. With unlimited powers why use such a long winded torturous route to achieve design aims, and why go to such elaborate lengths to disguise his hand so that we would never suspect the truth of the matter.  Why the immense deceit ?

[wigginhall]

This idea has come up before, that a higher intelligence would spend billions of years, innumerable generations of animals, periodic extinction events, to arrive at present conditions,  and also disguise its handiwork - well, droll is an understatement.  Why would it do that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

This idea has come up before, that a higher intelligence would spend billions of years, innumerable generations of animals, periodic extinction events, to arrive at present conditions,  and also disguise its handiwork - well, droll is an understatement.  Why would it do that?

There you go with your materialist blinkers on again. Can you really not see (copyright: A Burns) that god is spiritual so, um, you know, well...anything at all really.

Glad I've cleared that up for you.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That’s not a point (a genetic mutation is a change in the DNA sequence), and your primary mistake was to tell torri "you have this quite wrong" remember?

Why not start with an apology for that?

No
Torri was referring to cell mutations occurring during his normal lifespan which will not change his DNA, which is defined at birth.

If our DNA changes during our lifetime, it would render the use of DNA in crime investigation to be not reliable.

Mutations occur at the reproductive stage.

[Stranger]

Torri was referring to cell mutations occurring during his normal lifespan which will not change his DNA, which is defined at birth.

If our DNA changes during our lifetime, it would render the use of DNA in crime investigation to be not reliable.

Mutations occur at the reproductive stage.

All mutations change the DNA of the cells involved. If a mutation is in somatic cells, then they aren't passed on and are not relevant to evolution, if they occur in reproductive cells (like eggs and sperm) they can be passed on and are relevant.

See:
The effects of mutations
What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?

DNA evidence is not based on an entire sequencing of the genomes of individual cells.

[jeremyp]

You have this quite wrong, Torri.
The mutations are passed on through your DNA, which is fixed from birth and does not alter over time.

Absolutely not true.

Each time a cell divides there is a very small but finite chance of a mutation. The cells involved in reproduction are many such divisions removed from the sperm and the egg that fused to start the process of making you.

[jeremyp]

But if pressing wrong key actually destroyed some of the progress being made you could end up back at the start.

You can't presume that all non beneficial mutations are neutral.  Some are obviously detrimental.

Ever heard of cancer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No
Torri was referring to cell mutations occurring during his normal lifespan which will not change his DNA, which is defined at birth.

If our DNA changes during our lifetime, it would render the use of DNA in crime investigation to be not reliable.

Mutations occur at the reproductive stage.

Nope. You told torri “you have this quite wrong”. He didn’t have it wrong at all though – which is why you should apologise to him.

As for the rest, of course errors sometimes occur as cells replicate. This isn’t surprising because each cell tries to copy and transmit to its daughter cells the identical sequence of some three billion nucleotides. 

Altered nucleotide sequences can be passed down through cellular generations to the next, but only if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes can they be transmitted to subsequent generations of the organism.

DNA sampling by the way doesn’t entail sampling the entire genome, so your attempted point about that fails too. 

[Alan Burns]

OK
I was aware that mutations can occur when there is a copying error in the DNA molecule, and I had presumed that this occurred at the reproductive stage, but I now realise that it can occur as the DNA is replicated throughout the body.  For this error I do apologise.

[Alan Burns]

Quite wrong.  The TOE is based on evidence; it is essentially a statement of what we observe.

Actual observations of evolution by natural selection in action show it to be effective as a fine tuning process on something which is already highly complex.  However, there is little observed evidence to show it to be providing any substantial increase in complexity.

[torridon]

Actual observations of evolution by natural selection in action show it to be effective as a fine tuning process on something which is already highly complex.  However, there is little observed evidence to show it to be providing any substantial increase in complexity.

There is plenty of evidence from palaeontology and genetics. Reconstructions of the history of life on Earth reveal early life to be the simplest forms, single celled prokaryotic archaea; the more complex eukaryotes appeared later in the timelime with the proliferation of yet more complex vertebrate lifeforms in the Cambrian 500 mya.

All this insight is in the public domain; it is not like we are living in some pre-internet era with limited education.  Information is there, just a click away for those wishing to seek knowledge and understanding,

[Stranger]

Actual observations of evolution by natural selection in action show it to be effective as a fine tuning process on something which is already highly complex.

That's what we'd expect to see because that's how evolution works; lots of small "fine tuning" adding up over vast amounts of time. I'm not sure what you mean by "already highly complex". As torridon said, we see a clear progression in complexity in the fossil record and genetics.

However, there is little observed evidence to show it to be providing any substantial increase in complexity.

Of course you're not going to see a giant leap in complexity (increase or decrease; both can happen) over short timescales. Evolution has been at it for about 4 billion years. What we do have is a theory that explains the evolution of complex organisms, overwhelming evidence that that is indeed what happened on Earth, and no evidence at all for any "higher creative intelligence".

Unlike your notion of freedom, we can't logically rule out some sort of intervention, just as we can't rule out Last Thursdayism, but as torridon and wigginhall pointed out, it would be a bizarre way for some creator to go about things. Why would it put all that effort into making it look exactly as if it had all happened by random mutation and natural selection?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Actual observations of evolution by natural selection in action show it to be effective as a fine tuning process on something which is already highly complex.  However, there is little observed evidence to show it to be providing any substantial increase in complexity.

Oh dear. Before you have your latest error (the standard creationist trope of, “OK, I can see microevolution in the lab so I have to accept it but I can’t see macroevolution in the lab, therefore there’s no evidence for it”) corrected (there’s overwhelming evidence for it, involving common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level) just out of interest why do you make ludicrous assertions like this when even just some cursory reading would tell you why you’re wrong?

[Enki]

Actual observations of evolution by natural selection in action show it to be effective as a fine tuning process on something which is already highly complex.  However, there is little observed evidence to show it to be providing any substantial increase in complexity.

How about the experiments which created functional two chamber hearts from simple one chamber hearts in sea squirts. I would have thought that this would count as a considerable increase in complexity.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060930094021.htm

[Alan Burns]

How about the experiments which created functional two chamber hearts from simple one chamber hearts in sea squirts. I would have thought that this would count as a considerable increase in complexity.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060930094021.htm

Which indicates what can be achieved by intelligently driven interaction with the process of genetic reproduction.

How long have sea squirts been in existence?
Why hasn't the natural process of evolution given them the advantageous two chamber heart?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Why hasn't the natural process of evolution given them the advantageous two chamber heart?

1. That mutation may not have occurred.

2. Even if it did occur, perhaps it didn't convey sufficient advantage for the adaption to become embedded in the genome.

You may as well have asked why hasn't evolution put our kneecaps on the backs of our legs so we don't bang them on coffee tables.

You really, really need to read something about evolution before posting about it again.

Really though.   

[Enki]

Which indicates what can be achieved by intelligently driven interaction with the process of genetic reproduction.

How long have sea squirts been in existence?
Why hasn't the natural process of evolution given them the advantageous two chamber heart?

Alan,  no one said that it was particularly advantageous to sea squirts, but that it demonstrates that relatively small changes can have quite large effects. Get to grips with the argument.

The last paragraph sums it up:

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing to drive anything. Things happen naturally because of the way things naturally are and naturally happen.

So are you implying that there is nothing driving you to write the content of your post?
Does it all just happen naturally?

It is desperately sad that a man like Captain Robert Fitz-Roy committed suicide because of his deeply ingrained religious beliefs not long after  The TofE was published. It rocked his beliefs to the core. It was he who invented storm cones, and many other superb innovations. How much had to wait for too long a time to be invented because he killed himself too soon?

You seem to have found one very unfortunate victim who could not see beyond the TOE and realise that it exposes more questions than it answers.  Fortunately there are millions who realise that this theory can't be used to disprove the existence of God or our own spiritual nature.

[BeRational]

AB

The theory of evolution says nothing about god(s).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So are you implying that there is nothing driving you to write the content of your post?

Depends what you mean by “driving”, but if you mean some sort of third party little man at the controls for which there’s neither supporting logic nor evidence, then yes.

Does it all just happen naturally?

That’s what all the available reasoning and evidence tells us, yes.

You seem to have found one very unfortunate victim who could not see beyond the TOE and realise that it exposes more questions than it answers.

A remarkable assertion. What “more questions than answers” do you think it “exposes”, and why?

Fortunately there are millions who realise that this theory can't be used to disprove the existence of God or our own spiritual nature.

And the straw man fallacy to finish. No-one does say that the ToE does “disprove the existence of god”. What people who actually know something about it do say though is that one of the gaps into which the claim “god” was previously inserted no longer exists.

It’s simple enough.

[wigginhall]

But we know that the existence of God can't be disproved.  I suppose Alan sees that as a virtue, but it's not.

[Sebastian Toe]

Does it all just happen naturally?You seem to have found one very unfortunate victim who could not see beyond the TOE and realise that it exposes more questions than it answers. 

Whereas your assertion of "souls" doesn't?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

But we know that the existence of God can't be disproved.  I suppose Alan sees that as a virtue, but it's not.

It's an old trope: frame the conjecture to be unfalsifiable, then imply that its non-falsification tells you something about its existence. Russell's teapot again. 

[Enki]

So are you implying that there is nothing driving you to write the content of your post?
Does it all just happen naturally?You seem to have found one very unfortunate victim who could not see beyond the TOE and realise that it exposes more questions than it answers.  Fortunately there are millions who realise that this theory can't be used to disprove the existence of God or our own spiritual nature.

Of course the TOE doesn't disprove the existence of God. That isn't even its object. However what it does do is demonstrate that no god is actually needed as an explanation for the variety of life on this earth. Evolution happens. There is plenty of evidence for this. The TOE is a well supported theory on how it happens. As to it 'exposing more questions than it answers', that's the fascination of science, it doesn't rest on its laurels, it constantly questions, seeks evidential answers and,in so doing hopefully extends our understanding.

What have you got? A belief that there is a god who has masterminded everything, not even any god, but one particular god. And what evidence have you that he/she/it exists?  None at all, except your personal beliefs and experiences. As to a spiritual nature, which I assume is associated with your 'soul' idea(please correct me if it isn't,) there again is no evidence whatsoever, only your personal beliefs and experiences.

[jeremyp]

Why hasn't the natural process of evolution given them the advantageous two chamber heart?

Perhaps it did, but the two chambered heart animal underwent other evolutionary change and is now no longer recognisable as a sea squirt.

Perhaps there are other factors in the natural environment that prevent two chambered heart sea squirts from being successful. Sea squirts don't fossilise very well, so we only have a very incomplete record of the variety of species that have existed.