Evidence of God-Guided Evolution vs Scientific Evolution

[JLives]

Q:How long has nylon been around?
A:Nylon was invented by Wallace Carothers in 1935.

Q:Could a living creature possess the genetics to digest Nylon prior to nylon's invention?
A: No.

Q: If such a creature existed would it have required new information and a complete evolutionary change to digest nylon?
A: Yes.

Q: Is there a creature that has evolved the ability to eat nylon?
A: Yes.

Nylonase / The Nylon Bug is a bacteria that has evolved to eat nylon. Its change is so vast that over 80% of its genome shifted to bring about this change, making a new species of bacteria. This is called speciation and it's proof of evolution.

[steven lloyd]

I'm curious. How many posters here actually deny evolution ???

I certainly believe in it.

[NAB]

I'm curious. How many posters here actually deny evolution ???

I certainly believe in it.

Me too. The problem I have is trying to figure out why there is such an argument between evolution theory and creationist theory. They are two different things no? ...i.e. there was creation, and what was created evolved? ;-)

Nab

[Tumult]

The holy grail of theoretical physicists is to find one set of equations to describe everything. They haven’t done that yet but there is a large consensus that it will happen soon. In other words they operate on the assumption that there is only one reality even if it is complex and difficult to understand. We could all be wrong, of course. I wonder if you think magic is at the heart the apparent “duel” nature of matter at the quantum level?

I think ignoring the energy nature of reality prevents them from finding a "theory of everything". Quantum ideas about countless probabilities collapsing into the reality we experience and multitudes of dimensions to explain things represent a diverse and more than singular aspect of reality. Personally, I think consciousness is the underlying "fabric" of reality. Treating reality as only particles is ignoring an elephant in the room.

Adaptive mutation (purposeful evolution) doesn't require creationism, ID or any god but it does challenge orthodox evolution's view that all mutation is random. The idea that organisms receive information from the environment and alter their gene expression to adapt has actually been called "heresy" in a mainstream science journal. Dismissing evidence because it doesn't match an entrenched viewpoint is bad science. What I've been trying to point out is that within science valid ideas are sometimes held back by entrenched viewpoints despite legitimate evidence. Some people believe these types of biases don't occur in science and that is in my opinion naive.

[steven lloyd]

I'm curious. How many posters here actually deny evolution ???
I certainly believe in it.

Me too. The problem I have is trying to figure out why there is such an argument between evolution theory and creationist theory. They are two different things no? ...i.e. there was creation, and what was created evolved? ;-)

Nab

Adaptive mutation (purposeful evolution) doesn't require creationism, ID or any god but it does challenge orthodox evolution's view that all mutation is random. The idea that organisms receive information from the environment and alter their gene expression to adapt has actually been called "heresy" in a mainstream science journal. Dismissing evidence because it doesn't match an entrenched viewpoint is bad science. What I've been trying to point out is that within science valid ideas are sometimes held back by entrenched viewpoints despite legitimate evidence. Some people believe these types of biases don't occur in science and that is in my opinion naive.

Well, one thing we can be quite certain is not true is that there will ever be a complete answer to everything or one set of equations to describe everything.

[katzenjammer]

". Quantum ideas about countless probabilities collapsing into the reality we experience.”
That,Tumult, is one fine description of quantum mechanics. I like it.

A couple of things, ---I doubt anyone working in the field believe that “reality” is only particles—remember Einstein E=MC2? Matter = Energy.
The idea that “consciousness is the underlying fabric of reality” is a hypothesis that has been around for some time and I like that also. I don’t reject out of hand any hypothesis about the nature of reality including the god concept. I have been for some time been contemplating the idea that time and space may only exist as part of our consciousness and matter may be more than 99.9999999999% nothing but a fuse blows out somewhere and I am unable to digest it.

Getting back to the topic, it is exactly “entrenched viewpoints despite legitimate evidence” that I spend time (and amusement) arguing about. I don’t like the way some theists grab hold of some perfectly legitimate idea- like god -and turn it into some crass religious dogmatic nonsense which ultimately leads to “SILENCE—or I kill you”.

[Tumult]

A couple of things, ---I doubt anyone working in the field believe that “reality” is only particles—remember Einstein E=MC2? Matter = Energy.

While in theory this is understood, a large portion of physicists rely on ignoring the energy nature of all things to promote their understandings. Quantum reality is mind boggling and it's natural to work in a more Newtonian understanding of reality, unfortunately this can be problematic when energy concepts are introduced that have philosophical ramifications that are damaging to Newtonian ideas about reality.

The idea that “consciousness is the underlying fabric of reality” is a hypothesis that has been around for some time and I like that also. I don’t reject out of hand any hypothesis about the nature of reality including the god concept. I have been for some time been contemplating the idea that time and space may only exist as part of our consciousness and matter may be more than 99.9999999999% nothing but a fuse blows out somewhere and I am unable to digest it.

I suggest looking into holographic ideas about the universe, as they have an interesting way of incorporating problematic reality concepts.

Getting back to the topic, it is exactly “entrenched viewpoints despite legitimate evidence” that I spend time (and amusement) arguing about. I don’t like the way some theists grab hold of some perfectly legitimate idea- like god -and turn it into some crass religious dogmatic nonsense which ultimately leads to “SILENCE—or I kill you”.

I too spend time (and amusement) discussing the same thing but I hope to keep science's followers from making the same mistakes religious followers have been making for thousands of years! Shall we say dogmatism in any camp inhibits beneficial growth of understandings?

[steven lloyd]

I don’t like the way some theists grab hold of some perfectly legitimate idea- like god -and turn it into some crass religious dogmatic nonsense which ultimately leads to “SILENCE—or I kill you”.

Ya, a whole lot of that going on around here

[katzenjammer]

Good! Essentially we are all in agreement.

[steven lloyd]

Good! Essentially we are all in agreement.

Well, except for the idea there will ever be a complete answer to everything or one set of equations to describe everything and that science alone will ultimately explain everything.

[JLives]

I don't think we will ever have the answers to everything either. Each new discovery brings on a whole new set of questions.

[zzontar]

I believe there is an answer or explanation for everything, but knowing there's an answer and having it are two separate things.

[katzenjammer]

Good! Essentially we are all in agreement.

Well, except for the idea there will ever be a complete answer to everything or one set of equations to describe everything and that science alone will ultimately explain everything.

My mistake

[steven lloyd]

Good! Essentially we are all in agreement.

Well, except for the idea there will ever be a complete answer to everything or one set of equations to describe everything and that science alone will ultimately explain everything.

My mistake

[Tumult]

There is a purpose. Prepetuation of the species. Everything in life comes down to that at it's most basic. Humans like to think we are special and must be here for a greater purpose than other species but really it's all about eating, not getting killed and making babies.

This is dangerous territory as the idea that our purpose of existence is merely to procreate can lead to such ideas as Thornhill & Palmer's hypothesis that "the natural urge to rape" is a product of evolution. Male rapists, then, are in accordance with fulfilling the evolutionary purpose (of their genes). Add that to (mainstream science's) materialist ideas about consciousness (it is merely an illusion of the physical functioning of the brain) and the idea that rapists can't control themselves because of their genes has scientific backing. Scary stuff.