The Homing Pigeon and Evolution

[savagewind]

I read your posts. I haven't got a response for you because we are starting from very different premises. Your view of the universe is more anthropomorphic than mine, and you see harmony where I see a universe teetering on a razor's edge between order and chaos.

Thank you for your kind answer.

My point was the laws of nature so far are unchanging. Do you believe they are changing? Do you have an example?

 

[Alceste]

Thank you for your kind answer.

My point was the laws of nature so far are unchanging. Do you believe they are changing? Do you have an example?

No, physical laws do not change. I'm using law in the scientific sense though, not the layman's sense.

 

[savagewind]

No, physical laws do not change. I'm using law in the scientific sense though, not the layman's sense.

Yes I am too. Chaos, according to you, is partly made up of something (law in the scientific sense) that does not change.

Isn't it antithesis?

The definition of chaos is constant change (or the real possibility of it). Do you believe in the possibility that what you say does not change, will?

Will the laws of nature change rendering them a real part of chaos?

How is chaos able to contain an unchanging reality?

 

[Alceste]

Yes I am too. Chaos, according to you, is partly made up of something (law in the scientific sense) that does not change.

Isn't it antithesis?

The definition of chaos is constant change (or the real possibility of it). Do you believe in the possibility that what you say does not change, will?

Will the laws of nature change rendering them a real part of chaos?

How is chaos able to contain an unchanging reality?

The law of chaos is entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics. And no, I don't believe the law will change.

I see no conflict between the concept of chaos and the concept of an empirically validated law that predicts entropy. Maybe we define chaos differently. I'm not thinking of anarchy, or "anything goes", I'm thinking of dying stars, black holes, the vastness and emptiness of space, the inevitability of death and decay, etc.

 

[savagewind]

The law of chaos is entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics. And no, I don't believe the law will change.

I see no conflict between the concept of chaos and the concept of an empirically validated law that predicts entropy. Maybe we define chaos differently. I'm not thinking of anarchy, or "anything goes", I'm thinking of dying stars, black holes, the vastness and emptiness of space, the inevitability of death and decay, etc.

Yes. The inevitablity of death and decay is governed in a way by that which does not die or decay. "Natural laws do not change". means they do not die or decay like the rest of everything. Force, which is energy, is not able to be destroyed like the rest of everything is.

Do you understand? THAT Something that even YOU believe is different, I call God. The different reality is the universe that does not change is GOD. I will take my freedom to say what I will and apologize for saying "that" while I believe that is WHO. I believe God is who, not that. No person does not feeling insulted if another person calls her "that". That is for inanimate objects. So yes, I am personifying the different entity that exists for the universe. We both believe there is something different out there. Someone calls it Law. I call Law my Father.

 

[Alceste]

Yes. The inevitablity of death and decay is governed in a way by that which does not die or decay. "Natural laws do not change". means they do not die or decay like the rest of everything. Force, which is energy, is not able to be destroyed like the rest of everything is.

Do you understand? THAT Something that even YOU believe is different, I call God. The different reality is the universe that does not change is GOD. I will take my freedom to say what I will and apologize for saying "that" while I believe that is WHO. I believe God is who, not that. No person does not feeling insulted if another person calls her "that". That is for inanimate objects. So yes, I am personifying the different entity that exists for the universe. We both believe there is something different out there. Someone calls it Law. I call Law my Father.

Ok. I call it physics.

 

[FearGod]

One wonders why God "directed" the mantis shrimp to be a super-fab death machine at the bottom of the sea.

And why the earth is threatened by the asteroids which may strike anywhere at any time.

 

[savagewind]

Ok. I call it physics.

Thank you. Physics is fine. Is it not wonderful that physics does not fit the pattern?

You have said physics or the laws of nature do not change. Do you believe physics will never change? Yes? Isn't that resting faith on it?

 

[Alceste]

Thank you. Physics is fine. Is it not wonderful that physics does not fit the pattern?

You have said physics or the laws of nature do not change. Do you believe physics will never change? Yes? Isn't that resting faith on it?

Physics IS the pattern, both the order and the chaos.

I don't base my opinion on anything on faith. But the laws of physics do not change. That's the very definition of a law. If it were to change, it would not be a law of physics. So I'm basing my opinion on what those words mean, not on faith. Is there any possibility that what we call laws COULD change? Beats me - all that stuff is beyond me. But if physicists say no, I'm inclined to accept their opinion.

 

[FearGod]

Wiki.

Some species develop (or evolve) to have very unique and special abilities. Like us, we evolved a brain that can reason and think on a much more advanced level than any other animal.

The Mantis Shrimp can see 16 colors instead of the 3 that we can see.

Many animals have unique abilities because of evolution.

That's how evolution works.

The answer is very easy,all those sophisticated and amazing things that found in some creatures is due to the unconscious nature,randomness and chances shaped our world,that is the science of nature,no laws and no rules and here it is what a wonderful world.

 

[Alceste]

The answer is very easy,all those sophisticated and amazing things that found in some creatures is due to the unconscious nature,randomness and chances shaped our world,that is the science of nature,no laws and no rules and here it is what a wonderful world.

You've probably already been told this a hundred times, but evolution is not random.

 

[Ouroboros]

The answer is very easy,all those sophisticated and amazing things that found in some creatures is due to the unconscious nature,randomness and chances shaped our world,that is the science of nature,no laws and no rules and here it is what a wonderful world.

Not quite.

Of course there are laws and rules.

And since we can see that life evolves in this wonderful nature, the God that is creating is Nature. We can see it. That's why it's true. A God that created all these lifeforms that we see forming even today just logically impossible. How can they be created thousands of years ago and not show until now? God is hiding them all under his bed and just bring them out magically to our world at given intervals? And how come experiments have been done where they have analyzed and sequenced the DNA during the experiment can show how it changes, by itself, by nature, and how it has more misses than hits, but it hits most of the time, not always, but it does sometimes, and it does so in a randomishy way, but with selective pressure causing it to take directions because the natural environment just is what it is. The world is the way it is because it is the way it is. Evolution is happening regardless if we want to accept it or not. How and why it is happening is your own preference, but it still is happening. The "randomishy" thing is like the randomishy way radioactivity works. The half-life of an element is statistically consistent, but the actual particles dropping their energy levels are random. Random in the small. Predictable in the large. That's how evolution is too. Random in the mutations, but predictable in the natural selection (there's even math to show it--some math geniuses wrote some books in the past, and new ones are made today to, containing math derived from the statistical nature of evolution).

Take the nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon didn't exist 100 years ago. It's a human invention. It's a material that is not natural in the world. But, lo and behold, some years ago a bacteria evolved the ability to eat it. We're not in any danger yet that our clothes will just fall of our bodies, but the bacteria did (of course) not exist before nylon existed. Why would God create a nylon eating bacteria 6,000 years ago when nylon didn't exist yet?

 

[savagewind]

Physics IS the pattern, both the order and the chaos.

I don't base my opinion on anything on faith. But the laws of physics do not change. That's the very definition of a law. If it were to change, it would not be a law of physics. So I'm basing my opinion on what those words mean, not on faith. Is there any possibility that what we call laws COULD change? Beats me - all that stuff is beyond me. But if physicists say no, I'm inclined to accept their opinion.

Physics rule the order and the chaos. God is the reason it knows how.

 

[McBell]

God is the reason it knows how.

You know this how?

 

[savagewind]

You know this how?

You did not read my posts. Your bad, not mine. Haha

 

[McBell]

You did not read my posts. Your bad, not mine. Haha

Which post number addresses this point?

 

[Alceste]

Physics rule the order and the chaos. God is the reason it knows how.

As I mentioned, I don't anthropomorphise physics. It doesn't know anything. It just is. But different strokes for different folks. You can call whatever you want to God and it doesn't bother me a bit. It doesn't interest me to debate stuff at the edge of human understanding, though, because it is extremely probable that we are both wrong.

 

[savagewind]

Which post number addresses this point?

tHIS ONE:

We know for sure that offspring are more or less copies of their originator/s. The theory of evolution is a perfect witness of that fact.

Everything we know originated out of force and the law of nature. Correct?

Is it fair to apply the rule to it?

Everything we know is subject to change. Everything came out of force and law. So force and law changes too.

But force and law does not change. The unchangeableness of force and law proves to me it comes from something (Someone) who is unchangeable.

Where did force and law come from in your opinion? If they have always been a part of the universe why don't they change like the rest of the universe does?

That is my proof. It is fine if you call it no proof. I do not care.

 

[FearGod]

Of course there are laws and rules.

ِwhere those laws and rules came from ?

And since we can see that life evolves in this wonderful nature, the God that is creating is Nature. We can see it. That's why it's true. A God that created all these lifeforms that we see forming even today just logically impossible. How can they be created thousands of years ago and not show until now? God is hiding them all under his bed and just bring them out magically to our world at given intervals? And how come experiments have been done where they have analyzed and sequenced the DNA during the experiment can show how it changes, by itself, by nature, and how it has more misses than hits, but it hits most of the time, not always, but it does sometimes, and it does so in a randomishy way, but with selective pressure causing it to take directions because the natural environment just is what it is. The world is the way it is because it is the way it is. Evolution is happening regardless if we want to accept it or not. How and why it is happening is your own preference, but it still is happening. The "randomishy" thing is like the randomishy way radioactivity works. The half-life of an element is statistically consistent, but the actual particles dropping their energy levels are random. Random in the small. Predictable in the large. That's how evolution is too. Random in the mutations, but predictable in the natural selection (there's even math to show it--some math geniuses wrote some books in the past, and new ones are made today to, containing math derived from the statistical nature of evolution).

Take the nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon didn't exist 100 years ago. It's a human invention. It's a material that is not natural in the world. But, lo and behold, some years ago a bacteria evolved the ability to eat it. We're not in any danger yet that our clothes will just fall of our bodies, but the bacteria did (of course) not exist before nylon existed. Why would God create a nylon eating bacteria 6,000 years ago when nylon didn't exist yet?

To you god is the nature and then everything is part of God,but are you sure that what you think about is correct,so again that is assumptions and kind of philosophy.

We have discussed this before about who existed first,the matter which is nature or life or both started at the same instant.

You agree that nature is God and everything is part of God,so what difference it makes if God is one and he is creating every things.

Do you think atheists will try to debate you about your Gods or your Gods is accepted to them and very welcomed.

Regarding your example of the Nylon Bacteria then it is still Bacteria and will still be bacteria,what about humans,can we stay alive eating Nylon and then new species evolved and then will be named as Nylon Human.

 

[Ouroboros]

ِwhere those laws and rules came from ?

From itself.

Just like you think of a God who creates them using laws and rule that applies to himself because they're in his nature, the laws and rules of existence are inherent in existence in nature itself. The nature of Nature is what it is.

To you god is the nature and then everything is part of God,but are you sure that what you think about is correct,so again that is assumptions and kind of philosophy.

This is the conclusion I've come to by being a Christian for 30 years, atheist for 10, and then realizing that there's a middle ground that fits with science and reality.

We have discussed this before about who existed first,the matter which is nature or life or both started at the same instant.

All things exist. There's no first.

You agree that nature is God and everything is part of God,so what difference it makes if God is one and he is creating every things.

"Created" is a word I don't like because it implies a conscious and planned thought. I don't believe the world is that well planned. It's very chaotic.

Do you think atheists will try to debate you about your Gods or your Gods is accepted to them and very welcomed.

I'm certain they will. I consider myself both an atheist and naturalistic panentheist at the same time, simply because the former is the philosophical and fundamental position, the latter is the spiritual result from it.

Regarding your example of the Nylon Bacteria then it is still Bacteria and will still be bacteria,what about humans,can we stay alive eating Nylon and then new species evolved and then will be named as Nylon Human.

Humans are still a bipedal animal with arms and legs and skull, just like apes. Humans are still apes in that sense. We belong to the primate order just like gorillas and chimpanzees.

When it comes to a bacteria that has changed that much, because of its small size and much smaller genome, the radical change is on a much larger scale than if we would grow wings. It's so radical and large in change in the bacteria that it's pretty much like a new species.

Also, consider that the bacteria didn't have the genes for this ability some 50 years ago. It came from somewhere. It came from mutations. In other words, Evolution is right. That's how it works. In the small scale, do it a million times, and you have large scale. Just like a Riemann Sum.