Mormonism and Evolution

[_Sethbag]

I'm not convinced that "random" really means what we all think the word means in this context. There are only so many ways in which the molecules of DNA are altered, and only so many combinations or possibilities when these things occur. It's not like literally anything is possible.

And these possibilities are "self pruning" in the sense that truly catastrophic mutations don't result in a mother getting pregnant and producing viable offspring, so that only non-catastrophic mutations even make it to the next generation to be tested in the crucible of natural selection. There's already some directionality here.

I suspect that what is possible through mutation is more "believable" once one recognizes this, rather than continuing to think that "random" mutation could have produced literally any product, so what are the odds it would produce something that actually works? Actually pretty good, because mutations that wouldn't result in viable offspring don't produce viable offspring, duh, leaving the mother to produce offspring by the "normal" and non-catastrophically mutated germ cells instead.

[_bcspace]

God micromanaging at the molecular level to "guide" evolution requires such an involvement and miracles at such a dramatic scale over such a long period of time

There is no reason why this should be so and even if it were so, you are still unlikely to detect it. Even if you built a machine that could monitor all atoms in a cubic mile of space-time (past, present, and future), you couldn't do it.

I realize that some people feel strongly that random is the only needed kind of change

Nothing is truly random. Random is merely that which is unexplainable or undetectable.

[_Tarski]

I'm not convinced that "random" really means what we all think the word means in this context. There are only so many ways in which the molecules of DNA are altered, and only so many combinations or possibilities when these things occur. It's not like literally anything is possible..

You are so right and it is an extemely important point. The point holds even before we get to the stage of genetics and biological selection. It also shows up in physics and chemistry.

The problem is that we are not dealing with pure combinatorics where any possible arrangement is not only possible but equally likely.

The relevant probability distribution is unfathomable but certainly not a uniform distribution. The arrangements of atoms and molecules are not equiprobable because of a little thing called chemistry (or physics if you like).

Indeed, a naïve and purely combinatorical probability calculation would lead one to say that Bernard convection cells are virtually impossible. Yet they form spontaneously quite often in an ordinary pan of cooking oil.

Self organization baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhImCA5DsQ0

[_asbestosman]

The relevant probability distribution is unfathomable but certainly not a uniform distribution. The arrangements of atoms and molecules are not equiprobable because of a little thing called chemistry (or physics if you like).

That's true, but won't necessarily help the cause. It could actually make the observed outcome less likely. We'd need to know the actual distribution to be sure. Most likely, though, it would indeed make the observed outcome more probable. If that weren't the case, empirically derived statistical values wouldn't be worth much if anything.

I bring up the initial objection not because I recall something similar from Dembski (possibly someone else) when he tried defending his use of a uniform distribution. I think his rebuttle is flawed for the reason I mention. As far as I can tell, it would mean we could kiss the law of large numbers goodbye if indeed we think it probable that a non-uniform probability distribution was less likely to give us the observed outcome than a uniform distribution.

And these possibilities are "self pruning" in the sense that truly catastrophic mutations don't result in a mother getting pregnant and producing viable offspring, so that only non-catastrophic mutations even make it to the next generation to be tested in the crucible of natural selection. There's already some directionality here.

That's all true, but natural selection actually slows down the rate at which the space of possibilities is explored. Without the pressure from natural selection, it'd actually take less time to get a flagellum or a human.

The answer to this puzzle is that these things would be hidden in a sea of chaos--we'd never be able to observe apparent design from all the junk without natural selection to prune things down. This slows down the search but amplifies interesting solutions in the realm of possibilities.

[_Sethbag]

I'm not sure what you mean here Abman. If I understand what you mean by the space of possibilities, I'd agree that its exploration is slowed down by natural selection. The "less fit" parts of that space end up underexplored. Do you object to this somehow?

I don't understand how you mean we'd get to a human or a flagellum sooner if natural selection pressure didn't exist. Humans are part of the space of possibilities that has in fact been explored. Given that the "less fit" parts of space aren't explored as much because the "more fit" possibilities are taking up all the resources, I would think that the "more fit" parts, including that part that contains humans, would be reached faster. If I'm misunderstanding you please clarify for me.

[_asbestosman]

I'm not sure what you mean here Abman. If I understand what you mean by the space of possibilities, I'd agree that its exploration is slowed down by natural selection. The "less fit" parts of that space end up underexplored. Do you object to this somehow?

I agre with it.

I don't understand how you mean we'd get to a human or a flagellum sooner if natural selection pressure didn't exist. Humans are part of the space of possibilities that has in fact been explored.

Yes.

Given that the "less fit" parts of space aren't explored as much because the "more fit" possibilities are taking up all the resources,

That's where the trick comes in. You re-introduced natural selection with the underlined portion. Of course, there's no way around it if resources are limited--and they are. But in a hypothetical world with unlimited resources, no death, etc. (i.e. no natural selection), the space would be searched faster than one with natural selection.

Natural selection will move averages in a particular direction, but more possibilities would be explored even faster without something to cull those on the fringes.

I say we'd have gotten human and a flagellum faster because without natural selection we would still have the line that gave us those things, but we would also have the possibility of many other paths that could have gotten there as well. It's just that natural selection is, well, natural. There's not a realistic way around it. Natural selection gives context to the species which do appear to make them interesting. Without it, everything would seem as random as static on your old analog TV.

[_DrW]

An important aspect of evolution and genetics that is seldom, if ever, brought up or even acknowledged in these creation vs. evolution threads is that of epigenetic effects.

Epigenetics is the area of biology concerned with how a given genetic code is read and expressed, and the biochemical causes and consequences of these largely environmentally determined factors.

We are learning that, while epigenetic effects are not reflected the actual DNA sequences of the genome through mutation (e.g. base pair substitution or excision), the environment can affect marker molecules or functional groups associated with the genome. These, in turn, can strongly affect growth and development and can even be passed from generation to generation.

Recent research in this area looked at the dramatic epigenetic effects of cocaine exposure, for example, and showed that biochemical and their associated behavioral changes caused by cocaine use can be found in offspring. These readily detected epigenetic changes and can conferred, maintained, and even exacerbated, by such factors as cocaine use in the parents, subsequent differences in parenting, etc.

The possible implications of these new insights in the areas of habitual behaviors such as drug addiction (and even religious belief) are quite interesting

The biochemical differences in the chromatin (DNA plus histone protein support structure) that constitute these epigenetic changes can be reliably and predictable determined and measured.

Epigenetic effects can be nearly as important in determining the quality and outcome of ones life as can inherited DNA structure.

This is because drug use, stress, parental attention in the young and a number of other environmental factors can rapidly and significantly alter gene expression. This is especially important in the very young, as witnessed in fetal alcohol syndrome, and other effects of pre-natal and post-natal abuse and neglect.

With these insights, it is becoming more difficult to disentangle the effects of nature from those of nurture. I find it interesting that as our understanding of both genetics and epigenetics increases, the knowledge and understanding gaps in which God can operate become ever smaller.

And, at the end of the day, all of the religionist / creationist arguments for a God guided creation boil down to "God of the gaps" arguments.

[_Franktalk]

....That's all true, but natural selection actually slows down the rate at which the space of possibilities is explored. Without the pressure from natural selection, it'd actually take less time to get a flagellum or a human......

That is true if you don't place limits on population. An exploding population can give all kinds of combinations a chance to exist. But in the real world bounded by reality there are certainly constraints on population. Then as we all know the pressures of the environment allows some to shine and some to fade away.

But the bigger problem is that most mutations are deleterious and if not fatal they gather in the genome at large. This off balance of deleterious verses beneficial mutations is impossible for the theory at this time to embrace. So species with low birth rates and low death rates do not have a working mechanism of change except for a nose dive into extinction. Unless someone finds that current rates of mutations are in error or beneficial mutations are more common than what is observed today the theory is in serious trouble.

Here is a link to an article that sheds light on this issue.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.long

The statement here is pretty clear.

"Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed."

[_asbestosman]

"Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed."

Stephen Hawking in one of his books mentions that genetic evolution is slow compared with the rate at which our brains are able to help us adapt and survive. I think humans are to the point where the biggest thing we have to fear is whether we're going to destroy ourselves though mismanaging the planet's resources or by killing each other, not some slow decline in human genetic fitness. Even if we don't come up with genetic interventions, we are able to invent many things to take care of the problems--from eye glasses and LASIK surgery, to triple bypass surgery and pacemakers. We haven't cured cancer, but we have many ways to treat various types of cancer.

[_Franktalk]

Stephen Hawking in one of his books mentions that genetic evolution is slow compared with the rate at which our brains are able to help us adapt and survive. I think humans are to the point where the biggest thing we have to fear is whether we're going to destroy ourselves though mismanaging the planet's resources or by killing each other, not some slow decline in human genetic fitness. Even if we don't come up with genetic interventions, we are able to invent many things to take care of the problems--from eye glasses and LASIK surgery, to triple bypass surgery and pacemakers. We haven't cured cancer, but we have many ways to treat various types of cancer.

I happen to believe that we are designed to last just so long before the next reset of the design but like I said it is a belief. If indeed the future is as this article predicts then our offspring should have designed (human) DNA to eliminate the defects. I wrote a novel about this very subject as the main theme in the story. This winter I am going to write the screen play. I have never done that before. Who knows. I do have some contacts in Hollywood but that is always a roll of the dice. But it will keep me busy in the winter. I will keep my day job.

But if we find no other data which overturns these conclusions then we are in decay and not getting better. I find it interesting that the Bible describes this very thing.

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

This may refer to age but it also may refer to a wearing out of the design.

and another

Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

This one is more general in nature so it appears as though man in general will wear out. It may not mean a thing but I do find it interesting.