I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  KateWild

  My point is that if we naively imagine different cells where one cell produce 100% left-handed molecules, another produce 90% left handed and so on then the cells that produced predominantly left-handed amino acids would have a benefit over the others and, accordingly, evolution would select for them. In other words this seems like a straight-forward problem to explain with natural selection. - Bhom

  I see your point. It's more biology based as you mention cells, but understand that you conclude this is evidence for natural selection.
  

  For this to be a real challenge for evolution, I suppose one would have to argue that machinery that only produced molecules of one particular symmetry could not have evolved for some specific reason; but I haven't seen such an argument. - Bhom

  Yes I see your point. I am not challenging evolution, I have concluded that evolution is guided. I see that molecules formed of a specific symmetry because they were guided by autocatalysis. You may disagree.
• 

  konceptual99

  So what is your conclusion?

  I don't know Kate. I don't understand the subject enough to see there being a problem with this at all. Is the dominance of L/H molecules a problem? Is this simply just a case of natural selection at work? Are you saying that something is guiding the chemical process so that only L/H molecules are formed in living things? Why can this not be natural selection?
• 

  bohm

  I have concluded that evolution is guided. I see that molecules formed of a specific symmetry because they were guided by auto-catalysis.

  Just to clarify: You have concluded that the evolution of these molecules are guided by auto-catalysis (a natural process), but how do you then go from concluded that their evolution is guided by a natural process to being guided by God? Isn't this in contradiction?

  Presumably, auto-catalysisis not violating any laws of nature?
• 

  KateWild

  Autocatalysis means that the reaction is being guided automatically. - Kate

  No it doesn't...why do you suggest that? - Notsure

  Apologies it's my definition, you're right. The actual definition is the catalysis of a reaction by one of it's products. Catalysis is to speed up the reaction.

  I have read your link, I am not sure what specifically you wanted to point out to me, but personally I don't like bias science. I don't feel creationist scientists, or evolutionist scientists are credible. Science is impartial. science does not try and prove the existence or absence of a creator. Experiments and their results are factual. And people are free to draw their own conclusions.

  Quote me the specific part you wanted me to know.
• 

  KateWild

  Presumably, auto-catalysisis not violating any laws of nature? - bhom

  Lol yes I see your point. I also see that having these laws of nature, is evidence of guidance. But I don't disagree I just have a different perspective.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I studied my BSc at university for two years and did a sandwich placement. Then I got a career without completing my dissertation in my final year. I think I am qualified as having an HND or level 2 BSc degree. They are both equivalent. I was on target for getting a 2.1 not a First by any means. It was a means to an end, and I got a job

  Ok, thanks Kate. It was a bit of an awkward question, and I wasn't trying to put you down - there are graduates who get firsts because they can ace exams but aren't practical and therefore are fairly useless in the lab, there are also graduates who get lower class degrees but retain a solid understanding and are practical, work hard, etc. and therefore might be better prospects for employment or even post-grad study.

  I was simply trying to gauge your level of ability/understanding (although as said above, a first class degree isn't necessarily a measure of potential).

  And a 2.1 is pretty good, IMO.
  
  
• 

  bohm

  Lol yes I see your point. I also see that having these laws of nature, is evidence of guidance. But I don't disagree I just have a different perspective.

  So what you are really proposing is the argument of natural laws, i.e. the existence of laws (such as those guiding auto-catalysis and other chemistry) implies the existence of a creator?
• 

  KateWild

  Are you saying that something is guiding the chemical process so that only L/H molecules are formed in living things? Why can this not be natural selection? - K99

  Good point, this is exactly what Bhom's conclusion is too. I think both perspectives are valid, but neither are absolute yet. In time science will have conclusive evidence, until then we can only draw conclusions from what we have.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Kate, why do you refer anything in it is "guided"?

  In the article I link it states:

  One idea is that groups of molecules can form autocatalytic sets. These are self-sustaining chemical factories, in which the product of one reaction is the feedstock or catalyst for another. The result is a virtuous, self-contained cycle of chemical creation.

  Which shows nothing is guided...they continue:

  They begin by deriving some general mathematical properties of autocatalytic sets, showing that such a set can be made up of many autocatalytic subsets of different types, some of which can overlap

  Ok...I understand that, then they conclude:

  They go on to show how evolution can work on a single autocatalytic set, producing new subsets within it that are mutually dependent on each other. This process sets up an environment in which newer subsets can evolve.
  “In other words, self-sustaining, functionally closed structures can arise at a higher level (an autocatalytic set of autocatalytic sets), i.e., true emergence,” they say.

  Thus evolution of life, with no guidance...

  Where are you referring to that any of this is "guided"?
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Good point, this is exactly what Bhom's conclusion is too. I think both perspectives are valid, but neither are absolute yet. In time science will have conclusive evidence, until then we can only draw conclusions from what we have.
  Kate xx

  Right but couple the conclusion Bhom comes to and add other factors...like:

  • Is there any other evidence for a diety?
  • Has there been any other communication with a diety?
  • Is there any other evidence in other areas out with Chemistry that lean towards evolution?
  • Etc etc?

  You can't isolate this one point, which i still don't see how you come to the conclusion you arrive at, and say it means there is a diety WHEN you factor in all other evidences for a god or evolution...because evolution wins hands down every time when you base it on facts...the facts lean heavily towards there was no divine intervention from anything to get to where we are...