I conclude evolution is guided (page 3)

KateWild

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? - Bhom

Well, not exactly. I just conclude that with my knowledge and understanding of chemistry, evolution is guided, and does the definition of natural mean "happened by chance" or "guided"?. Both are valid and possible. I think my conclusion is more probable, and you think yours is. Science will I am sure give us the facts in the near future.

LoveUniHateExams

Ok, let's say evolution is guided.

But, again, guided for what purpose? To what end?

Kate?

shepherdless

I studied chemistry (both organic and inorganic) decades ago at Uni, and I remember learning about isomerism, and that all DNA is left hand spiral. Back then, the lecturers didn't have a definite answer to that. So I probably know more than the average Joe, but am no expert.

I started writing a lengthy explanation, and then thought, "what's the point".

The link given by notsurewheretogo appears to deal with part of the abiogenesis issue. I would add that one possible (indeed obvious) explanation is that DNA molecules form so incredibly rarely that the first DNA molecule that formed would have had a massive head start on any subsequent one that formed. I could add numerous paragraphs to explain this in detail, but...

More importantly, because DNA chains are so lengthy, it is impossible for the descendants of any DNA life form to have DNA spiral in the opposite direction.

In simple terms, all DNA life forms have left hand DNA, because all DNA life forms had one common ancestor.

Whatever way you look at it, this is actually (further) proof of evolution. Maybe a "creator" created the first DNA molecule, but certainly hasn't controlled the process since.

KateWild

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: - Notsure

Okay so you conclude that autocatalytic set evolved without guidance. Fair enough. I view this as guidance. The very premise of what catalysts do and their purpose leads me to this conclusion. But your conclusion is just as valid.

KateWild

Maybe a "creator" created the first DNA molecule, but certainly hasn't controlled the process since. - shepherdless

This is a good point too. And I do agree with it. It's a bit like JWR, someone created the site, someone else took it over, then it was shut down. Some creator's are guilty of not maintaining their creation. Not Simon though, he maintains his creation well.

LUHE, Sorry I missed your question twice. Apologies. In my view I think anyone who creates anything does it for the purpose of fun, investigation and learning. Do you agree?

notsurewheretogo

Okay so you conclude that autocatalytic set evolved without guidance. Fair enough. I view this as guidance. The very premise of what catalysts do and their purpose leads me to this conclusion. But your conclusion is just as valid.

But I only conclude that when I add it to other areas in the evidence for evolution...I read and digest as much evidence there is for evolution in the many fields...do the same for creationists (well not really evidence but much like your OP) and then comes to a general, educated conclusion...

What other areas do you feel add testimony to your OP? Because you can't really conclude it was guided based on this one point alone...

konceptual99

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.

I'm not drawing any conclusions as yet. I've understood the flow of the argument such that the presence of just L/H in living things does not disprove natural selection as the process that determined this. Equally it is not possible to disprove this result as being due to the guidance of a deity.

The question then is why you think it is guided? Why does the evidence lead you to that conclusion. The process in itself can be the result of natural selection, it doesn't need a "god of the gaps". So why the need to attribute it to a deity?

LoveUniHateExams

Sorry I missed your question twice - ok, no worries.

In my view I think anyone who creates anything does it for the purpose of fun, investigation and learning. Do you agree? - well, life can certainly be fun and learning is good.

I'm just not sure that God guided this.

Ok, let me try and make sure we're all on the same page: evolution happened, it's just a question of whether God guided it.

So, Adam and Eve weren't literal persons and there was no fall from perfection.

When I consider evolution I find it hard to see guidance. Most offspring don't make it to breeding age, most species have gone extinct, etc.

Now, atheists and other non-religious people can say "life can be harsh, lots of species have gone extinct, many individuals won't make it to adulthood but that's just the way life is, unfortunately". But for believers in God, well I mean, did God guide this? Did he mean it so that most species go extinct? So that most individuals die before their natural lifespan ends?

KateWild

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...- Notsure

The reason you don't see how I come to my conclusion is that you have drawn your own conclusions that you are happy with and you feel they are absolute. You have misunderstood me and my title also. You state we have to factor in evidence for god or evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. My title is "I conclude evolution is guided" I know evolution is a fact and I don't dispute it at all.

But if you don't think my conclusion is valid, that's okay. It's only my conclusion so far.

KateWild

So why the need to attribute it to a deity? - K99

It's not a necessity for me. It's just my conclusion.

I conclude evolution is guided

Share this