Why do theists reject evolution?

Highlighted

How did Nature invent mathematics ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The processing of relational values via algebraic functions, as an emergent evolutionary process, along with the self-organization of fundamental elements.
Natural selection itself is a natural mathematical function.

List of mathematical functions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_functions

Relative to an operator (c.q. a group or other structure)
These properties concern how the function is affected by arithmetic operations on its operand.
The following are special examples of a homomorphism on a binary operation:

• Additive function: preserves the addition operation: f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y).
• Multiplicative function: preserves the multiplication operation: f(xy) = f(x)f(y).

Relative to negation:

• Even function: is symmetric with respect to the Y-axis. Formally, for each x: f(x) = f(−x).
• Odd function: is symmetric with respect to the origin. Formally, for each x: f(−x) = −f(x).

Relative to a binary operation and an order:

• Subadditive function: for which the value of f(x+y) is less than or equal to f(x) + f(y).
• Superadditive function: for which the value of f(x+y) is greater than or equal to f(x) + f(y).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_functions

In Nature, mathematical functions are the Logical processing operations between inherent relational values, expressed as measurable and codifiable patterns. i.e Fibonacci Sequence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

↑

Response by Write4U ;

To your last statement ;

So Natural Selection has nothing to do with living entities , and the ecology in which these living beings are in ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This may help;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

So the answer is that the concept of Natural Selection applies to everything in the Universe.
In fact, Abiogenesis is the result of Evolution by Natural Selection in chemistry.

 

Highlighted ; how so ? Explain clearly what your thinking is here .

 

I think you are in danger of so generalising the term natural selection that it becomes meaningless.
It is analagous to the use of the term evolution. We speak of the evolution of galaxies, of planetary systems, of political idologies, of species. We do so because there are common elements in each, the most prominent being change. Informed persons understand these differences and context tells them which is referenced in each instance.
Such is not the case with natural selection. It is used specifically for biological evolution. I assert that broadening the term, as you have done, introduces unnecessary ambiguity. Such usage should be avoided until a strong argument for such an extension has been made and has been accepted by the scientific community.

 

I urge you to watch Robert Hazen explain several possible paths to Abiogenesis, the evolutionary process from purely chemical reaction to the self-organization of bio-chemistry and the evolving complexity of living systems.

You are asking to explain the 14.7 billion year evolutionary history of the Universe in a few short sentences. That just cannot be done. Do watch the Robert Hazen lecture at Carnegie Academy for Science. It is really, really interesting and thought provoking.
If you start the video @ 12.00 you can skip the lengthy (and boring) introduction.

Robert Hazen disagrees with you. He proposes (and demonstrates) that natural selection is a mathematical function that occurs at the dynamic molecular level as much as it does in the living biological world.

 

The difference between bio-chemistry and chemistry is what , Write4U .

 

Irrelevant. Until such a concept has been accepted as consensus science by then casual declarations by anonymous individuals on the internet are counterproductive. There are, broadly, two options. You say:

• . . . exactly what you have been saying, asserting that "natural selection is a mathematical function that occurs at the dynamic molecular level as much as it does in the living biological world". Thereby you imply, very strongly, that this is now an established fact.
• Hazen has an interesting take on this. I think it has merit and would be worth your while looking at more closely.

Even with the best critical thinking faculty in the world it is difficult not to reject option 1 as the biased opinion of a "fan" who has been captured, thoughtlessly by a clever idea. Option 2, in contrast, evokes interest and encourages a fair examination of the concept.

It's something you might keep in mind. Or you could ignore it and have many of your future thoughts ignored because they were overly tainted with uncritical enthusiasm.

 

Abiogenesis!

 

Just google the question . The difference between bio-chemistry and chemistry . Well you problably already know Write4U , had you read my last few days thread responses .

The difference , Bio-Chemistry is based on Carbon ; ..........While Chemistry is not .

That Life manipulates matter to Lifes needs .

 

Why always this knee-jerk prejudicial rejection of "current" science. Personally I find it insulting to be treated as if I am some wide eyed novice, unable to make my own critical assessment of what I am reading.

Have you watched the Hazen presentation? If not, don't be too hasty in your prejudicial poo-pooing of this esteemed scientist.

If you don't know about Hazen, then by all means watch the first 12 minutes of the presentation which is a lengthy summation of Hazen's accomplishments.

Testimonials

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/professors/robert-m-hazen/

 

Utter nonsense......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It costs money , several hundred dollars , to get to see and listen to his ideas . I don't like it at all .

 

Look it up for your self .

 

Oh dear, you don't have access to Youtube?

Here, I'll post it once more: Make sure you skip the first 12 minutes to avoid a lengthy introduction. Click the arrow.

Carbon is a Chemical Element, not an organic compound. It is a pure chemical as listed on the Table of Elements.

Carbon
This article is about the chemical element.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Carbon, 6C

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Graphite (left) and diamond (right), two allotropes of carbon
Carbon
Allotropesgraphite, diamond, others
Appearance

• graphite: black
• diamond: clear

Standard atomic weight Ar, std(C)[12.0096, 12.0116] conventional: 12.011

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#

WMAP- Life in the Universe - Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy ...

Life emerged from non-Life. In a dynamic environment this is remarkable, but not mysterious......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nope. Chemistry includes carbon. Organic chemistry focuses on carbon; that may be what you are thinking of. But it's still chemistry.

 

Carbon and Life go together for some reason .

Life Energy goes where it can exist ; Where it can manifest . The Carbon Atom gave Life , on Earth , Lifes best chance to manifest , to exist .

 

Yes on both counts obviously. It is in reality the only scientific answer available, other then universal Abiogenesis that we call Panspermia.

 

As imo the greatest educator of our time says, we are all star stuff!!