# Why do theists reject evolution?

No need, I agree...
IMO, every "functional" pattern we can observe is a result of evolutionary processes. It all started from chaos from which orderly and functional patterns emerged, by means of "natural selection" over time.

The Fibonacci sequence is no mere mathematical accident. It fills the required needs for efficiency in several growth patterns, such as the efficient organization of maximum number of seeds in a sunflower head.
Over time Nature favors those patterns which have gradually increased in mathematical complexity for the most efficient use of energy.

Sunflowers show complex Fibonacci sequences
By John BohannonMay. 17, 2016 , 7:15 PM https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/sunflowers-show-complex-fibonacci-sequences

IMO, the patterns arise in response to necessity of efficiency and the maximum number of surviving seeds in the new generation. It is a extended function of "natural selection" affording the greatest chance for succesful reproduction, but real life is messy and offspring is not always perfect in spite of the mathematical "guiding equations" in the DNA growth coding.

The occasional reproductive errors are often the deterministic factors for "natural deselection" (culling) offspring for everything. Farmers practice this type of natural selection intentionally. It just takes Nature longer as it is more probabilistically distributed and functions without intent.

p.s. Wireless communications now use the Fibonacci sequence in the production of the most useful antennas, with the greatest surface area and response to a large range of wave frequencies.

Natura Artis Magistra (Nature is the teacher of Arts, and Science).
Humans did not invent mathematics, Nature did and all we did was codify and symbolized it.

Highlighted

How did Nature invent mathematics ?

Highlighted

How did Nature invent mathematics ?
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
In mathematics, some functions or groups of functions are important enough to deserve their own names. This is a listing of articles which explain some of these functions in more detail. There is a large theory of special functions which developed out of statistics and mathematical physics.
A modern, abstract point of view contrasts large function spaces, which are infinite-dimensional and within which most functions are 'anonymous', with special functions picked out by properties such as symmetry, or relationship to harmonic analysis and group representations.
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:

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:
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.

Last edited:

How did Nature invent mathematics ?

Response by Write4U ;

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.

To your last statement ;

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

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 ?
This may help;
Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. (Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.)
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.

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 .

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.
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.

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

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.
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.

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 .

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.
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.

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

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

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 .

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.
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
I loved Professor Hazen's enthusiasm and his humanity. I really appreciated the brief (sometimes fascinating) stories he told about the scientists behind the science. I'm so glad to have watched this course." "Dr. Hazen is a truly gifted scientist with the best general overview of science I've yet encountered. A superb lecturer who makes you feel like a graduate student working alongside him. A real joy to watch and hear."
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/professors/robert-m-hazen/

Last edited:
The difference , Bio-Chemistry is based on Carbon ; ..........While Chemistry is not .
That Life manipulates matter to Lifes needs
Utter nonsense......

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/

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

river said:
The difference , Bio-Chemistry is based on Carbon ; ..........While Chemistry is not .
That Life manipulates matter to Lifes needs

Utter nonsense......

Look it up for your self .

It costs money , several hundred dollars , to get to see and listen to his ideas . I don't like it at all .
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.
river said; The difference , Bio-Chemistry is based on Carbon ; ..........While Chemistry is not.
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.

Carbon, 6C
Graphite (left) and diamond (right), two allotropes of carbon
Carbon
Allotropes
Appearance
• graphite: black
• diamond: clear
Standard atomic weight Ar, std(C)[12.0096, 12.0116] conventional: 12.011
Carbon forms a vast number of compounds, more than any other element, with almost ten million compounds described to date,[19] and yet that number is but a fraction of the number of theoretically possible compounds under standard conditions. For this reason, carbon has often been referred to as the "king of the elements".[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#
Carbon and oxygen were not created in the Big Bang, but rather much later in stars. All of the carbon and oxygen in all living things are made in the nuclear fusion reactors that we call stars. The early stars are massive and short-lived. They consume their hydrogen, helium and lithium and produce heavier elements.Feb 26, 2016
When these stars die with a bang they spread the elements of life, carbon and oxygen, throughout the universe. New stars condense and new planets form from these heavier elements. The stage is set for life to begin. Understanding when and how these events occur offer another window on the evolution of life in our universe.
WMAP determined that the first stars in the universe arose only about 400 million years after the Big Bang. But what made the stars?
WMAP- Life in the Universe - Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy ...
That Life manipulates matter to Life's needs
Life emerged from non-Life. In a dynamic environment this is remarkable, but not mysterious......

Last edited:
The difference , Bio-Chemistry is based on Carbon ; ..........While Chemistry is not .
Nope. Chemistry includes carbon. Organic chemistry focuses on carbon; that may be what you are thinking of. But it's still chemistry.

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 .

In fact, Abiogenesis is the result of Evolution by Natural Selection in chemistry.
Life emerged from non-Life. In a dynamic environment this is remarkable, but not mysterious......
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!!