Evidence for God from Science

I don't know if this is a stupid question.
Why if we came about through purely naturalistic processes do organisms wind down and eventually die, wouldn't it be more beneficial for the organism to self repair and remain alive for as long as possible.
*edit* If evolution is an unguided process wouldn't this have been the pinnacle of the evolutionary process and after billions of years of chance how come this hasn't come about yet?

Dan

Well, from a purely naturalistic point of view the length of an organisms life doesn't necessarily confer a competitive advantage. Any length of life after an animal reproduces is relatively meaningless in terms of any competative advantage.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well, from a purely naturalistic point of view the length of an organisms life doesn't necessarily confer a competitive advantage. Any length of life after an animal reproduces is relatively meaningless in terms of any competative advantage.

But would't it then have more opportunity's to reproduce hence making it's life still meaningful?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well, from a purely naturalistic point of view the length of an organisms life doesn't necessarily confer a competitive advantage. Any length of life after an animal reproduces is relatively meaningless in terms of any competative advantage.

But would't it then have more opportunity's to reproduce hence making it's life still meaningful?

Remember, only those genes that are being expressed during an organsims reproductive years are going to have an effect on the organisms's fitness. So one theory explains that those genes that influence longevity are never under selective pressure, because they are being expressed most after an organism's reproductive years.

In selection, it's not just survival that plays a role, in fact reproduction can play a bigger role, for if an organsim only lives to 5 years but reproduces more than an organsim that lives to ten years, the former still passes on more genes than the latter....

So genes that play a role in longevity are not necessarily selected out.

That's one theory that I have read.

Well, length of life might allow for more reproduction cycles and more offspring which could confer a competitive advantage, or if as in the case of higher mammals the offspring could have a longer period of time of reproduction and nurture leading to a higher survival rate. The point is, for the most part, in terms of natural selection once an animal has reproduced and is finished with it's contribution to the next generation, any additional time may bring "meaning" to the individual but the impact to the species is done.

Start off with short life span limited reproductive time frame

naturalselectionmutation▼▼hypotheticaladaptiveprocess

Longer time frame for reproduction in species

naturalselectionmutation▼▼hypotheticaladaptiveprocess

more interspecies competition less genetic variation in population

envronmentalshock▼▼rapidgrowthadaptionneccesary

species cannot adapt because there would be less reproductive units due to competition and the ones
that exist make big families which reduces genetic variation in population.

▼▼▼

Another species that can stand shocks takes over.

Thank you, I think I understand the process of death and it's role within natural selection.


I knew it was a stupid question

No it wasn't. Any question that leads to understanding is a good question.

Natural selection is pretty well demonstrated as a means of explaining how evolution works in terms of which populations within species or species competing with one another. If my science history is right, a lot of people think that Darwin came up with the concept of evolution, and the fact is that it was put forward by others before him as well. The thing that Darwin brought to the equation was the process of natural selection which provided an explanation that previously was missing for how evolution by natural means would explain why some populations or species were successful where others weren't.

Natural selection has been well observed since then and it's not by itself anything that needs to be denied or feared by Christians. At the time of Darwin, it provided an explanation of elements that previously were attributed as specific evidence of God's existence and influence in His creation. So natural selection at that time had a significant impact upon some who now having a natural method to explain what before was attributed solely to God used that as a justification for adopting an agnostic or atheistic point of view.

Looking back on it, what this demonstrated is the danger of employing a "God of the Gaps" type argument where you assert God as the answer to any question in terms of processes or natural properties that can't be explained currently. The danger of that is if you make that type of assertion and then it's later proven that there is an explanation that doesn't require God then you basically hand the stick to beat you to those who want to argue that God is just a human construct used to explain the unexplainable. Of course, it's nothing like that. A "natural process" is not evidence of either the existence of God or the absence of God.

The same thing can be done from the other perspective. There's a corresponding "Science of the Gaps" that can be employed in the opposite direction that assumes that every question has an answer that can be or will be found given enough time and effort. That's no more a given than asserting that no explanantion will ever come.

Canuckster1127 wrote:No it wasn't. Any question that leads to understanding is a good question.

Natural selection is pretty well demonstrated as a means of explaining how evolution works in terms of which populations within species or species competing with one another. If my science history is right, a lot of people think that Darwin came up with the concept of evolution, and the fact is that it was put forward by others before him as well. The thing that Darwin brought to the equation was the process of natural selection which provided an explanation that previously was missing for how evolution by natural means would explain why some populations or species were successful where others weren't.

Natural selection has been well observed since then and it's not by itself anything that needs to be denied or feared by Christians. At the time of Darwin, it provided an explanation of elements that previously were attributed as specific evidence of God's existence and influence in His creation. So natural selection at that time had a significant impact upon some who now having a natural method to explain what before was attributed solely to God used that as a justification for adopting an agnostic or atheistic point of view.

Looking back on it, what this demonstrated is the danger of employing a "God of the Gaps" type argument where you assert God as the answer to any question in terms of processes or natural properties that can't be explained currently. The danger of that is if you make that type of assertion and then it's later proven that there is an explanation that doesn't require God then you basically hand the stick to beat you to those who want to argue that God is just a human construct used to explain the unexplainable. Of course, it's nothing like that. A "natural process" is not evidence of either the existence of God or the absence of God.

The same thing can be done from the other perspective. There's a corresponding "Science of the Gaps" that can be employed in the opposite direction that assumes that every question has an answer that can be or will be found given enough time and effort. That's no more a given than asserting that no explanantion will ever come.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't know if this is a stupid question.
Why if we came about through purely naturalistic processes do organisms wind down and eventually die, wouldn't it be more beneficial for the organism to self repair and remain alive for as long as possible.
*edit* If evolution is an unguided process wouldn't this have been the pinnacle of the evolutionary process and after billions of years of chance how come this hasn't come about yet?

Dan

I think in the universe - general entrophy comes into play and that is in escapable.

It is coming.