Before beginning, my position on evolution is not Creationism, as others try to pitch for me. My attitude toward the Bible and Genesis is that these symbols reflect the evolution of the modern human mind and consciousness leading to civilization. I do not take symbols literally, but symbolically. Symbols are a collective human language and not a specific cultural language. This is the trap some religious members and all of atheism seem to fall into.
The formation of life from basic chemicals and the subsequent biological evolution is a separate issue with science providing plenty of good data, but partially erroneous theory. The genetic side is strong, but the natural selection side is out of touch with cause and effect. What I hope to do is go through cause and effect logic to help this humanistic side of the theory of evolution, evolve.
The reason my approach differs is because my education is chemical engineering and polymer science and not biology. I look at the same observations in a different way. I like to do energy balance around a cell to see where the engine is and how energy is distributed. This allows me to see things other have missed. It also places practical limits on empirical reality.
Let me redevelop my first premise, which is natural selection is an effect resulting from a cause.
If you look at a group of animals, natural selection will reduce this information and biological complexity to fewer alternatives, such as through breeding and survival. This loss of complexity, from a larger group, reflects lowering entropy. After breeding, the next generation increases entropy again via genetic diversity and more offspring. Then natural selection thins this down to less complexity, etc.
In terms of entropy, higher entropy reflects the spontaneous direction of entropy. Lower entropy is not spontaneous, but requires work to achieve. Since natural selection lowers entropy in nature, it can't be a fundamental cause of evolution, but needs to be an effect. Another cause has to apply work to create the affect which we call natural selection.
This inference may seem backwards, relative to the traditions of evolution, but this is only because the current version of natural selection is mythology; mother nature. Again, the genetic side of evolution is fine. However, knowing cause and effect for natural selection has even implications at the genetic level.
The question becomes, if natural selection is an effect, what is the cause?
The formation of life from basic chemicals and the subsequent biological evolution is a separate issue with science providing plenty of good data, but partially erroneous theory. The genetic side is strong, but the natural selection side is out of touch with cause and effect. What I hope to do is go through cause and effect logic to help this humanistic side of the theory of evolution, evolve.
The reason my approach differs is because my education is chemical engineering and polymer science and not biology. I look at the same observations in a different way. I like to do energy balance around a cell to see where the engine is and how energy is distributed. This allows me to see things other have missed. It also places practical limits on empirical reality.
Let me redevelop my first premise, which is natural selection is an effect resulting from a cause.
If you look at a group of animals, natural selection will reduce this information and biological complexity to fewer alternatives, such as through breeding and survival. This loss of complexity, from a larger group, reflects lowering entropy. After breeding, the next generation increases entropy again via genetic diversity and more offspring. Then natural selection thins this down to less complexity, etc.
In terms of entropy, higher entropy reflects the spontaneous direction of entropy. Lower entropy is not spontaneous, but requires work to achieve. Since natural selection lowers entropy in nature, it can't be a fundamental cause of evolution, but needs to be an effect. Another cause has to apply work to create the affect which we call natural selection.
This inference may seem backwards, relative to the traditions of evolution, but this is only because the current version of natural selection is mythology; mother nature. Again, the genetic side of evolution is fine. However, knowing cause and effect for natural selection has even implications at the genetic level.
The question becomes, if natural selection is an effect, what is the cause?