|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modularity, A distinguishing property of life | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
No life was on the Earth a really time ago, but now there is life. So therefore life just popped into existence all by itself, regardless of whether or not it's been scientifically demonstrated. There is nothing else to surmise because there couldn't possibly be any other explanation I'm willing to entertain. It goes against my deepest philosophical views. The end. This is not what he said, paraphrased or not. Abiogenesis means life from non-life. If at one point there was no life, and at some subsequent point there is, by definition, the life had to have come from "nonlife", thus abiogenesis. Now, the precise method of abiogenesis is being debated and investigated, but unless you can come up with an argument whereby there was no life, but life somehow then caused life...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Hyroglyphx's complaint is about expressions of, in your words, "complete certainty," and even after this short exchange of messages between us I think it very likely that he'll interpret use of the word "fact" as an expression of the "complete certainty" he objects to as inappropriate to science. Abiogenesis is an extremely obvious inference in the context of methodological naturalism where characterization as a fact would not be misinterpreted, but in the broader context of discussions like this that includes supernaturalism and even the Christian God then simple claims of "It's a fact" are bound to be misconstrued. The way I'm reading what Mr Jack is saying, and I would agree with this is that abiogenesis is akin to evelution in that "Evolution" is a fact, but the Theory of Evolution is still being studied and refined as we get more evidence. In this case "Abiogenesis" is a fact in that there is life here and there was no life at some point. NO matter how you slice it (with the possible exceptions of time travel paradoxes or multiple universes that can be crossed to or from) life came from non-life. Even if God or the supernatural did it, it didn't come from life as we define it. So, abiogenesis is a fact, the Theory of Abiogenesis (the materialistic one) is still being studied and refined. Edited by Perdition, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
What would you call a hunk of radioactive plutonium?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
You're right. I let frustration get the better of me.
However, Hyroglyphx almost seems to be consciously interpreting things wrong, such as the example of the seed that sits on a shelf and could either be used to grow a plant (alive) or cannot be used in such a way any more(dead) and the fact that you can't tell the difference until you plant them and thus can't tell when death occurred. He simply waved his hand and said the example didn't count. If he can't tell the difference between the living seed and the dead seed, how can he continue to assert that you can tell the difference between living and non-living matter in all cases?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
The processes of life and the processes of machines can be compared and similarities can be seen, but conflating the two is a very bad move to make.
A machine is something created by an intelligent, living, creature. To date, the only machines we know have are created by man. Life, is not created by anything intelligent, and so cannot be called a machine. The fact that there are similarities is that we often copy living processes in our machine designs. There is no grand conspiracy to hide the designed aspects of life, there are no willfully blinded people who cannot see the overwhelming evidence you profess to have, there is no there there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
It proves to me that complex specified information in the genome was created by an intelligent designer. What does it say COULD NOT have evolved, and what evidence does it show for this? Is it any better than an argument from incredulity? If so, we have on another thread shown that if you calculate the sheer numbers, the probability of life evolving from non-life approaches 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
We have fossilized bacteria that existed 3.8 billion years ago. Scientists have determined that these bacteria are the same species that exist today. As Mr Jack has said, this is false, and even were it true, would not be a problem for evolution if the environment hadn't significantly changed, the species wouldn't necessarily change either.
Therefore, there should have been a minimum complexity threshold for the sophisticated features of microorganisms. I don't know what this means, but it sounds like gibberish to me.
Also, science has never proven that complex specified information was created by any sort of random process or self-organization. Self-organization only gives us redundant information such as crystals. Science has never shown it's impossible, and in fact, we have seen many instances of information being created. It's not hard, and in fact, happens all the time. Again, false. Self-organization gives us new information if the form of self-organization is imperfect (as DNA replication is).
The book gives us many different ways science has attempted to solve the DNA information mystery. There are way to many to list here. The DNA Information Mystery is only a mystery to creationists and other people who misunderstand the Information Theory. Perhaps you should try and learn what that says as opposed to what creationists say it says.
I believe it was Fred Hoyle described abiogenesis, from the viewpoint of creating it through sort of random process, would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747. The tools of the tornado would be too blunt and crude. It would be extremely unlikely for a tornado to create a 747, aren't we lucky that that has no bearing on evolution or abiogenesis, or the theory would be dead in the water. Since evolution and abiogenesis aren't random, we have no reason to draw this analogy, isn't that great?! We have torn down another misconception and lie and in the process made evolution even stronger! That was your goal with that gem of a PRATT, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Even if it isn't a science it has explanatory powers that you refuse to see but deep down some of you know that I am right. What are these explanatory powers? I don't know of any predictions ID makes that can be tested, and I'm not aware of any explanations for phenomenon we see in the world that can't be explained by a purely naturalistic process. I ask again, what is there, either in ID or in your favorite book, that can't be explained by a naturalistic process and why do you think it is the case? Edited by Perdition, : quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
It seems to me that "respond" implies an element of choice among possible responses, and attempting to select an optimal response. If someone asks a question we usually try to respond by answering coherently and usefully. The automatic door mechanism has no choice. If it receives the electrical signal, the door opens. I do not think of machines as responding. There are many responses that life makes that have no choice behind them. Reflexes are one for humans, but if we get down to lower orders of life...do plants have a choice to follow the sun? Do sea slugs have a choice to contract when touched?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
To a certain degree, yes. If the plant is overheating from absorbing too much sun, some plants have the option of letting their leaves hang more vertically, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight aborbed, and heat which must be dissipated by evaporation of water. This typicaly results in a midday dip in photosynthetic rate. If the level of sunlight is persistently lower than what the plant can use for photosynthesis,and leaf position with respect to sunlight has been optimized, plants make more chlorophyll in the leaves, becoming noticeably darker green, thereby increasing the efficiency with which sunlight is trapped. Also, as plants grow, they tend to grow about 3 layers of leaves, because that is usually sufficient to trap almost all of the available sunlight. If the water supply of the plant is insufficient to meet its needs for evaporative cooling, it will shut its stomates, thereby depriving itself of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, and causing the leaves to heat up unless the plant reduces the orientation of the leaves toward sunlight. Bottom line: a plant's response to sunlight is modulated by several interacting environmental factors. But are those choices or just more reactions to stimuli without the benefit of choice. For example, if a plant is overheating, can it decide "Screw it, I want to be hot!" and keep it's leaves horizontal and continue to receive all the sunlight available? I wouldn't think so. The plant simply reacts to stimuli like a computer reacts when an input is performed. When a doctor hammers on your knee and you get that reflex reaction to kick, can you decide not to kick just to mess with the doctor? If so, that's a very neat trick you have there. Response implies nothing about intent or decision, it mearely means a reaction caused by a stimulus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
But the reason we perceive reality is for the purpose of survival. Since we have survived as a species for millions of years then it follows that the way we perceive reality is perfect for that purpose. I agree with your larger argument, that saying our perceptions are not eprfect begs the question, but I have to disagree with this. The fact that we, as a species, have survived merely shows that our perceptions are adequate for that purpose, not perfect.
Can it be better? Well that depends. Better for what? This, to me, is the crux of the argument. By bringing up the fact that there are phenomena outside our perception, Filameter is implying that perceiving those phenomena would be "better." But if you've ever looked at an infraredscope that shows you the differences in heat, it would be so overwhelming that it would lead to input overload. If we could see different parts of the EM spectrum, such that different temperatures were viewed as different colors, we would lose the colors we see them as now. How can anyone claim that seeing those colors are better than seeing the colors we see now? It could be that our perceptions have perfectly weeded out the unnecessary phenomena and allowed us to see the aspects that really matter. While some people see those "important" aspects imperfectly does not mean that there are not people out there who do see them perfectly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I knew I would get nailed on the use of the word "perfect," I just didn't know how else to express it. I agree with the way you re-wrote it - adequate seems like the better word. Yeah, nit-picky, but that's usually all I can comment on here.
And for other species, like say bats, other sensory functions have developed that aid them in their environment, adequately. How unnecessary would it be for a bat to develop the vision we use? Likewise, how necessary would it be for us to perceive reality the way bats do? I think the point Filameter is failing to see is that senses evolve to suit the environment, not to suit the individuals desires. Exactly. A bat can sense soundwaves in a way much different than us, but were we to have a bat's abilities would it make our lives better? I highly doubt it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
One quibble:
Also, humans are able to survive short-term in space and in ocean deeps, despite never having previously had to. How do you think those capabilities evolved without subjecting our ancestors to a relevant selection pressure ? Living in space or deep in the ocean is not an evolved ability. If I dumped you in space or in the deep ocean without any technological support, you would die. Period. We have developed technology to overcome our inability to live in areas we have not eveolved to live in.
What is/was the evolutionary advantage which selected us, but no other primate, for loss of body hair ? 1) Different environment. Plains vs. jungles.2) Not all traits that evolve are purely by improved life expectancy. Some of it is sexual selection, which is often a detriment to survival, or plain ol' genetic drift. How would having poorer vision, hearing and smell improve our species' chances of survival ? Perhaps because each increase in ability requires energy to produce the brain regions sufficiently to discern minor differences in smell or color or brightness, etc, which then requires energy to run, and takes up space that could be used for other mental faculties. If you'll notice, animals with the most sensitive sense in one area generally have less acuity in another sense. (Similar to how a person lacking one sense compensate by developing another sense to a higher than normal degree.) We don't need to be able to see like an owl, hear like a bat or smell like a bloodhound, so it is an unnecessary waste of energy to develop the brain regions controlling sight, smell and hearing to those degrees, and doing so would require the space that we currently use to think, reason and imagine or a head shape that would prohibit us being born through the female hip/pelvic structure.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024