|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Grand Theory of Life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Peg writes: complexity does not come together by chance The process of natural selection is not governed by chance at all. Mutations can come about by chance, geological incidents (meteor/comet impacts) can come about by chance, even the universe itself on an atomic level has some weird element of quantum "chance" that cavediver could probably explain quite nicely. But natural selection, the primary driving force behind the gradual emergence of greater degrees of complexity, is certainly not chance.
Miller sees natural selection as one of the essential paths to complex life forms. Such a mechanism gives species the ability to filter out what doesn’t work and leave what does. Professor Miller echoes this notion, saying Natural selection is a distinctly non-random process that acts as a sieve through which genetic changes are filtered. Just as a sieve filled with various rocks will not end up filtering out its contents randomly, natural selection does not filter organisms randomly.
source at forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com Edited by Briterican, : Added Peg's name to the first quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Note: ICANT's questions were directed at cavediver, I just can't help but give my opinions as well.
ICANT writes: Would you agree that if abiogenesis is impossible there would be no life form to evolve? This equates to "Would you agree that if no life came to exist then there would be no life form to evolve? ... which just doesn't make sense. Of course if no life form came to exist then there would be no life form to evolve.
ICANT writes: Would you agree that if the God of Genesis created all the different kinds as stated in Genesis there would be no need for evolution beyond that which is observed and reproducible in a species?
What if the planet is hit by a comet tomorrow and only a very few creatures survived? In order for those creatures to survive over another vast millions of years (like the ones preceding us did), they would have to adapt to a new environment, and natural selection would take hold with a dramatically different set of variables to work with. A proper contemplation of the vast backdrop of geological time available on this planet prior to our emergence is necessary in order to envision the process of natural selection. The above example is only intended as a hypothetical "wipe the slate clean" situation, with the intent of asking you: "What would happen then?" Do YOU think that natural selection would, over a vast stretch of future time, lead to new species and greater complexity? Or would God have to show up and save the day in some fashion? Edited by Briterican, : Clarified opening disclaimer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Modulous writes: That we do not have a Unified Theory for the History of All Life on Earth is not in any way evidence that evolution is on shaky grounds. Science proceeds by growing knowledge and spotting patterns and connecting dots and slowly, slowly seeing the bigger picture. We don't need the bigger picture to be confident of some parts of it - if we did there would be no way to proceed at all and science would be useless! And when it comes to life, most of the picture is its evolution. Spot on and worth repeating here. In fact this point comes up on so very many threads and yet never seems to sink in. We may never be able to fully evidence the mechanisms behind abiogenesis, but we have now a great deal of understanding about evolution.
cavediver writes:
Evolution stands and falls on its own evidence. It doesn't require and it doesn't imply abiogenesis. By the end of this topic, you will appreciate this or we will die trying...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Hi ICANT
You're right, I posed a question rather than an answer. Let me give the answer here.
ICANT writes: Would you agree that if the God of Genesis created all the different kinds as stated in Genesis there would be no need for evolution beyond that which is observed and reproducible in a species? Let us pretend that I somehow agreed that this specific God myth whose origins can be traced back to bronze age tribes created all the different kinds as stated in Genesis... there would still be a need for evolution beyond that which is observed and reproducible in a species, if life on this planet was to have any hope of surviving another 3.5 billion years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
ICANT writes: Glad to see you agree if there is no life there is nothing to evolve. I agreed to no such thing. I said that if no life form ever existed, then there would be no life form to evolve. The non-biological "evolution" (i use the alternate definition here, referring to change over time and not specifically biological evolution) of our planet geologically in the early formation of the solar system (a whole heck of a lot longer ago than 6,000 years I might add) must have provided all the ingredients needed for the earliest self-replicating entities to emerge. I find Graham Cairns-Smith's idea of clay playing a role in abiogenesis as fascinating, and although the specific mechanism has not been widely accepted, it serves as an example of a possible inorganic start to self-replicators that could then lead to organic life. Edited by Briterican, : Tidying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Arphy writes: Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution? Yes.
Arphy writes: So what is your main contention with creationists? My main contention with creationists is that they deny existing evidence and then try to convince others that the accumulated knowledge of the human race, via the scientific method, has got it all wrong. All this for the sake of preserving their particular man-made origin myth.
Arphy writes: Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form? Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created, simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down. It might also be because we have loads of evidence that life started simply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined:
|
Hi Arphy
Arphy writes: Which one is it? I apologise if an earlier post of mine added to your confusion Arphy. I'm still learning, and I didn't stop to think how a simple "Yes" answer didn't really say everything that needed to be said. Meldinoor and Granny Magda have covered the question thoroughly in their subsequent posts, and Meldinoor was right when he said ...
Meldinoor writes: Now what I think Briterican may have meant when he answered yes to your question about evolution necessarily going from simple and complex and from a common ancestor, is that in light of evolution, that is exactly what the evidence tells us. I can, however, appreciate how my comment didn't help clarify things for you. Granny Magda elucidates the point...
Granny Magda writes: I think it's important to note that there is no reason why evolution should move from "simple" to "complex". That isn't something that the ToE demands at any level. You are right that this crosses over into natural history, where the evidence just happens to be quite clear that, in general, life has progressed from simple to complex. A bit further clarification...
Arphy writes: Yet it is rejected as a possibility because as Britanican so finely pointed out "Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created" and then goes on to say "simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down." In other words, he thinks it is in the too hard basket therefore it cannot possibly be the truth. This just isn't logical. Although I stand by my statement, I believe it was a poor angle from which to answer your question. Upon re-reading it does almost read as though I was saying "For life to have begun as complex, there would have to be a designer, and we can't have that now can we." I think Granny Magda hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that science isn't in the business of dealing with supernatural explanations. The introduction of an intelligent agent as the creator of the first life involves delving into the supernatural. Science allows us to view the evidence - the evidence confirms that evolution has proceeded from simple origins to complexity. The fossil record demonstrates unequivocally that the simple stuff came first, with layers and layers of more complexity coming later. I can appreciate your measured, non-hostile posts, and although I don't expect any of us to truly "change your mind", I do hope that you can think about what is being said, using analytical thinking. The evidence available to us paints an amazing picture of the past, one in which great beauty and diversity arose from humble beginnings. When I stop and think about the fact that so much amazing biological evolution has occurred on this tiny planet, and then look up at the stars and wonder what sort of beings may have arisen out there, I cannot help but feel transcendent. It is what you might call "a religious experience" for me (or the closest I am going to get to one anyway). I am astounded by the magnificence of this history of gradual change that allowed complex and intricate structures to arise from simplicity. It makes me feel "one with the universe". I can't imagine a man-made origin myth coming anywhere close to the overwhelmingly elegent and beautiful truth as revealed to us through science. The story of creation as told in Genesis is really very dull and boring compared to the majesty of what actually happened. Edited by Briterican, : Tidying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Arphy writes: What i am saying is that it has a certain amount of charm because it implies that everything can be explained through naturalistic functions. In other words it was attractive to many people. It is still attractive today as britanican writes in an earlier post Let me be clear - my feelings of wonder about the universe, and a feeling of oneness with it, were inspired by an understanding of science, not the other way around. In other words I didn't decide in advance that naturalistic explanations would be fulfilling to me, I simply discovered that they were after investigation. It's "Briterican" btw, not Britanican
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Hi Peg
Peg writes: It would also put an end to the silly notion that all living beings decended from a primordial soup. As someone else mentioned, the "primordial soup" idea is not the prevailing view. Many believe that the first life was very subterranean, leading only much later to surface life.
Paul Davies writes: "Organisms that don't eat organic matter, but manufacture thir own biomass directly, are known as autotrophs ("self-feeders"). Plants are the most familiar autotrophs; they use the energy of sunlight to turn inorganic substances like carbon dioxide and water into organic material. Autotrophs that make biomass using chemical energy rather than light energy have been dubbed chemoautotrophs, or chemotrophs for short. The discovery of true chemotrophs was a pivotal event in the history of biology. Here was the basis of a completely independent life chain, a hierarchy of organisms that could exist alongside familiar surface life, yet without being dependent on sunlight for its primary energy source. For the first time it became possible to conceive of ecosystems free of the complexities of photosynthesis. Scientists began to glimpse a vast new biological realm that has lain hidden for billions of years." Peg writes: Scientists could focus more on genetics and work at important things such as disease control and how to feed the starving millions...how to get water to the waterless regions and how to treat and dispose of sewage safely. As others have pointed out, only through the study of evolutionary biology have we even been able to come upon advanced solutions to these types of problems. The common cold is caused by viruses, and a vaccine has not been possible because of the large variety of viruses involved and the fact that they mutate rapidly. Hmmm, where have we seen that word before... mutate... hmmm. Oh yeah, evolutionary biology!
Peg writes: But i guess to many scientists, proving evolution is just as important as any of the above. I really hope that one day they are able to prove how life began because then at least all the time spent wont be in vain. Do you honestly think that scientists are single-mindedly out to prove evolution? This is a laughable notion and is tantamount to saying that bakers are out to prove the existence of bread. As for how life began, there is still a great deal of work going on in this regard. Research in this area has led us to discover microbes that can survive and flourish in temperatures exceeding 100 Celcius, and "superbugs" that subsist on sulpher. We live in exciting times in these respects. Edited by Briterican, : No reason given. Edited by Briterican, : Removed some smart-assedness, inserted a hello.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024