Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
31 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The pristine question
ssope
Junior Member
Posts: 2
From: elmwood park
Joined: 09-04-2019


Message 1 of 17 (862641)
09-08-2019 2:42 AM


If evolution is truly a mindless bio-chemical process, I'm confused on how it would produce an organism with a motivation to stay alive. How does a chemical reaction produce a molecule that prefers one future outcome over another (life or death). How do you motivate a mindless molecule to actively pursue life. Why would it care. How could it care

---> ssope


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-08-2019 5:46 AM ssope has responded
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2019 2:58 AM ssope has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 09-09-2019 9:23 AM ssope has not yet responded
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2019 9:56 AM ssope has not yet responded
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 09-09-2019 12:22 PM ssope has not yet responded
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2019 1:22 PM ssope has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 17 (862642)
09-08-2019 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ssope
09-08-2019 2:42 AM


Rewording the topic starter
Hello Tyler and welcome to EvC. Is your question basically asking how life came from non-life? As the topic originator, do you plan on making a case for a Supreme Intelligence behind the design, a flat-out apologetic of God (through Jesus Christ) as Creator of all seen and unseen? Or do you want to approach this topic scientifically in the hope that some of these questions can be rationally tackled without resorting to Faith?

Feel free to edit your topic and revise the wording in the direction you want to go, so I will know which forum to put you in should you get promoted.

EvC is a place of learning and discussion. There are many educated people that post here. Then you have a few flakes like me who are unabashed believers. But we can challenge you too, should you lean towards Faith & Belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ssope, posted 09-08-2019 2:42 AM ssope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ssope, posted 09-09-2019 1:31 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

    
ssope
Junior Member
Posts: 2
From: elmwood park
Joined: 09-04-2019


Message 3 of 17 (862643)
09-09-2019 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
09-08-2019 5:46 AM


Re: Rewording the topic starter
My question is partly probing the idea that scientific explanations bottom out at a certain point, particularly at this point. I don't know how much more I can say because I feel I worded the question in the most concise way possible. Ultimately I am making a case for intelligent design, but I am not explicitly going to express my aim to the reader, nor should the question indicate my belief,. I want the reader to question themselves while recognizing any gaps in their knowledge. To answer your question, yes, this topic is to be approached scientifically. As to where this topic belongs, I see no difference between the Biological Evolution forum, the Human Origins and Evolution, and the Intelligent Design forum.

Edited by TylerDurden, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-08-2019 5:46 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-09-2019 1:36 PM ssope has not yet responded
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 09-09-2019 3:28 PM ssope has not yet responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2019 4:18 PM ssope has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 4 of 17 (862645)
09-09-2019 2:28 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The pristine question thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(6)
Message 5 of 17 (862646)
09-09-2019 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ssope
09-08-2019 2:42 AM


Your mistake is to anthropomorphise chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don't 'prefer' things or 'pursue' things, they happen because the conditions they are in require it.

Chemical reactions have no decisions to make or motivations to follow, they follow laws. You can ask where the laws of physics come from but that's a different question.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ssope, posted 09-08-2019 2:42 AM ssope has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 6 of 17 (862649)
09-09-2019 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ssope
09-08-2019 2:42 AM


ssope writes:

If evolution is truly a mindless bio-chemical process, I'm confused on how it would produce an organism with a motivation to stay alive.

Many reasons.

1. If it didn't - we would all be dead (like most things.)
2. By small steps.
3. Think of a computer - it's just circuit boards and plastic. Metal, plastic, electricity. That's it. All mindless. And yet, you can play computer games, you can post on the internet, a computer is better than humans at chess - how did we create something that's better than us? Small steps. Increasing. Building. Getting better. There are limits, but the "limit" is not "getting the motivation to stay alive from a mindless bio-chemical."

We can create things that are better than us.
Mindless bio-chemical nature can create things that eventually have a motivation to stay alive.

Same process of small steps and building and getting better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ssope, posted 09-08-2019 2:42 AM ssope has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 7 of 17 (862650)
09-09-2019 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ssope
09-08-2019 2:42 AM


pristine?
Hi ssope, and welcome to the fray.

I find your word choice a little curious:

The pristine question

quote:
pristine

adjective

  1. having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied.
  2. of or relating to the earliest period or state; primitive.

Can you explain why you chose this word (expand on it)?

If evolution is truly a mindless bio-chemical process, I'm confused on how it would produce an organism with a motivation to stay alive. How does a chemical reaction produce a molecule that prefers one future outcome over another (life or death). How do you motivate a mindless molecule to actively pursue life. Why would it care. How could it care

First off evolution only deals with life, not the origin of life (that falls under the science of abiogenesis):

quote:
2. the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter

Tangle, in Message 8, explains that the mindless chemical reactions occur due to the functions of chemistry - the chemical reactions only occur in certain ways.

We also know that prebionic molecules exist in space and were common on the surface of the earth and in the oceans. see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for more on this.

They are old threads, and much has been learned since, but they give you an idea of the current research into this question of the origin of life on earth.

Of course, once life exists, evolution takes over, and you have a two-step process that mindlessly "chooses" those forms by their relative ability to survive and reproduce better:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

The earliest, simple life forms known are single cell blue-green algae, and they would be subject to the processes of evolution, which we can define as:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

We can also define life as any formation of molecules that undergoes evolution.

These evolutionary processes are also mindless, and as Stile explains in Message 6, they occur over many generations before the first "minds" evolve, and more generations before minds aware of what is happening around them, or become conscious of being part of the processes.

It's like equating a consciously chosen hike across the united states with a baby's first stumbling steps. There's a lot that happens in between.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ssope, posted 09-08-2019 2:42 AM ssope has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-09-2019 10:30 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31276
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 8 of 17 (862651)
09-09-2019 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
09-09-2019 9:56 AM


Preference? Preference? We don't need no stinkin preference!
The earliest and simplest forms of living critters do not have the capability to "prefer" anything. The ability to actually prefer something only evolved slowly and emerged millions if not billions of years after life appeared. Even today the ability to even have a preference is a rare and unusual ability and seen in only a very small percentage of critters. The vast majority of living things has nothing that could create a preference or even conceive of a preference.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2019 9:56 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17292
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 9 of 17 (862656)
09-09-2019 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ssope
09-08-2019 2:42 AM


ssope writes:

How does a chemical reaction produce a molecule that prefers one future outcome over another (life or death)


All chemical reactions have a "preferred" outcome. It is not an emotional preference or an intellectual preference. It's a myriad of tiny "decisions" like a river's "preferred" route. Rivers and chemicals generally "prefer" a particular direction because it's the easiest - i.e. it requires the least energy.

For example, H and O can combine in various ways but they generally "prefer" H-O-H rather than H-O-O-H. Chemistry is the study of those "preferred" outcomes.

Your mistake is in thinking that the chemistry of life is somehow "better" than the chemistry of non-life. The chemicals don't "choose" life over non-life. They just "choose" the easiest path.


“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ssope, posted 09-08-2019 2:42 AM ssope has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15389
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 10 of 17 (862657)
09-09-2019 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ssope
09-08-2019 2:42 AM


If you are arguing that a molecule has an actual preference for life over death you are arguing for panpsychism or something similar.

The basics are:

Natural selection favours traits that promote successful reproduction (asa simple consequence of the fact that they do promote successful reproduction)

Survival usually helps promote successful reproduction.

As organisms become more complex, more complex behaviour becomes possible.

Even single-celled life is capable of some - unthinking - reactions to their environment. Reactions that promote survival, will tend to be favoured. The more complex the life, the more options there are to elaborate on such behaviour - more and improved senses, more and improved processing of sensory date, more possible actions.

Life that reaches the stage of being able to have preferences will have inherited such behaviour - it will be hard-wired into their nervous system. The ability to consider actions in more detail - thinking about them rather than automatically reacting - would be an advantage. But still it would be necessary for the thinking to be directed in a way beneficial to reproductive success, hence a preference for survival. Very likely this would be based on the older hard-wiring of the nervous system, since it is both available and works in the right direction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ssope, posted 09-08-2019 2:42 AM ssope has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2316
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 11 of 17 (862658)
09-09-2019 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ssope
09-09-2019 1:31 AM


Re: Rewording the topic starter
The actual question is one for you to answer. Do you have any evidence for an alternative explanation for the life that exists on this planet?

The evidence science has revealed all points to evolution being the process that led to the diversity of life we see today.

The only way to replace the Theory of Evolution as the explanation is to actually have a better theory that explains ALL the evidence.

Making up BS flaws in evolutionary theory is not supporting evidence for ID.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ssope, posted 09-09-2019 1:31 AM ssope has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 12 of 17 (862659)
09-09-2019 1:56 PM


Clarification Of My Position
Just to clarify my position, ssope, I am a believer in GOD, Creator of all seen and unseen and in the Lordship and Deity of Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created. In other words, God created everything known and knowable by our minds through Himself...made known to us by the eternally living Christ. That being said, I also respect the science side of this forum. In my opinion, none...that's right... None of the Discovery Institute nor other so-called I.D. "scientists" have ever convinced me of anything that ordinary, educated secular science cannot nor has not. By nature, the I.D. argument is manipulative and stealthlike by design. It is dishonest. I will be moderating this topic and don't plan on participating as a member.

Edited by AdminPhat, : changed words


    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3712
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 13 of 17 (862664)
09-09-2019 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ssope
09-09-2019 1:31 AM


Re: Rewording the topic starter
Before you make claims and pronouncements about science and evolution, please learn something about them first. Without that knowledge, your argument from personal incredulity carries far less weight (not that that type of argument carries any weight at all).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ssope, posted 09-09-2019 1:31 AM ssope has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 14 of 17 (862668)
09-09-2019 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ssope
09-09-2019 1:31 AM


this ID topic is to be approached scientifically
My question is partly probing the idea that scientific explanations bottom out at a certain point, particularly at this point. ...

The open-minded skeptic will say that we do not have the knowledge and information at this time to answer the question of how life came to exist on earth. We know that it did not exist 4.5 billion years ago, but that it did exist 3.5 billion years ago. We also know that the first known life was primitive single cell organisms with no nucleus in the cell, that it took another billion years to develop cells with nucleii and multicellular life.

The lack of knowledge does not mean {god/s} or their surrogate "Intelligent" Designers were involved, for we have even less evidence of that process even existing.

... Ultimately I am making a case for intelligent design, but I am not explicitly going to express my aim to the reader, ...

Then you are off to a bad start: you haven't made a case for anything but a (probably temporary) absence of knowledge.

... I want the reader to question themselves while recognizing any gaps in their knowledge. ...

Current gaps in knowledge prove nothing but a current gap in knowledge. The open-minded skeptic will say that there is no need to jump to conclusions until more information is available. Those interested in the question can pursue it scientifically as much as they like. Something IDologists seem incapable, or remarkably reluctant, of actually doing.

... yes, this topic is to be approached scientifically. ...

Then you might want to get started.

Please see my thread Is ID properly pursued? -- it explores what is needed to undertake a scientific approach:

quote:
The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.

Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.


This brings me to the concept of the Open-Minded Skeptic -- a person willing to entertain the possibility of concepts such as ID, but skeptical of the probability, given the lack of evidence for it. One who is as skeptical of his knowledge as he is of the knowledge of others.

If you have scientific evidence for ID, then by all means present it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ssope, posted 09-09-2019 1:31 AM ssope has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-09-2019 5:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2316
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.9


(1)
Message 15 of 17 (862670)
09-09-2019 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
09-09-2019 4:18 PM


Re: this ID topic is to be approached scientifically
... I want the reader to question themselves while recognizing any gaps in their knowledge. ...

Current gaps in knowledge prove nothing but a current gap in knowledge. The open-minded skeptic will say that there is no need to jump to conclusions until more information is available. Those interested in the question can pursue it scientifically as much as they like. Something IDologists seem incapable of actually doing.

This seems to be a standard refrain from the "evolution smackdowners." "The readers wouldn't have asked all the questions themselves and done the research for decades, because that is not how this writer arrived at his argument."

They seem to think that gaps in our knowledge cannot ever be understood or explained by science. And they also seem to think that they can slip a creator into gaps in our knowledge, without adding any knowledge, based on evidence, and that scientists are going say "Oh yeah, thanks"?

Every one of these guys that come in here give themselves away within a few posts. They don't know what evolution is or how it works, so they have no chance of convincing anyone that they can refute our explanation of the evidence, all the evidence.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2019 4:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019