Hi.

I wonder if any of you learned people have any idea as to how the dimension of time is incorporated into biology - if it is. It occurred to me - and I'm just a layman - after reading a few popular science books on evolution that time seems to have been the major factor in the evolution of complex organic lifeforms - billlions of years of it. Does this mean that time, in the way that physicists talk about it, is part of our physical biology?

Um, I dont mean to be rude, but thats almost a nonsense question. I once read a quote (dont remember who) that said "Time is just the universe's way of keeping everything from happening at once". Keep in mind that our planet is <b>OLD</b> 4.5 billion years or so.

Now <i>timing</i> is a integral part of our biology, everything works around the speed of chemical reactions or how fast signalling chemicals (hormones, neutotransmitters, etc) move about, and even how to hold us up in a gravity field (which does bend time by a microscopic amount). But nothing like "near the event horizon of a black hole time is almost stopped to an outside observer" or something along those lines.

Now duration and evolution are linked due to the rate that the environmental or stressors mutation rates occur "i.e. on average 1 mutation per 20 mins"

Evolution has progressed very rapidly on Earth in the last third of its existance mainly because once you have the basic parts worked out (nucleated cells, mitochondria, multi-cellular organisms, bones, muscles, brains, nerves, blood, etc) its mainly a matter of shuffling the parts around and increasing or decreasing the size/rate of development of those parts.
Getting the basic parts worked out took a Loooooooong time.

By the way (and I'm not trying to be funny), do you realize that as you're mutating as you read this. A mutation is just a unplanned change in DNA, as you sit there there is damage to your DNA going on; free radicals, ozone, cosmic rays, cellular metabolic by-products, division transcription errors, etc, are all doing bad things to your DNA.

Usually 99% of it is repaired immediately but there's always a little bit left, depending if that error is in your germ plasm or not means whether or not its passed on to your offspring or no. If it helps your offspring survive (in their particular environment) its a benificial mutation and will have a tend to be favorably passed on. If it harms your offspring its a deleterious (bad for you) mutation and your offspring will have a lesser chance of surviving to reproduce. The bad mutations overwhelming outnumber the good ones, but the good ones do happen.

BAM! evolution in action before our very eyes.

BTW, its been documented that DNA mutation rates go WAY up when an organism is stressed. [my own conclusions here] it could be a mechanism for species survival in changing environments, for example; a swamp dries up, a bunch of variants of a organism arise due to the increased mutation rate, one of the mutants is better able to survive in a dried up swamp and so has a better chance to pass on its genes to its offspring.
Its offspring still arent perfectly adapted to a dried up swamp so the mutation rate is still high, more variants are produced in the population, most are bad, some are good. Run this scenario through N number of generations and pretty soon you get a frog that once lived in a swamp and now lives in grasslands, or a desert or a forest, you should get the idea by now.

Damn, wrote a dang novel

Mmmm.....thankyou for your extended reply.

I think what I was trying to ask, in a confused manner, is this: since our consciousness is biological in origin, does this mean that time has a biological origin too?

Does this make any sense?

Cheers!

How is conciousness bioligical in origin?

Now thats a different kettle of another color!

If I understand your question right, you want to know if our perception of time originates in our mind or if time has a reality independent of what we observe.

This is more of a philosophy question than anything else. The sticky up at the top of human science has a few hundred links going into thought and perception, far beyond my knowlege.

I'm not really qualified to answer this definitevely, but my opinion is that time has a objective reality, mainly because time is an integral part of General Relativity and Special Relativity and so is a dimension just like the other three.

...since our consciousness is biological in origin, does this mean that time has a biological origin too?

I think that the answer is no! That would mean there was no time before our consciousness. Therefore, consciousness must be as old as time. That pretty much makes evolutsion from single-cell organisms pointless. Or at least, jump from chemicals to single-celled organism.

As is written: "If you want to know about the evolution of life on Earth, you have to keep track of time. "How fast did it change?" can only be assessed in the context of time."" Look at the "Cambrian Explosion." Why the sudden onset of diversity in multicellular organisms in a time-frame of only ten million years? Increased acceleration of climate changes (glaciation) and a dramatic rise of oxygen on earth.

In microevolution, "physical biology," current consensus is that genetic mutations are more influenced by the morphological phenotype. Just thought I'd throw this all in to stir the forum around a bit.

Consciousness has a biological origin because it only exists in the biological brains of mammals. Only mammals have the neral equipment (interconnected neurons with long-range axons) required for consciousness. Consciousness is thought to be a biological adaptation for survival.

The famous psychologist William James thought that "Waking consciousness was but one state out of many, its significance being only for survival of the biological organism in the external world."

More recently theories have expanded: "Neural systems and consciousness are regulated by conformational states of brain proteins including membrane receptors, channels, second messengers, and cytoskeletal components such as microtubules....The origin of consciousness is proposed to arise from the self-conversation of groups of neurons at the peak of the hierarchy, probably involving 10,000 to 1,000,000 cells."

"Propositions for Consciousness:
1) Biological consciousness exists only within conscious living organisms:
a) Biological consciousness depends upon biological representation of information;
b) After system dissolution, biologically stored information is no longer physically retrievable;
c) Biological consciousness cannot exist after death.
2) After death, the energy equivalent of stored biological information must be either dissipated, radiated, or transferred." http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/4.htm

See also "Biomolecular Consciousness": "Quantum Consciousness: Ultimate Computing": http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ultimatecomputing/

Now thats a different kettle of another color!

If I understand your question right, you want to know if our perception of time originates in our mind or if time has a reality independent of what we observe.

This is more of a philosophy question than anything else. .


I am distrustful of philosophy. Human thought did not create the world.

If we cannot come to a simple and unambiguous understanding of time then perhaps it is because it does not exist. For example, like a fire breathing dragon of old, which people could never find although they had heard tales of it, and perhaps turned up 'evidence' for it - like scorched ground and burnt bodies etc...

In this sense, evolution has had nothing to do with time - but with some unknown constant.

sorry, newbie up for something to say.

um, if you're so distrustful if philosophy, why do you seem to support the belief that time doesnt exist, but a mere fragment of our consciousness?

physical evidence states that time does exist, even before we were conscious. how did you think that rocks weather, wind moves, etc, if we didn't have a concept of time? our concept of time as humans is arranging things by units of time, and this concept is something we created. time itself is existent, and proof of it is change. according to darwin, species change OVER time, by our concept of time, it will take millions of years. they /did/ change, because they were similar, but they are different (look at the finches he studied at the galapagos). even if we humans did not exist, there will still be time, there will still be change, and i believe that evolution will still occur,but how other sentient species will percieve it will be different.

on the biological basis of time--in the beginning, there was just time. biology, or the study of life, originated after time moved on, because changes occured, molecules and energy developed over a period of (again) time. organisms made use of this energy to maintain their lives, they lived and they died, even if we weren't conscious of it.

i think it would be proper to put this discussion under the philosophy portion.

(headache....)

sorry, newbie up for something to say.

um, if you're so distrustful if philosophy, why do you seem to support the belief that time doesnt exist, but a mere fragment of our consciousness?

physical evidence states that time does exist, even before we were conscious. how did you think that rocks weather, wind moves, etc, if we didn't have a concept of time? (headache....)

Hi.

When I say time doesn't exist I don't mean its only in the mind. I mean it doesn't exist. Movement has always been present in the world but this has nothing to do with 'time' or any human idea.

If everything is in motion (including us), how then can we talk about organic change? Evolutionists use time as a constant against which the 'change' of an organism is mapped. But if that constant is removed - then what?

I sympathise with your headache.

dmac2020
look in the mirror today and then look again in ten years time i suspect before you will be some evidence for the existance of time and its passing

The fact that things "happen" prove that time exists. We can argue about our units of time measurement, seconds, days , months and so on, but time is still there.
Take for example t=0.
In this case we require no units, time is now completely unsubjective. But what happens at t=0?
Nothing happens.
Movement implies time.

The fact that things "happen" prove that time exists. Movement implies time.

But there is movement both inside and outside our bodies. Therefore, 'time' is flowing around us and through us. There is no barrier between our internal world and the external world in terms of movement.

As Heraclitus said: "you cannot step into the same river twice".

Since 'time' is relative it is open to change. Something which can be affected by change can be abandoned.

Let us abandon time. Evolutionists attempts to explain life using 'time' are bogus. They are as bogus as appealing to creationism.

OK, so what happens when we abandon time?

Oh look, the entire corpus of science dissappears.

And you cant talk to us using the computer that you are using just now, smartarse.

I've had an idea now for a while that there is a "Planck" unit of time of incredibly small duration. That time proceeds in these small chunks step by step.

The idea was that from each step of time there are uncountable quantum possibilites (some with more probability than others) for reality for the next step of time, then the wave function collapses into a new reality and time moves on to the next chunk of time. The planck unit of time is the duration from one step to another.

Occasionally I read a series of posts by an individual and realise they are operating on a different plane. Whether this is a higher one than that which I frequent is not for me to say. I shall make some observations, and the answers may provide insight.But there is movement both inside and outside our bodies. Therefore, 'time' is flowing around us and through us. There is no connection between the first sentence and the second. Your conclusion, dmac, is groundless. Moreover, how does time flow around us, or through us?.There is no barrier between our internal world and the external world in terms of movement.Yes there is. It may be a semi-permeable barrier, but it is there. For example, temperature is movement. As a mammal I typically maintain a different temperature from that of my surroundings, therefore the atomic and molecular movements within my body are different in magnitude from those outside..As Heraclitus said: "you cannot step into the same river twice". Since this was said in the context of the Doctrine of Universal Flux and Identity of Opposites, wherein Heraclitus seeks to demonstrate that it is precisely because rivers are changing that they are rivers, then how can you use it to support your dismissal of change?.Since 'time' is relative it is open to change. Something which can be affected by change can be abandoned.Abandoned by what? By whom? This is meaningless science and ersatz philosophy..Let us abandon time. You may abandon time. Time will not abandon you.
..Evolutionists attempts to explain life using 'time' are bogus. Perhaps this sentence has meaning for you. To us mere mortals it has the appearance of a chiffon scarf caught in a hurricane.

Occasionally I read a series of posts by an individual and realise they are operating on a different plane. Whether this is a higher one than that which I frequent is not for me to say. .

I'm not on a plane.... I'm on the ground. Maybe you should try and get down here? :)

I was responding to a previous poster who said that movement implies time. Since everything is moving, including our internal bodies, we have no stable reference point from which to verify something called 'time'.

Einsteins work presupposes 'observers' who can experience 'time' as something either happening TO them or TO someone else. Since it does not deal with the possibility of time flowing through us, ie, we are inseperable from the environment, the notion of 'time' can be called into question.

Furthermore, Einsteins thought experiments all deal with technological objects such as lifts, trains, spacecraft, etc... These are unnatural, man-made objects and therefore there use in experiemnts to prove a 'natural' force/dimension is questionable.

You have conveniently avoided addressing any of the points I raised. Repetition of unassociated and unsubstantiated opinion is not necessarily conducive to discussion.

Ophiolite although erudite with this one i suspect you are wasting your ...time

Dmac

You may not realize it, but your insistance on that there no time is exactly like insisting that we're two-dimensional and we only perceive a three-dimensional world because of some metaphisical perception.

Dmac

You may not realize it, but your insistance on that there no time is exactly like insisting that we're two-dimensional and we only perceive a three-dimensional world because of some metaphisical perception.

Point taken.

But do dimensions exist either? I'm certain that these are artificial constructs which do not exist within nature and that modern humans are confused about how much of the world exists only in their minds.

oh brother
suggest you have a look (ha ha) at the evolution of the eye and its effect on perception of dimensions

oh brother
suggest you have a look (ha ha) at the evolution of the eye and its effect on perception of dimensions

The eye does not exist because of 'dimensions'. Dimensions are a Western cultural construction which has served the purposes of expanding technology (ie, creating buildings and other artificial structures - as well as cheap, mass produced furniture and other goods) and colonial expansion through navigational and mapping techniques.

Discontinuing belief in such things as dimensions and time will not harm us and will benefit nature.

Dimensions exist because the eye stells us they do
In what way will nature benefit from disbelief in time and dimensions. nature itself illustrates the passage of time and the existance of dimension.

Ophiolite although erudite with this one i suspect you are wasting your ...timeNicely made point with the pause before time. Of course, dmac assures me the pause (a short period of time in which a continuous process is halted) does not really exist since dimensions, including time, are illusions. dmac does not understand that he is the illusion formed by the gestalt sub-conscious of sciforums. :)

Dimensions exist because the eye stells us they do
In what way will nature benefit from disbelief in time and dimensions. nature itself illustrates the passage of time and the existance of dimension.

'Dimension' is a word which causes the mind to focus only on the measured spatial qualities of the world. Living things are reduced to 'objects' bound only by these qualities. Life becomes a line on a graph representable in a book. The world is reduced to a geometrical abstract.

In this system the natural and the artificial become blurred. Great artificial constructions are possible and consequently Westerners are prone to believe the world is created by humans and ideas such as 'humanism' become appealing.

I think you may find that measurable spatial quality is a reasonable definition of the word dimension.

OK let's try something different. Close your eyes, put your hand over your other hand - feel that? I'm assuming that your hand is not something that has been artificially constructed (apologies if you are an amputee and this is the actually the case) a hand is something with dimensions - three of them at the last count.

You can call dimension something else but to do so does not alter the fact that dimension exists and that's true even in non Western countries.

and the fact that humans tend to see the world from their own perspective is more to do with ego and perceptions of superiority than perceptions of dimensions

I think therefore I'm in charge

Hey dmac2020, I have an experiment to suggest. You might try stepping suddenly from a high surface. If there are any physical consequences from your rapidly-changing vertical co-ordinates, it's fair to say that dimensions have an objective reality.

Edit: Try a not-so-high surface first!

Edit: Try a not-so-high surface first!Naw. I think he should go for it. Throw caution to the wind. Well, not exactly throw, since that would require propelling an object through one or more dimensions, into a bunch of air molecules moving randomly, but with an overall vector defined by similar dimensions: so he couldn't really do it.

Time stops everything happening at once.
Space stops everything happening in the same place.
dmac2000, just stops.

Yes, of course, time is a "major factor in the evolution of complex organic lifeforms," but it is on the duration of days, years, and millions of years, depending on the mutation rate of the type of organism studied, and not on the order of "billlions of years." But then again, this depends on your time perspective of evolution? That is, what does evolution mean to you? Humans evolved during the last two million years. Mammals evolved over the last 300 million years. Fish ventured on land and evolved into amphibians and reptiles 350 million years ago. But the origin of life dates back to 3.5 billion years or more. And the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago!

"Does this mean that time, in the way that physicists talk about it, is part of our physical biology?" Yes it is, but you have to be more specific here to answer your question more precisely.

Physicists, and most especially astrophysicists, talk about time in term of light years: 1 light year = 9,460,000,000,000 kilometers or 63,240 astronomical units. This means that in one year light travels 9,460,000,000,000 kilometers! Astronomical aye? So what about the possibility of life on other planets? We've got a longtime search to find out!

"Does this mean that time, in the way that physicists talk about it, is part of our physical biology?" Yes it is, but you have to be more specific here to answer your question more precisely. Physicists, and most especially astrophysicists, talk about time in term of light years: 1 light year = 9,460,000,000,000 kilometers or 63,240 astronomical units. This means that in one year light travels 9,460,000,000,000 kilometers! Astronomical aye?

Ahh... astronomical indeed.

I was thinking today about Paley's argument for God's existence, and how he inadvertantly demonstrated that technology (watches in his case) should not be confused with nature (evolution).

If this is true of technology... isn't it also true of theory? You cannot have one without the other. A scientist who constructs an experiment to test his theory has already created a structure which exists outside of nature.

Physicists, and most especially astrophysicists, talk about time in term of light years: !:eek: No they don't. I'll donate $1000 to a charity of your choice if you can point me to a bona fide physicist or astrophysicist talking about time in terms of light years. A light year is a distance, not a time.:rolleyes:

:eek: No they don't. I'll donate $1000 to a charity of your choice if you can point me to a bona fide physicist or astrophysicist talking about time in terms of light years. A light year is a distance, not a time.:rolleyes:

How do you determine a 'bona fide' physicist or astrophysicist?

(hang on a sec... what happens if a light year is different from one year to the next? ;) )

How do you determine a 'bona fide' physicist or astrophysicist?One having at least three (I mean that's almost zero) papers published in peer reviewed science journals.

<B>Warning: Valich crapola alert!</B>http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/bubblepics/policelights.gifPhysicists, and most especially astrophysicists, talk about time in term of light years....

Forum Locked by Anti-intelectual Bullshit Postings Above.

More correctly then I should say that astrophysicists measure distances and time in terms of light years, which is a unit of distance over time: how far light normally travels in one year. If it were purely a unit of distance then it would be measured in miles or kilometers. Stephen Hawkings, in his book entitled "A Brief History of Time," states that from Earth to Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away and Vega is 26 light years away. When astronomers do measure distance, they do so in terms of Astronomical Units (AU): 1AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun. But then again, they say that our Sun is about 5 billion years old and the universe about 15 billion years old.

<B>Warning: Valich crapola alert!</B>http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/bubblepics/policelights.gif

More correctly then I should say that astrophysicists measure …time in terms of light years
More correctly? It’s not correct at all! The ‘light year’ IS NOT a measure of time. Full stop. End of story.

…which is a unit of distance over time
More nonsense. The ‘light year’ is a unit of distance, not “distance over time” which is a measurement of speed.

If it were purely a unit of distance then it would be measured in miles or kilometers.
It IS measured purely in kilometers, you fool.

Valich, I see you are at it again: talking absolute, unmitigated crap, then trying to defend the indefensible instead of just saying 'oops, I made a mistake'. Mistake seems to be absent from your vocabulary, though it is very evident in your posts.
Hercules, I'll no doubt repeat some of the same observations you have made, but really this nonsense should not be permitted to go unremarked, then be remarked upon again.More correctly then I should say that astrophysicists measure distances and time in terms of light years, .No, they do not. Absolutely not. Never have and never will. Saying it is so shall not make it so.
which is a unit of distance over time: how far light normally travels in one year. It is a distance. Not distance over time, which as HR points out is speed, but distance. Understand. Distance.
If it were purely a unit of distance then it would be measured in miles or kilometers.Are you an idiot? It could be measured in any defined unit of length. Do you understand that? Any defined unit of length. The light year is one such defined unit of length. Do you get it yet? Do you?
Stephen Hawkings, in his book entitled "A Brief History of Time," states that from Earth to Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away and Vega is 26 light years away. So, ****ing what? This is your traditional response when called on one of your interminable mistakes: quote some scientist, or scientific work, that contains some of the same words as the subject under discussion, yet bears no other relationship to it other than that, and imply that that supports your position.
That is the action of an idiot or a liar. [Of course, I am willing to entertain the possibility that this is an inclusive-OR, not and exclusive-OR.]
When astronomers do measure distance, they do so in terms of Astronomical Units (AU):They also do so in terms of miles, in terms of parsecs, and in terms of light years. The latter, vallich, is a well known unit of distance. Do you get it yet? But then again, they say that our Sun is about 5 billion years old and the universe about 15 billion years old.So ****ing what? What is the relevance of that to the discussion, other than to divert attention away from your gross stupidity and blatant dishonesty?

A light year is a distance, not a time.:rolleyes:
i disagree
it is one year or 365.25 days

but of course that isn't what people usually mean when they say "light year"
as a matter of fact i have never heard the term applied to time only to distance

i always thought that a light year is the distance light travels in one year (approx. 6 trillion miles)

Hi.

I wonder if any of you learned people have any idea as to how the dimension of time is incorporated into biology - if it is. It occurred to me - and I'm just a layman - after reading a few popular science books on evolution that time seems to have been the major factor in the evolution of complex organic lifeforms - billlions of years of it. Does this mean that time, in the way that physicists talk about it, is part of our physical biology?
Absolutely. Evolution usually works very slowly with minute changes in the genes. It was the vast amount of time that biology had to evolve that led to such a complex ecosystem capable of manipulating the very atmosphere and geology of Earth.

If you took 50 years to answer the SAT, would you be considered smart or dumb? In that sense, evolution only had to be slightly smarter than purely random events in order for our complexity to emerge. Our intelligence is an accumulation of billions of years of relatively unintelligent choices. So, if God is responsible, he didn't have to be smart.

i disagree
it is one year or 365.25 days

but of course that isn't what people usually mean when they say "light year"
as a matter of fact i have never heard the term applied to time only to distance

i always thought that a light year is the distance light travels in one year (approx. 6 trillion miles)

So you actually agree.

. So, if God is responsible, he didn't have to be smart.

At what point in evolution do you think humans began to be aware of 'time'?

If you took 50 years to answer the SAT, would you be considered smart or dumb? In that sense, evolution only had to be slightly smarter than purely random events in order for our complexity to emerge. Our intelligence is an accumulation of billions of years of relatively unintelligent choices. So, if God is responsible, he didn't have to be smart.

It is called logic. That is how life evolved, from logic. If x is required as a sum for a given event, then if z+z=y, it is wrong, therefore, thrown out in the process of evolution. It is a process of logical deduction but increasing in complexity. That would also mean you and I aren't smart if you believe deductive logic isn't smart, since the brain is basic simply on logic. If intelligence=logic, then yes, we are intelligent and so is the process involved to create the universe. There's no denying it, our brains are a product of evolution and we are no smarter than that process which created the world. If x isn't equal to z, then no go. That is the process of evolution or what creates it. And we are no smarter than it. So hence, if we are considered intelligent, then so is the process or the birther of it. Hence God is smart.

At what point in evolution do you think humans began to be aware of 'time'?Day turns to night then the sun rises again each day and that puts land-dwelling animals in synch with a circular 24-hour time pattern. My dogs seem to have some awareness of time to get me up if I oversleep but our whole pattern of being awake and going to sleep is due to this programmed biological rthym. I suppose it depends on what you consider awareness to be, and we've thoroughly discussed that subject before on different threads, i.e., the differences between consciousness, awareness, and self-awareness. I think hominids always had some awareness of time, and so do other mammals. Death makes one aware of the end of lime and the end of time. So when other animals linger by the side of their mate when he/she dies, then I think they have some awareness of time, in some sense of the word, and an awareness of the end of life.

<B>Warning: Valich alert!</B><img height="50" width="50" src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/bubblepics/policelights.gif">

Day turns to night then the sun rises again each day and that puts land-dwelling animals in synch with a circular 24-hour time pattern.
Why are you specifically mentioning land animals? Many aquatic animals have a circadian clock. In fact, the genetic and biochemical mechanisms of the circadian clock are found in organisms all the way back (evolutionarily speaking) to yeast.

<B>Warning: Valich alert!</B><img height="50" width="50" src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/bubblepics/policelights.gif">


Why are you specifically mentioning land animals? Many aquatic animals have a circadian clock. In fact, the genetic and biochemical mechanisms of the circadian clock are found in organisms all the way back (evolutionarily speaking) to yeast.

I thought I read somewhere that humans revert to a natural 25 hour cycle if deprived of day/night. Apparently this is close to the rhythm of the tides?

So hence, if we are considered intelligent, then so is the process or the birther of it. Hence God is smart.I take from this that you do not consider there to be any validity in the concept of emergent properties. Isn't that quite a brave position to take?

dmac2020 - There have been a number of experiments where volunteers spent months in caves, with no means of assessing the time. They did switch to a different rythym, but I don't recall if it was twenty five hours. You might find something if you google: Cave record circadian sleep

the theory of evolution from non life to life has no proof

Evolution does not deal with the genesis of life. Only with changes within populations of life-forms.

At what point in evolution do you think humans began to be aware of 'time'?
Very early, since even birds are aware of the time to travel and breed.

the theory of evolution from non life to life has no proof
Urey-Miller experiment good enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urey-Miller_experiment

Urey-Miller experiment good enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urey-Miller_experiment
this experiment did not create life
it created organic molecules.

the method of the experiment is in dispute because it isn't known with a reasonable amount of certainty what the existing conditions were on earth at the time of lifes creation.

it should also be pointed out that the amino acids and protiens that were formed was a racemic mixture. the left hand molecules is what is needed for life while the vast majority of the right handed molecules are toxic to life

this experiment did not create life
it created organic molecules.
Are viruses alive?

p.s. It´s a bloody rhetorical question.

Are viruses alive?

1. the miller-urey experiment did not produce a virus
2. no, a virus is not alive it can not replicate without a host

2. no, a virus is not alive it can not replicate without a host
Some say it´ alive, some say it´s not. Depending on a definitsion, it varies. That´s way I called it a "bloody rhetorical question". My idea was that the definitsion on "life" is not capable of drawing a line between the first thing that is alive and the last thing that was not alive.
My problem may be that I do not believe in creatsionism, therefore I assume that life was once not alive - seems reasonable?

Some say it´ alive, some say it´s not. Depending on a definitsion, it varies. That´s way I called it a "bloody rhetorical question". My idea was that the definitsion on "life" is not capable of drawing a line between the first thing that is alive and the last thing that was not alive.
My problem may be that I do not believe in creatsionism, therefore I assume that life was once not alive - seems reasonable?
good point and well put

youi do raise a subtle point though
and that is if we didn't evolve then we must have been created.
is that the only 2 theories as to our existence?
you must admit that evolution can not account for alot of things
creation also leaves alot to be desired
what if neither are true as how we got here?
but that is the subject of another thread i guess.

Leopold, I agree with your arguments against the validity of the Miller-Urey experiment. All it did was produce a lot fewer organic molecules than are now known to be available, in quantity, in interstellar space and on comets. However,you must admit that evolution can not account for alot of things.Well, it can't account for why England will lose the semi-final of the world cup on penalties, but apart from that what did you have in mind?

dmac2020

I'm sorry if this is mentioned in someone else's post, I don't have time to read them all, but I'd like to direct you to the work of Dr. Phil Gingerich. He's the world's foremost authority on the evolution of whales, and I saw him give a presentation titled, "How fast is evolution?"

While you certainly can't have a solid answer for such a question in all cases (because of infinite possibilities for environmental changes for a living organism, and the possibility of the organism dying accidentally or in a fluke), it apprears as though evolution occurs at a maximum of 0.1 of a standard deviation per generation.

I know that sounds a bit odd to put it that way, so I'll have to ask you to check out Gingerich's work yourself as I can't write a novels worth on the post to explain it here.

However,Well, it can't account for why England will lose the semi-final of the world cup on penalties, but apart from that what did you have in mind?
Probably the fact that it doesn´t explain how first lifeforms got around.
But should it explain that? Was that even evolution? Evolution of lifeless matter? Did Darwin ever tried to explain that?

but apart from that what did you have in mind?
instincts for one

and unless it has been refuted the apparent god gene for another

Probably the fact that it doesn´t explain how first lifeforms got around.
But should it explain that?
to the layman? yes

instincts for one
Maybe this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm) will help on that

Maybe this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm) will help on that
from the link:
Frederic Cuvier and several of the older metaphysicians have compared instinct with habit. This comparison gives, I think, an accurate notion of the frame of mind under which an instinctive action is performed, but not necessarily of its origin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm

i dare say instincts are not habits
habit is a learned behaviour.

Habits are different than instincts because they are obviously learned.
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3250_habits.html

instincts for one
Instincts are a way to conform to environment, thus giving necessary advatage over others. Creatures with that instinct are more likely to mate etc.
Or is the question about something else?

Or is the question about something else?
it was in reply to ophiolites question

it was in reply to ophiolites question
God gene? I don´t know any good evidence supporting the God gene in humans.
As I undertand, it became popular when genes became popular. Seems like a atheists try to kill God, demystify it.
If it exist, it´s easy to explain the advatage of it. Religion brought people together. Important cornerstone of society one may say...

instincts for one
and unless it has been refuted the apparent god gene for anotherInstincts are thoroughly explained by evolution, since they enhance the probability of survival by ensuring certain forms of favourable behaviour in certain circumstances.
The God gene is not a theory or hypothesis, but a sensational conjecture. As such it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Instincts are thoroughly explained by evolution,
it seems to me that if evolution actually happens the there would be no need for instincts. furthermore instincts would be "bred out"

Then that is just you who has a problem with instincts and evolution.

Why couldn't instincts evolve? They are merely hardwired patterns.