Life is generative and evolvative, isn't it?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Jan 12, 2010.

  1. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    That would be only one type of 'random mutation'- but let me know when you prove the concept of random- my God of Science thread would be ideal place for that discussion as I don't want to foul this thread with this discussion.

    One proof for me doesn't equate proof for you. The fact that light is as is is proof for me. It may not be for you.

    Why do I care? You can come with all the principals you want.

    And I'm not surprised.



    It is a loaded question from the outset.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Why should you care? Because your argument is wholly invalidated by the Anthropic Principle. Your argument is wrong. You are mistaken. Those seem to me to be good reasons for you to care.

    Of course, your position appears to be "I will believe what I want to believe, I shall pay heed to those things that support my belief and utterly ignore and reject those that do not."

    That is not only foolish, it is willfully ignorant and is deserving of contempt.


    Off topic comment -
    I do not know if I am the only one, but I find your sign off to be contrived, snide and offensive. Rather than being permeated with sincerity it reeks of provocation and is patronising. Perhaps you don't intend it that way, but that is how it comes across to me at least.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You're saying you don't believe in 'random'? Random mutations are random, they can alter RNA and DNA in any way. Else they wouldn't be random.

    It's justification or evidence to you but proof should be observer independent.

    You should care about whether what you're saying is factually correct or logically valid. Or do you have no problem with believing and repeating lies? You cannot declare that because we see the universe as able to support life then its proof of divine intervention/design because there's an explanation which does not invoke the divine. If there are 2 explanations for an observation the observation does not prove either of them. Basic logic.

    Saying "I believe in the design of the universe and a God" is fine. Saying "The state of the universe is proof of God" is wrong.

    Yet so many people of faith ask it and have no grasp of why its loaded.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I took 786’s recommendation and looked at the OP of his “The God of Science” thread. I quote for there,
    Though it is possible to get a little lost in the flow of logic, the flow is there. The question about what is “random” after the fact is unanswerable. Define random any way you want and you can’t prove that an event that occurred without observation of the circumstances leading up to the event was random or was not random.

    Of course that argument is more appreciated by those who see the hand of God behind the scenes. And from the perspective of the scientific method, the mathematical description of random as expressed in the various methods of selecting random numbers is scientific. So the divide between those who have decided to believe in the supernatural at any level is not crossed by defining “random” as a faith in itself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    So though I have described my view of the potentially endless iterations that could occur and only one such iteration needs to result in the emergence of life from the inanimate, I cannot dispute the position that the possibility of life being one of the possible outcomes of those iterations was not placed in the mix at a point prior to the iterations taking place.

    So for this thread life occurs from the playing out of the possible iterations and it could have been intended to be that way, we just don’t know. I speculate about it and use the speculation to explore the possibilities of such iterations happening in any hospitable environment.

    The spread of life is what I would like to discuss if we don’t mind.
     
  8. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    That is assuming that the anthropic principle is the only test of testing the validity of an argument.

    It is only one of the many approaches to the universe. To call it up the 'decision maker' is a reason why I said that it really doesn't matter.

    Oh the decider of all... dan da da " The Anthropic Principle".


    This is primarily because most of you atheists can't seem to accept anything that comes from one who believes in religion. Only comments of Dawkins like "Fuck You" make any real sense.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010
  9. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Could it be pseudo-random . I've went through this in the "God of Science" thread- care to look it up with my exchange with James R and GeoffP somewhere in the middle of the thread.

    That is not always the case as everything can not be 'proved' to have 'proof'- so evidence is taken in account to come to a decision which for at least the people serves as proof.

    The anthropic principle for me answers nothing- although I'll give it a benefit of doubt that it is an explanation. Its not a matter of 'explanation' but a matter of how you interpret the data. As I see it I see that the constants are just right and I attribute this evidence to God as proof. As for the anthropic principle the constants are just right because we now exist as if the result had any bearing on the original state- I don't interpret the data this way so its not even an explanation for me.

    If that is wrong then for you to suggest that my argument is destroyed because of the anthropic principle would yield you making the same mistake as me?

    Because they unload the load to God, while you can't do the same :shrug:

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010
  10. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Actually pseudo-randomness and randomness would yield same results and would also have the same mathematical representation- to hold one over the other as 'scientific' is not correct.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Yes, and I agree with you that both views require faith and I add that it boils down to a personal decision as to which one we have faith in.

    But we know that life exists and the scientific view is that it is generative under the conditions I have mentioned. What I want to know is was the history of Earth, the extinction events peculiar to the stages of evolution, the determining factor in the the rise of Humans. Would we be here if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out?
     
  12. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Current view is that dinosaurs survived- as birds- I believe.

    Anyways your question is hard to answer. If you say 'wiped out' that is could humans exist with dinosaurs- yes they could.. Given that there was geographical barriers between the two. Or other barriers.

    Could they live together? Potentially... Atmospheric change could change the fitness of dinosaurs which could result in evolutionary changes to the dinosaur body plan, their size, and their eating habits- so it is conceivable that Humans could exist with dinosaurs.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Pseudo-random vs random is how the mutations are distributed. The point is that any possible alteration to the genetic pattern is possible and thus there's no restriction on what evolution can lead to, given enough time and the appropriate natural selection pressures.

    'God did it' or 'The cause is God' doesn't answer anything in practical terms. And the point is that if there are two possible explanations for an observation then you can't claim the observation is proof of either one. If one and only one explanation is possible then the observation is proof of it but you haven't demonstrated that.

    Proof would mean there is absolutely, positively no other explanation. You might find the anthropic principle less preferable but you haven't refuted it and thus you can't claim 'proof' of God.

    I think you should check what the principle actually says. We see the universe as ideal for us because we have evolved to fit into the universe. If the universe were different we'd be different, if we existed at all. By the anthropic principle there are 3 large spacial dimensions because if there were less humans couldn't form and if there were more planetary orbits wouldn't be stable and thus they couldn't support life as solar systems wouldn't form (plus stars would burn too quickly due to pressure changes). Thus the fact we're living in a 3 dimensional universe isn't proof of anything. You can argue its evidence for other things but proof? No.

    I'm saying your argument you have 'proof' is destroyed. I didn't say your view God exists is destroyed. There's no proof of the existence or non-existence of God and to claim to have proof either way is to either lie, be working with flawed logic or to be deluding yourself. You say you're sure. I'm saying no one can be.

    Its like the whole "What's the origin of the universe?" thing. Plenty of religious people say "Every thing needs a cause. So what caused the universe? Let's call that cause 'God'". This is flawed because it assumes a 'who' rather than a 'what', as well as it carrying all the baggage due to the word 'God', which gives the 'who' an anthropomorphic quality, not to mention they then try to claim its their God. Its also flawed because it says "Everything needs a cause.....except God". If you can allow 1 exception to your 'everything needs a cause' requirement its simpler and a much smaller assumption to say "The universe is the thing without a cause" since we're sure the universe exists.

    Saying "God did it" doesn't answer any questions, it doesn't provide you with any additional insight into the nature of things. For instance, saying "God made the universe" doesn't tell you anything, while saying "The universe is of finite age and its evolution is modelled by the big bang theory" tells you a hell of a lot about Nature. Practical, measurable, testable things. The problem with having God fill the gaps in your knowledge is that you constantly have to redefine your gaps.

    Like someone else said, that does come across patronising, mostly due to the wink. Given we're talking about cosmology etc and that closing comment implies your religious faith the wink can be interpreted as you saying you already know the whole origins of existence thing due to your religion. While I have no problem with faith the flawed logic you're employing does clash a little with that winking. Of course I might just be misinterpreting you.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    True. "Wiped out" was a little over kill, wasn't it.
    Good points. So I would agree that the extinctions did not mean that humans could not have survived. The question is could they have evolved to take their current place in the order of things as the (I'm speculating) the height of intelligence on Earth?
     
  15. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    And my point is that you can't show something is random... Having no restriction doesn't change that.

    So proof is only dependent on known explanations? And probably these explanations have to agree with some other principals as well which help restrict explanations?

    There are infinite explanations for everything, some known the other unknown. So 'proof' would never be reached, and so I use the word in its loose form of evidence = proof.

    Okay thanks for the clarification. If you noticed my initial response had nothing to do with life or evolution- so I don't understand then why did you invoke the anthropic principle?

    I've explained by usage of the word 'proof' above.

    Not if you assume that 'who' can also be 'what'.

    While others claim He the God of everything and everyone, not simply 'theirs'.

    Although they also make the distinction 'everything natural needs a cause'... God being 'supernatural' would be excluded from such a restriction. But similarly you could apply that same word to the universe and say that 'Universe is supernatural'- but that is against what we call 'natural' which is everything about the universe.

    Correct but you have to realize the level of information you are getting. There is a limit to how much insight you can get. Suppose physicists discovered everything about the universe- what comes before all of that information? Nothing... 'God did it' is the most basic (beginning) of insight, and nothing is more fundamental than it, that is why there is no insight that precedes it. All other information would yield more insight.


    That is why the one must understand that 'God did it'- as just that.. To understand more you need to understand what exactly did 'God do'- that is science.

    You are misinterpreting me. If you realize that I say it after each post regardless of topic then you reading it like you have in relationship to cosmology is simply taking it out of context.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Ya

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That is really speculating. But if they were not intelligent beings, I would question if such beings were human..(normal humans).

    All of this is dependent on brain development I guess. I think the existence of other species would not have a major effect on the evolutionary advantage of 'intelligence' so long as it is favorable by Natural Selection. I would think that dinosaurs preying on primates would actually help contribute to the evolution of humans, as the dinosaurs would probably prey on primates (or other human ancestors) and then Natural Selection probably would favor intelligence as it would be required to evade Dinosaurs. Again speculation, as you rightly put.

    Peace be unto you; )
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    A couple questions/comments:

    What is different about QWC that makes it different than the BB model in terms of life?

    If QWC means an infinitely large and old universe, why is the sky black at night?

    The fine tuning question usually goes like this: Life finds itself occuring in unusual conditions, so does that mean the universe is fine-tuned specifically for life (by some entity)? The respose I think makes the most sense is the life will always find itself in unique conditions favorable for the formation of life.

    What does it mean to say that life, or advanced life, is rare? If the universe were infinite, that still means an infinite number of advanced life forms. If the universe were simply very large, then even a rarity would add up to a vast number. I think what is meant is- is it common enough in our general vicinity so that we could meet them? The Drake equation come to mind, but those numbers are mostly speculative.

    What does it mean when you call life "generative"? It seems to me life is by definition self-generative.

    What does it mean to say life is "evolvative"? It seems to me life by definition evolves.

    Why is local decrease of entropy significant? For example, think of a jar of hot sugar solution. All it has to do is cool and crystals form, they are self-organizing, self-generative, and represent increasing order. I think the universe is doing just that, cooling, allowing for complex chemical interactions and thus life.

    I could imagine conditions that would disfavor multicellular life, such as life living in cracks in rock where the surface was bombarded by radiation. It seems to be reasonable to assume that complex life is less common than single-celled life.
     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    It doesn't matter is something is random or pseudo random. There is no apriori reason to think that there are restrictions on what modifications procreation can do the the genetic structure of a species. You said "Evolution is the process through how it played out. Its just I don't agree that there are 'random' mutations that led to it." yet you provide no evidence that any of the mutations required to go from single cell bacterium like life to us are impossible.

    Suppose we had a complete genome sequence for every ancestor of mine, from my parents right back to the very beginning of life when it was little more than a clump of proteins. Each generation would be slightly different from the previous one, the genetic code each time being altered by environment, disease, procreation, radiation etc. If your claim about this not being 'random' (which I take you to be saying it was guided, right?) is to be justified you'd have to demonstrate that some of the mutations are not possible by random chemical or biological processes which can occur naturally.

    My point is that all of those mutations can (and it is my belief that they did) occur in a perfectly natural way, no need for God to reach down and tweak things or do anything to guide the process. The mutations occur due to random chemical/biological errors and their effects eventually manifest themselves as things which hinder or help the animal they exist within.

    Do you deny that in principle any of the mutations/alterations which have occured between myself (or any one of us) and the first kind of life on this planet can occur by natural means? The issue of random vs pseudo-random is irrelevant.

    How does that follow from what I said? If something in Nature can be explained in two different ways then it serves as proof for neither.

    Exactly, there is no 'proof' in science, only more and more confidence in a model being a good approximation to Nature. You admit there's no such thing as proof yet you also claim to have 'proof' for God. Can't you see the contradiction you're making for yourself?

    You claimed the universe being the way it is or science being science is evidence and proof of God. I provided you an alternative explanation and thus demonstrated your evidence is not proof. I'm trying to get you to realise that simply believing something doesn't mean you have proof.

    But all too often its also assumed that who/what is a benevolent intelligence which watches over mankind and listens to us and wants us to pray to it and it provides an afterlife etc etc. Even if 'who' were not loading the question and God actually exists I highly doubt he/she/it is anything like the deities described by any human religion. If a god or gods did get all of the universe rolling he/she/it/they clearly don't have anything to do with it now.

    I refer to their belief. A Christian says the god who made the universe is the Christian god. A muslim says its Allah. A hindu says its Vishnu. An ancient greek would say Chronos created the universe. Someone overly obsessed with JRR Tolkein would say Iluvator. Even if someone were to accept someone made the universe, who is that someone? Any religion claims its their god or gods and they all provide the same amount of evidence, nothing. Hence even if someone were illogical enough to fall for the flawed "Everything has a first cause. Lets call the cause of the universe 'God'" nonsense that still doesn't mean any particular relgion has got it right.

    So why can't we just say that the universe, within which we see the 'laws of Nature' etc, was created by a previous supernatural universe which operated by different laws and thus would be regarded as supernatural to our universe? That way you only need hypothesis another universe with different rules. Universes with different rules are not that far from current ideas. Hell, you can even use current ideas to construct the well defined notion of different laws of Nature occuring in different parts of the same universe.

    While those require us to assume something all we do is assume a variation of what we have already seen. Assuming an intelligent being with universe creating power is a huge assumption. And assuming that he (I use the pronoun he only for convenience) does exist its another huge assumption to make that he's at all interested in us in any special way and that any of the human religions are right.

    Quantum mechanics is pretty crazy to someone just beginning to learn it but its all based in very standard methodology. It talks about things appearing and disappearing and yes, a universe doing that is a little different but its an extension of an experimentally justified set of ideas and observations. Or there's the GR notion of closed time-like curves and the universe created itself. No beginning, no end but a finite amount of time. Or an oscillating universe. All of these ideas come from examining known behaviour of things in the universe and extrapolating. The existence of God requires assuming something without reason or evidence or logic. I have no problem with people doing that provided they know and admit they are doing it.

    It offers no insight. It is just a place filler which makes people feel better about their ignorance. There will always be more questions to ask, more gaps to fill, more things to examine.

    Someone saying "How does the Sun work" and getting the reply "God does it" doesn't learn about the Sun. It doesn't answer their question, it doesn't let them deduce the age of the Sun or its distance or how it actually works, its a vapid hollow answer. Saying "God did it" just intellectual laziness because it makes people feel comfortable with the fact they aren't actually putting in effort to investigate something. We will never know everything because we will never do every experiment, go to every place, see every event, do every equation, test every idea. Saying "God did it" makes people stop experimenting, thinking, testing, developing because they think they have an answer when they don't, they are still ignorant.

    Accepting 'God did it' is a lazy cop out.
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Mutations are random with respect to where on the genome they occur. Now, you might have periods of greater radiation and thus more mutation, or you might have genes that protect themselves by the mechanism of redundancy, but where the mutations occur cannot be predicted, since they have as much to do with the nature of the mutagen as the position and location of the life form.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2010
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    None, speaking practically. A QWC arena is very similar to our expanding known BB universe. I’m thinking that life will arise in all of the arenas like I speculate it does in our BB universe. The only thing that a multiple arena landscape has that our expanding BB universe doesn’t have are separate arenas. But the arenas are separated by a vast expanse of space that has equalized energy density, i.e. not in accelerating expansion and not in the process of overlaps and collapse. I think of them as corridors. In a greater universe that has always existed, there could be conditions conducive to life in the corridors just like the hospitable environments in our arena. I guess there are possibilities that life could be generated in those conditions that could have much more lengthy heritages than could have been achieved in an arena that is only 14 billion years old. There might be technologies that could only be achieved with such possible lengthy heritages of intelligent life forms.
    Olbers’ Paradox comes to mind. It was solved when the old static steady state cosmology gave way to BBT. The solution then had to do with the expansion of the universe, something about red shifting and/or the finite lives of stars. But the concept of multiple arena does bring it back to mind and I suspect that is why you mention it.

    I’m going to be speculating when I quantify anything about QWC. But I speculate these things that keep the night sky dark. The nearest similar arena to ours might be a trillion light years away. The space between us is filled with a low level of energy density that has similarities to the thermalized CMBR that occupies space in our arena. Light from a distant arena would be pretty “tired” by the time it gets here and on top of that, arenas have finite life times as well. I would say that after a few hundred billion years of expanson the entropy would begin to be an issure to the existing galaxies while stars would be burning out and not replaced. :shrug:
    Thank you for that perspective and I agree that the fine-tuning isn’t much of a drawback to there being many different life forms in many different kinds of environments.

    I would not be surprised if we detect intelligent life out there. It would be great to think it could happen in my lifetime.
    Yes, self-generative is the same thing.
    That is what it means.
    It is significant because in BBT the entropy is incessant. One of the outcomes of continuous expansion is called the Big Rip. There comes a time in such a scenario where no life at all can be supported in the universe. As Ophiolite would say, that is so inelegant.
    Certainly that is a safe assumption. I wonder though about the likely hood of complex life evolving even given to hospitable environment and given single-celled life. What percentage of those sets of conditions would result in the evolution of intelligence. Did Drake address that? One thing is for sure though and that is when the cell hurdle is accomplished there is going to be a rapid proliferation of differentiation.
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2010
  22. fellowtraveler Banned Banned

    Messages:
    323


    REPLY: I agree with you. I also think the rate of evolutionary complexity accelerates at least to a point.With evolutionary innovations such as sexual reproduction and things like that. And now with human technology developed to the degree it is, whole new unpredictable elements have entered into the evolutionary mix of things. As far as natural evolutionary acceleration goes, we may reached that point long ago. But, with the ability to manipulate genes and things like that, who can say what may happen ? ...traveler
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    That is difficult to do when you make misleading statements of this type:
    Either you are deliberately manipulating words to obfuscate, or have a poor grasp of scientific language. I see no third option. Whichever applies it makes unlikely that a useful dialogue can ensue.
     

Share This Page