Life is generative and evolvative, isn't it?

[quantum_wave]

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.

If there were only those two choices I would have to go with my poor grasp of scientific language.

But I did say this when speaking of why I consider entropy important in any cosmology and why in my view the universe is eternal (entropy is defeated in QWC):

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.

 

[quantum_wave]

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

You are making interesting points. It is like complexity feeds itself. Sort of like what I said to Spidergoat about the proliferation of diversity once the cell wall evolved.

The advancement of technology is a perfect example of how things proliferate when hurdles are overcome. Thinking about the developments in in gene research and technology just in my life time is awesome. I have a book named, "Genome", by Bishop and Waldholz, written in 1991. That was before the mapping had been completed. In the introduction they say, "Invariably, contemporary commentators, even the scientists themselves, will misjudge the significance of some of the events they are observing, overlooking events that later prove of pivotal importance while overemphasizing developments that ultimately prove to be of merely peripheral interest. ... Nevertheless, there occasionally is a scientific breakthrough of such overwhelming implications for society that its importance is immediately recognized. Such is the case with the rapidly developing ability of a new science - molecular genetics - to locate and identify individual human genes."

 

[quantum_wave]

Wow, as I browse back through, Genome by Bishop and Waldholz, I am wondering were we stand these days in Human genetic engineering. Twenty years ago we were snipping genes out of mouse DNA and producing millions of copies within a couple of hours. Are we able to replace genes into a breeding populations and change the replicating DNA in the next and future generation? I'm thinking of the this from two angles: We could engineer Humans for all kinds of purposes, and we could face huge ethical issues.

Does anyone have a quick recap of were science is on those issues today?

 

[quantum_wave]

I went by the Library today on my walk and picked up two books. The first one is titled, "Genetic Engineering, Opposing Viewpoints", from the Opposing Viewpoints Series. The second book is titled, "Genetic Engineering, Opposing Viewpoints", from the Opposing Viewpoints Series. I’m going to spend some time reviewing them and reading and comparing the topics I find interesting. Have any of you read them?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Um...

The first one is titled, "Genetic Engineering, Opposing Viewpoints", from the Opposing Viewpoints Series.

The second book is titled, "Genetic Engineering, Opposing Viewpoints", from the Opposing Viewpoints Series.

Wouldn't it have been more efficient to just carry ONE book home and read it twice?

 

[quantum_wave]

Um...


Wouldn't it have been more efficient to just carry ONE book home and read it twice?

LOL, yes but ...

Yes, that’s right. The exact same titles published by the same organization thirteen years apart, 1996 and 2009. I figured one way to see what has happened lately would be to compare the topics and content of the two books. Here are a couple of things that interested me:

Was there an ethical debate about human cloning in 1993? That was the year that Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman announced that they had "cloned” human embryos. There was absolutely no mention of human cloning in the 1993 Opposing Viewpoints book. Jumping forward thirteen years and the index of the book has twenty-three index listings under human cloning. In fact two chapters are devoted to the opposing viewpoints. I read them.

Human Cloning is Unethical was presented by the President’s Council on Bioethics, and Human Cloning is Not Unethical was presented by Harry Binswanger. Binswanger is a professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute in California.

Riveting reading. The President’s Council focused primarily on the issue of cloning to produce children and concluded that it would be unethical at this time due to safety concerns citing the likelihood of harm to those involved. Then they looked to the future and said cloning-to-produce-children might allow infertile couples or others to have genetically related children, might avoid couples at risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disease, and even allowed for the possibility of bearing of a child who could become an ideal transplant donor for a particular patient in need and beyond that to even allow a parent to keep a living connection with a diseased or dying child or spouse. But then get this. They allowed for the possibility of individuals or society to try to replicate individuals of great talent or beauty; and this was from the side that said human cloning was unethical at present due to safety issues. It looks like they anticipated those issues to be resolved. I wonder if they have been.

The Council then listed the categories of concern about safety and cited the emerging ethical principles that should guide a broader assessment of the issue. They addressed principles of freedom, equality, and human dignity. Cloned children may experience serious problems of identity, they might come to be considered more like products of a design process than “gifts” whom their parents are prepared to accept, the issue of eugenics was mentioned. That is where I jump to a web search:

A little web search on human cloning and eugenics brought up an article on the Ethics of Human Cloning. The part I found interesting was the history of human cloning that was mentioned as early as 1952.

“The use of "nuclear transplantation" as a means toward cloning animals was first developed by Drs. Robert Briggs and Thomas King working at the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia in 1952. These doctors used frog eggs, because the eggs of a frog are very large and readily accessible to manipulation.”

The article reports on the history from there on to the cloning of Dolly, and on through 1996 and 1997 when a law was passed that US Federal funds were not to be used for research on human embryos if they will be harmed or destroyed.

That history concluded with: “The latest news on human cloning broke on November 13, 1998, when the announcement was made that a small biotechnology company used cloning techniques to create an embryo out of human and cow cells. The work was conducted back in 1995 and 1996. One of the many questions being raised was whether or not they disregarded a ban on the use of Federal funds for embryo research. The Worchester company produced one cloned human embryo—perhaps the first ever made—and performed the unprecedented cross-species hybridization of a human cell and a cow egg.” I’m sure much has occurred since then.

So I Googled “developments in human cloning 2009” and found: http://www.globalchange.com/clonenews.htm

Australian government gives first license to create cloned human embryos to try and obtain embryonic stem cells. (17 Sept 2008)

United Nations has given up its attempt to introduce a worldwide legal ban on some or all types of human cloning (3 March 2005)

Cloned cows may be safe to eat (12 April 2005)

Dolly the Sheep is dead - possibly the world's most famous animal was put to sleep on 14th February 2003 after developing progressive lung disease. Dolly was cloned from a dead adult sheep using frozen cells and born on 5th July 1996.

Clonaid claims birth of first human clone (Eve) by caesarian section on 26th December 2002 and a second child in Europe (Netherlands) to a lesbian couple in early January, a third in late January to a Japanese couple who cloned their dead son, plus another to a couple from Saudi Arabia and a further child - country of origin not declared. But no evidence of any kind had been offered by mid February to substantiate their claims.

And more. Who knew?

Getting back to the Opposing Viewpoints book, Binswanger pro-cloning article presented the issue from the viewpoint of explaining fears a something primordial, the fear of the unknown, and the fear captured in the phrase, “We can’t play God. But why can’t we?” He contended that human cloning should not be banned arguing that humans have always excelled at overcoming nature’s limitations to improve individual lives and the lot of society. Cloning is just another instance of humans using their intelligence to make scientific breakthroughs. Not doing so would be that same as sacrificing human lives to unjustifiable fears.

That brings up the question of what are we capable of doing to the human genome. The answer is a lot: curing disease, eliminating human genetic defects, building in favorable genetic traits, engineering humans for specific purposes or tasks, etc.

What about humans designed for space travel? With their genes wiped clean of physical and genetic defects, their bodies tailored for space flight endurance through altered metabolism, longevity, and intelligence we could prepare them for extended space journeys, maybe up to fifty or eighty years with successful engineering.

Fifty years from now with technological advances in space propulsion, self-sustaining closed human bio-environments, and lots of freeze dried coffee, how far out there could we reach?

Five hundred years from now how far out there could we go to colonize?

Five thousand years from now … ?

Is anybody out there 5000 years ahead of us technologically?

 

[Ophiolite]

That is assuming that the anthropic principle is the only test of testing the validity of an argument.

What are you wittering on about? No one is claiming that the Anthropic Principle is the only means of testing the validity of an argument. It does, however, wholly invalidate your specific argument through logic. Do you even know what the principle is?

You claim (and I paraphrase this, so if this does not accurately reflect your position please say so) that the fine tuning of many characteristics of the universe and the world that make it suitable for humans is proof of God.

The Anthropic Principle observes, with cold, irrefutable logic, that if any constant or condition had been significantly different we would not have been here to make that observation. That does not exclude the possibility that the conditions were imposed by a creator, but it means the existence of those conditions is not proof such a creator exists.

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

Stop being facetious. It is the decider of this particular argument.

This is primarily because most of you atheists can't seem to accept anything that comes from one who believes in religion.

Get your ****ing facts straight. I am not an atheist. However, I will not accept something from someone who fails to use logic.

 

[quantum_wave]

We all have to ability to develop a personal perspective on God. This is mine:

A Perspective on God

If I consider God from the perspective of Quantum Wave Cosmology, i.e. that the universe has always existed, that finite active crunch-bang arenas pepper the infinite landscape, that life in the multiverse has always existed, and that physics is based on quantum energy of which all physical things are composed, my thinking is a follows:

Under those described circumstances there would have been no beginning so at all times past there would have been space, energy, physics, life and constant change.

Physical change is occurring at all times in all places down to an infinitesimal level where quantum waves reign. At the quantum level constant change is characteristic of how energy is used and of the process of restoring useful energy from the remnants left when energy is consumed; in such a setting entropy and the defeat of entropy play out forever in an infinite history of arenas where the energy - to matter - to life - to matter - to energy process is continuous.

My view is that under those circumstances life would have always existed in hospitable places across the infinite universe and would be generative and evolving to conscious, intelligent, self aware individuals who can and do think and act based on their own volition.

Given those circumstances humans have the capacity to observe and effect change from a unique vantage point as highly organized and complex entities composed of trillions upon trillions of quantum energy increments united and made possible by the physics of the universe. Such a vantage point along with the intelligence and maturity of each individual brings with it the awareness of the concept of God.

Belief in God would be by faith on an individual basis. Proof of God to one individual is not transferable, i.e. any individual who has faith in God based on what they consider adequate proof can influence others but they cannot prove that God exists to others. The decision to believe or not believe in God is personally justified and needs no approval from others.

My belief is that the universe is eternal, has always existed, and everything in it is composed of energy. If there is a God, God and the universe are one in the same.

 

[quantum_wave]

Fifty years from now with technological advances in space propulsion, self-sustaining closed human bio-environments, and lots of freeze dried coffee, how far out there could we reach?

Five hundred years from now how far out there could we go to colonize?

Five thousand years from now … ?

Is anybody out there 5000 years ahead of us technologically?

And in a similar vain, the detection of radio waves is what I would expect to be the first evidence of advanced life out there.

I guess it doesn't matter how long we have sent them out, it matters how long it has been since those who might be out there started broadcasting their own “I Luv Lucy” shows . If it was a billion years ago and if the waves are strong enough that we can detect them (and our technology is pretty good, isn’t it), then we have a large radius from which signals could have originated that could have reached us.

Agreed it is a small probability, but given the potential habitable planets within a billion light years we begin to build up some favorable odds.

How about an opinion on this question: How many years before we detect radio waves from outer space?

 

[786]

What are you wittering on about? No one is claiming that the Anthropic Principle is the only means of testing the validity of an argument. It does, however, wholly invalidate your specific argument through logic. Do you even know what the principle is?

An alternate is not something that 'invalidates' anything.

You claim (and I paraphrase this, so if this does not accurately reflect your position please say so) that the fine tuning of many characteristics of the universe and the world that make it suitable for humans is proof of God.

Wrong.. that is why you shouldn't paraphrase.

The Anthropic Principle observes, with cold, irrefutable logic, that if any constant or condition had been significantly different we would not have been here to make that observation. That does not exclude the possibility that the conditions were imposed by a creator, but it means the existence of those conditions is not proof such a creator exists.

And my argument had nothing to do with our existence. So what are you going on about?

Stop being facetious. It is the decider of this particular argument.

An alternate is not a decider, it is simply an alternate.

Get your ****ing facts straight.

Know the facts, stop paraphrasing your misunderstanding of what I said.

I am not an atheist.

Okay, sorry for my assumption.

However, I will not accept something from someone who fails to use logic.

Why would I care if you accept anything when you don't even know what I said. I actually didn't even make any 'fine tuning' argument at least not how 'fine tuning' is commonly understood.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

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.

Lol.. Impossiblity of something can not be known until you know if something is random or not... The fact that you have not observed any 'restriction' is simply asserting that it is random apriori for which you have no evidence either. Because if it was 'controlled' then there are restrictions, and that would make certain things impossibles.

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.

That is assuming that randomness even exists. If it doesn't then I would require no experiment to prove what you are asking me. Again you are assuming apriori that there is something that is 'random' which is in effect assuming apriori that there is something that isn't there controlling it- that is the reason you're referring to 'possibilities' and 'impossibilities'

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.

If it is your 'belief' then so be it.

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.

The issue is not 'irrelevent' because one assumes that something is controlling it. Anyhow occurrence by natural means is different than random and control. Both methods could utilize 'natural means'.... If I throw a ball- it is by all accounts through 'natural means'- yet it is not 'random'. Don't confuse the two.

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?

I believe I stated that evidence = proof for me since there is no 'proof'. Don't tell me the word 'proof' is never used in science because they're always throwing it around.. Obviously they don't mean absolute 'proof'- they use it in a loose terms, which I am doing also.

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.

According to the anthropic principle, as you explained to me, the reason the universe seems so 'perfect' or 'fine-tuned' is because we have evolved to fit that niche so well.

So did the natural laws evolve? Did light evolve? I already told you "us" being here has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about a 'code' that is coherent- this has nothing to do with 'evolving' to fit any niches- that is why I questioned your invoking of the anthropic principle.

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.

Thanks for you opinion, although I see nothing 'clearly' as you are stating when you know nothing about how God intervenes, if he does. Jumping to conclusions again?

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.

You carefully omitted 'natural' again- anyways you're entitled to your opinion.

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.

Lol.... would you be using the same math but just change the constants? That would seem to me a variation- yet still nature. Just like gravity on the moon and earth are different. Current multiverse theories use the same forces but with different proportions of strength attributed to each force- seems to me the fundamental laws are the same, even in those 'other universes'. And those particles 'coming and going' are also following natural laws- has it ever been done in a perfect vacuum where absolutely nothing exists? No one can say that something else in the universe is not causing this phenomenon.... Or is extrapolating it so that you come to your desired conclusion science?

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.

I guess I should have said it is itself an insight, and offers no more insight. As I said something being the most fundamental will not yield any more insight as it itself is the most fundamental 'insight'.

It doesn't answer their question

Perhaps those using it as an answer don't know what 'God did it' answers. Only thing it answers is that God created something... That doesn't mean that it isn't following natural laws.... Using 'God did it' to explain anything else is simply stating that God created it this way, but that doesn't mean it does not follow natural laws, which God also created. If they are following 'laws', created by God, you will have the opportunity of learning how these 'laws' interact to give you the object of interest...which is science. Whether it be how 'Sun works' or how Glycolysis works. So there is no reason to 'stop experimenting'.

Accepting 'God did it' is a lazy cop out.

I agree, but that is why it was never meant to answer questions like 'How Sun Works?'

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm going to risk suggesting that that I haven't seen any disagreement with my perspective on God in post #68.

How life begins and evolves is natural. If people see the hand of God controlling the process instead of the required randomness of science, that hand is steading and not leaving any irrefutable clues to its presence. There may or may not be a God and if we believe on way or another it is a personal decision.

No matter how we decide personally or what we base that decision on, we cannot prove we are right or the other is wrong. What we can do is push back the point of intervention of the hand of God by advancing our understanding of nature through science. But that does not mean that the territory gained by science was not willing given up .

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm going to risk suggesting that that I haven't seen any disagreement with my perspective on God in post #68.

I generally don't respond to views that are rambling and replete with assumptions. I suspect others are the same. I wouldn't take the absence of disagreement to indicate agreement.

 

[quantum_wave]

Here is an interesting link provided by Walter L. Wagner on the “http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2464482#post2464482” thread:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/bacspores.html

Bacteria spores are perfect candidates for Panspermia. Who has some thoughts about seeding of life through the universe by such spores?

 

[spidergoat]

The only problem is that they probably have to be embedded in rock or soil in order to avoid damaging radiation.

 

[quantum_wave]

The only problem is that they probably have to be embedded in rock or soil in order to avoid damaging radiation.

You gave this link on another thread which I then posted above:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/survive_space_021126.html

In an earlier experiment on the Long Duration Exposure Facility, flown by NASA from 1984 to 1990, Horneck found that even after six years in space, more than two-thirds of bacterial spores sprouted back on Earth. But those spores were protected by a thin aluminum cover as well as chemical protectants. Would dirt do?

Horneck and her colleagues embedded spores from the common bacterium Bacillus subtilis in a variety of materials: clay, red sandstone, grit from the meteorite Millbillillie, simulated Martian soil and sand from the Martian meteorite Zagami. Some spores were laid in layers of the dust, others mixed and stored in artificial meteorites a centimeter on a side, still others exposed directly to space or shaded by a layer of dust. They remained exposed in BIOPAN for up to two weeks.

"In the selection of the rock or soil samples, we got advice from experts working with meteorites and geologists interested in Mars research," Horneck says. "Some of the material (clay) was used in previous experiments and all others were used for the first time."

Only one in a million spores exposed to space or merely shaded survived. Hard UV directly damages DNA, causing chemical cross-linking and changes in bases, Horneck says.

But spores spared exposure to UV and other lightthat is, stored in the darkfared well, with between 50% and 97% survival, Horneck writes.
Horneck tried two methods of protecting spores with various soils and sands. In the first, she made a sort of layer cake, alternating layers of spores with layers of soil or clay, etc. In the second, she mixed spores and soils in about the ratio found in earthbound soilsa hundred million cells per gram. In both cases, the spores were in direct contact with the soil grains.

These spores survived as well as spores stored in the dark. On one flight, 100 percent of the spores exposed in such artificial meteorites survived.
End cut and paste.

To me this says that spores can survive if they are protected from ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The linked article addresses how such spores could take flight into space protected within chunks:

“Hornecks results lend more support to the modern variant of Lord Kelvins moss-grown rock idea. When large objects impact a planet, there’s a sort of splash zone in a ring abound the impact. Large chunks of planet may shoot into space. Impacts this large were common late in the formation of the solar system. But even as recently as about 65 million years ago a meteor hit Mexico, ejecting so much material into the atmosphere that it’s suspected of causing the extinction of the dinosaurs.

"This concept, called also litho-panspermia, is based on the scenario that by an impact of a very large kilometer-sized meteor or comet, material is ejected from a planet and can reach escape velocity," Horneck explains. "There are certain areas at the rim of the impact crater, called the spallation zone, where by reflection of the shock wave the temperatures do not exceed 100 degrees Celsius" [212 degrees Fahrenheit, the boiling point of water].

 

[quantum_wave]

Given a hospitable environment on a planet in any arena anywhere in the infinite and eternal landscape of the greater universe, life can be generated by nature or life can arrive as dormant spores. Either way life can evolve to produce intelligent, self-aware, contemplative, inventive, industrious individuals and societies where technology builds on itself.

In a universe that has always existed, intelligent life has also always existed. The potential for any intelligent life form to spread throughout the universe is physically restricted but given the recourses and the time for the evolution of greater intelligence and the advancement of technology those restrictions can gradually be overcome.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

An alternate is not something that 'invalidates' anything.

It invalidates the claim that you have proof for something. You're claiming the only explanation is yours and thus its proven. If an alternative explanation is possible than you haven't proven your claim true, it could be explained in another way.

Lol.. Impossiblity of something can not be known until you know if something is random or not...

No, that isn't correct. Rolling a die gives a random result but its definitely not going to be a 7. Random doesn't imply possible. Nor does 'not random' imply the impossibility of something.

The probability of a given event occurring is not determined by, nor does it determine, the distribution of events.

That is assuming that randomness even exists. If it doesn't then I would require no experiment to prove what you are asking me. Again you are assuming apriori that there is something that is 'random' which is in effect assuming apriori that there is something that isn't there controlling it- that is the reason you're referring to 'possibilities' and 'impossibilities'

You are stilling failing to grasp my point or support your own.

Provided the probability of each of the mutations required to get from the earliest life to me are all non-zero then it is possible it can occur, without intervention or control. The specific distribution of the events within which those probabilities are defined is irrelevant. The non-zero probability is all that matters.

Seriously, take a sodding course in probability.

If it is your 'belief' then so be it.

Are you claiming its impossible for some of the required mutations to have possibly occurred via natural chemical processes? Because that's the only way you can claim that intervention or guiding was required.

The issue is not 'irrelevent' because one assumes that something is controlling it. Anyhow occurrence by natural means is different than random and control. Both methods could utilize 'natural means'.... If I throw a ball- it is by all accounts through 'natural means'- yet it is not 'random'. Don't confuse the two.

I'm not confusing the two. I've explained why its not relevant. Uncontrolled evolution is possible if each individual step is possible without being controlled. If no control is required at each individual step then no control is required over all. No guidance required.

Don't tell me the word 'proof' is never used in science because they're always throwing it around.. Obviously they don't mean absolute 'proof'- they use it in a loose terms, which I am doing also.

You can prove a model wrong or prove something can occur. But proving a model correct is something different. Its important to distinguish between the layperson's use of words and a scientists use of words. In science 'theory' means a model which has been tested by experiments and not falsified. A layperson might use it more as "a guess as to the explanation of something". Hence why creationist hacks often trot out "Evolution is only a theory".

So did the natural laws evolve? Did light evolve? I already told you "us" being here has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about a 'code' that is coherent- this has nothing to do with 'evolving' to fit any niches- that is why I questioned your invoking of the anthropic principle.

If the code weren't coherent you'd not be here to ask why its not coherent. If our existence requires the existence of something if that something didn't exist you'd not be around to ask why it doesn't exist.

Thanks for you opinion, although I see nothing 'clearly' as you are stating when you know nothing about how God intervenes, if he does. Jumping to conclusions again?

Are you not jumping to conclusions that the Easter Bunny, Santa, Thor, Illuvator, pixies and those elves which live in my sock drawer don't interfere with things?

If you think I'm jumping to conclusions for saying 'God doesn't interfere' then you jump to conclusions assuming he's the only one who does. By your logic someone is jumping to conclusions if they don't accept the existence of any and all possible entities.

Never, in all my life, have I seen or experienced anything which could be regarded as a supernatural being interfering. Hence I don't expect it or them to interfere. I don't deny its possible something exists but I have no reason to think its any being associated to any religion. Why pick God over Allah when they are both lacking in any evidence? If I accept the existence of one then logically I should accept the existence of all. Where do I draw the line? Why is denouncing God jumping to conclusions but denouncing the Easter Bunny okay? Thats logically inconsistent and so I take the most logical cause of action, I don't believe in any of them and I assume all things in the universe can be explained without invoking such beings.

You may believe in God but you take an atheistic approach to most beings and in your day to day life. I bet your wear a seat belt. Why? Because you don't expect God to reach down and save you in the event of a car accident. Or to regrow your leg if its lost in such an accident. You accept God doesn't interfere with most things in day to day life. Yet you expect him to do it when no one is looking. You think its jumping to conclusions to say he's not interfering but I bet you don't think the Easter Bunny had anything to do with creating the universe!

You don't believe in 99.999999999999999999% of conceivable things which have no evidence. Are you jumping to conclusions with all of them?

Lol.... would you be using the same math but just change the constants? That would seem to me a variation- yet still nature. Just like gravity on the moon and earth are different. Current multiverse theories use the same forces but with different proportions of strength attributed to each force- seems to me the fundamental laws are the same, even in those 'other universes'. And those particles 'coming and going' are also following natural laws- has it ever been done in a perfect vacuum where absolutely nothing exists? No one can say that something else in the universe is not causing this phenomenon.... Or is extrapolating it so that you come to your desired conclusion science?

The point I made does not assume that particular notion of 'different laws'. The notion of different laws you outline still leads to such things as conservation of energy etc, I was talking about something entirely different to that which does not have any kind of underlying structure as we would understand it.

No one can say that something else in the universe is not causing this phenomenon

If you allow the answer "God is doing it" you allow the answer of "[Other religions] god is doing it" and any other ridiculous answer because you've basically said "Any suggest, no matter how baseless or illogical, is equally good". It's like the peopel who tried to get creationism taught along side evolution, to "Teach the controversy", then realising they'd also have to allow the teaching of any and all wild notions of how the universe or life came about. Hence the creation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, to illustrate anything is on par with any of the current religions in terms of evidence.

No one can say that something else in the universe is not causing this phenomenon.... Or is extrapolating it so that you come to your desired conclusion science?

Is it science to say "This is being caused by the Easter Bunny, who lives in the centre of the Sun and controls particles by waving his arms"? I doubt you'd think it is. But if someone said "God is doing it" you'd be less included to say "Rubbish!". People seem to have a blind spot in logical reasoning as soon as someone says 'God'.

I guess I should have said it is itself an insight

Which is what? Does "The Easter Bunny did it!" offer insight? Other than into the mind of the person making the proclamation?

As I said something being the most fundamental will not yield any more insight as it itself is the most fundamental 'insight'.

If its fundamental then it should provide insight into everything else. It should provide you with a greater understanding of everything which follows from it. The more fundamental the more it explains. In mathematics the fundamental axioms allow you to derive everything in your model. In physics, given 2 statements you can derive all of special relativity. Saying "God did it" provides no understanding of anything and thus it is the antithesis of fundamental, its a completely vacuous statement which provides nothing of use.

I agree, but that is why it was never meant to answer questions like 'How Sun Works?'

It's being used to explain the origin of the universe and of Mankind itself. I'd say that's worse than trying to be an answer to "How does the Sun work" because it is diverting people away from some very very important questions. Since 'God did it' is so vapid the more fundamental the question it is given as an answer for the more intellectual damage it does.

 

[786]

It invalidates the claim that you have proof for something. You're claiming the only explanation is yours and thus its proven. If an alternative explanation is possible than you haven't proven your claim true, it could be explained in another way.

Let me know when I used the word 'only'.

No, that isn't correct. Rolling a die gives a random result but its definitely not going to be a 7. Random doesn't imply possible. Nor does 'not random' imply the impossibility of something.

I was talking about having controls that you don't know are placed and then assuming they are random and that there are no restrictions- this does say what is and what is not possible because you're assuming there are no restrictions when if fact there may be but which are unknown to you.

Provided the probability of each of the mutations required to get from the earliest life to me are all non-zero then it is possible it can occur, without intervention or control. The specific distribution of the events within which those probabilities are defined is irrelevant. The non-zero probability is all that matters.

Seriously, take a sodding course in probability.

Are you claiming its impossible for some of the required mutations to have possibly occurred via natural chemical processes? Because that's the only way you can claim that intervention or guiding was required.

BTW life is not simply an 'occurrence' some things must also occur at the right time too- similar to some developmental processes.

Anyways it is also not impossible that billions of letters placed on the earth and then a wind rushes and ends up making Romeo and Juliet, as the probability of each letter being in a certain place is never going to be zero.

And secondly what I said was that you can not say something is random.... I never denied the possibility of what you are talking about. That is why you are entitled to your belief.

I'm not confusing the two. I've explained why its not relevant. Uncontrolled evolution is possible if each individual step is possible without being controlled. If no control is required at each individual step then no control is required over all. No guidance required.

And so? Do you think I denied the possibility of something like this happening?

You can prove a model wrong or prove something can occur. But proving a model correct is something different. Its important to distinguish between the layperson's use of words and a scientists use of words. In science 'theory' means a model which has been tested by experiments and not falsified.

Bravo.

A layperson might use it more as "a guess as to the explanation of something". Hence why creationist hacks often trot out "Evolution is only a theory".

Although I've never said anything of the sort... are you trying to paint me with the same brush as them?

If the code weren't coherent you'd not be here to ask why its not coherent. If our existence requires the existence of something if that something didn't exist you'd not be around to ask why it doesn't exist.

So now you're resorting to the definition which I gave but you said wasn't the anthropic principle? That it is after the fact crap saying that the reason something of the past is like it is is because we exist as if our existence had any effect on the existence of the past.

Secondly the fact we are here or not doesn't mean that the natural laws would be different... Take us out of the picture... Lets just look at Big Bang... There were natural laws that worked together.... I don't care if they can create something useful. They are coherent from the beginning... Or is it that humans came and what actually happened in Big Bang changed because we are here?

Are you not jumping to conclusions that the Easter Bunny, Santa, Thor, Illuvator, pixies and those elves which live in my sock drawer don't interfere with things?

I was referring to the method with which God interferes.. You said 'clearly' where there is nothing clear about it.

If you think I'm jumping to conclusions for saying 'God doesn't interfere' then you jump to conclusions assuming he's the only one who does. By your logic someone is jumping to conclusions if they don't accept the existence of any and all possible entities.

I was referring to the method of God's interference.. Do you know if he interferes through natural means or that his interference requires absolutely breaking the natural laws? Saying that you 'clearly' see him not interfering, I would ask you which way does God interefere which is he is not doing... Because if it was through natural means, no one can tell Him apart from nature. Again I have to question your 'clearly'.

Hence I don't expect it or them to interfere.

And that is sufficient to say 'clearly'- as if the case was decided?

Why pick God over Allah when they are both lacking in any evidence? If I accept the existence of one then logically I should accept the existence of all. Where do I draw the line? Why is denouncing God jumping to conclusions but denouncing the Easter Bunny okay? Thats logically inconsistent and so I take the most logical cause of action, I don't believe in any of them and I assume all things in the universe can be explained without invoking such beings.

If you live your life by complete logic then I'm amazed. Also logic doesn't lead you to everything.

You may believe in God but you take an atheistic approach to most beings

There is nothing 'atheistic' about my understanding of 'Evolution' or 'beings'. If God created the laws so that he creates what has been created, it is still His creation- without the code nothing would be created- its hardly an atheistic approach.

I bet your wear a seat belt. Why? Because you don't expect God to reach down and save you in the event of a car accident.

Lol. But I fully expect that if I were to die then I will die regardless of good doctors or not.... Religion/God does not say that you should not do things... Actually the reason I wear a seat belt is because of not getting ticketed hardly because of a car accident occurring.

Maybe you should have said that why don't I go stand in the middle of the road? Because God says to 'do' things... does not mean he doesn't protect you it simply means that you aren't put here so that your current state also be your final state as you are trying to imply that otherwise God would provided you with the final state.

Also I also did not claim that God told us to disobey natural laws.. Yeah you may get saved but it actually is dependent on you.

My 'daily life' may seem 'atheistic' but the intention for my actions are anything but 'atheistic'.

You accept God doesn't interfere with most things in day to day life. Yet you expect him to do it when no one is looking.

No, you don't 'expect'- you hope. He 'expect' you to use your brain.

You think its jumping to conclusions to say he's not interfering but I bet you don't think the Easter Bunny had anything to do with creating the universe!

You know I wasn't talking about any specific God, just in general. It could have been pink horses for I know but still that doesn't have anything to do with God interefering or not. Or you mind telling us, which way does God uses to interfere but he doesn't do so.

You don't believe in 99.999999999999999999% of conceivable things which have no evidence. Are you jumping to conclusions with all of them?

Yes I'm jumping to conclusion on all of them.. but in terms of discussion I am not telling you that 'clearly' this is the case, or 'clearly' that is the case.

The point I made does not assume that particular notion of 'different laws'. The notion of different laws you outline still leads to such things as conservation of energy etc, I was talking about something entirely different to that which does not have any kind of underlying structure as we would understand it.

Mind sharing the hypothesis or theory which talks about other universes which don't have any fundamental structure or natural laws (conservation of energy is a law).

If you allow the answer "God is doing it" you allow the answer of "[Other religions] god is doing it" and any other ridiculous answer

Absolutely but I only said God did it through the natural laws- If you want to replace God with pink bunnies, Athena, Zeuz, be my guest.... You're trying really hard to point out there are 'other gods' which are not what I believe but if you have noticed I have been talking of God in general terms as 'God did it' is used not only by Muslims but a vast variety of people with different faiths.

Is it science to say "This is being caused by the Easter Bunny, who lives in the centre of the Sun and controls particles by waving his arms"? I doubt you'd think it is. But if someone said "God is doing it" you'd be less included to say "Rubbish!". People seem to have a blind spot in logical reasoning as soon as someone says 'God'.

Its not science, but when did I say God was included in science, for by its definition it can not. You're just throwing things around without considering what I have been saying..

Which is what? Does "The Easter Bunny did it!" offer insight? Other than into the mind of the person making the proclamation?

Insight is in a persons mind because everyone can't understand the same information sometimes. Also yes it does offer insight, now I know who made it- now the question is did he make the things have some pattern to it or are they a result of something else he made, and so forth- then you'll enter science.

If its fundamental then it should provide insight into everything else. It should provide you with a greater understanding of everything which follows from it. The more fundamental the more it explains. In mathematics the fundamental axioms allow you to derive everything in your model. In physics, given 2 statements you can derive all of special relativity. Saying "God did it" provides no understanding of anything and thus it is the antithesis of fundamental, its a completely vacuous statement which provides nothing of use.

'Derive'? Can you 'derive' from something of which you have no method. You are talking about physics and math because they are coherent, from one follows the other. But what if there is absolutely no link between stage A to B- and what I mean by 'link' is a 'mechanism'. God created the universe through a 'supernatural' method- the universe on the other hand he gave 'natural laws' which it follows... You don't and can't know the mechanism of the initial supernatural to natural transition... But you can know everything from natural --> natural (which is what physics does).. That is why you can derive from the 'fundamentals' of math and physics. But 'God did it' is even most fundamental to these fundamentals but you can't derive anything from it because its a statement of something 'supernatural'.

Since 'God did it' is so vapid the more fundamental the question it is given as an answer for the more intellectual damage it does.

I agree, but only because most people, using this as an answer, don't recognize what it answers and what it doesn't.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

Cough, choke, sputter … the thread is dying.

My initial focus was the nature of life, how it originates, evolves, and spreads from a perspective of my view of cosmology (QWC). With the help of the thoughtful people who been kind enough to come and post on the topic, I am trying to broaden my perspective of the potential history of life in a multi-arena eternal universe.

I wanted the perspective of both sides of the philosophical issue that an eternal universe falls right in the center of. The issue as I see it is that there are three major explanations for the existence of the universe: God did it, something from nothing, or it has always existed. There is a thread on that topic called The Nothingness of Nothing” where a fourth explanation simply called “other” was proposed and there was a poll listing all four possibilities. As of today, and I think everyone who is going to vote has already voted, the outcome is: “God did it” 4, “Something from nothing” 2, “Always existed” 5, and “other” 8.

[Note] No one who said “Other” specified any explanation which we have only the three explanations I mentioned to work with.

Of those, the “Something from nothing” count of two has to fall in the category the “life is generative and evolvative” I think. But the other two possibilities can be satisfied by various degrees of “God did it” or “God has nothing to do with it”. 786 sees random as a sort of faith in itself and suggests that though there is no evidence, what looks random could be under the control of an unknown influence, presumably God. AlphaNumeric emphasizes his view and the view of science and math that there is no evidence that random isn’t just that, random pure and simple.

I pointed out that both views are un-provable but on this thread an eternal cosmology falls in the middle of the God/No God issue. And eternal universe and an eternal God have one thing in common, they are eternal. I offered my perspective on God being that if there is a God and if the universe is eternal, then it is possible that God and the universe are one in the same. I mean to leave the God/No God discussion at that for this particular thread and move on to the issue of life in an eternal universe.

The topic is speculations about life in a speculative eternal cosmology (for example this link posted by Walter L Wagner on another thread).

Assuming no one cares or that everyone agrees with that topic on this thread, I am working up a couple of posts to bring together the discussion and possibilities mentioned. I want it to be part of the thread that we are talking from the perspective of a multi-arena eternal universe, and I want the part about the possibilities of life and the possible heritages of life to be the focus.