Intelligent design without god

[nameta9]

Natural evolution up to a human is just as far fetched as saying that a god created man in 7 days (or whatever).

4 billion years may be too little for evolution to naturally evolve up to us. But if evolved in steps, on other planets, then maybe its total time is 10 billion years. Then again the age of the universe may be largely greater than 20 billion years (I always had a feeling that this age is too short), or maybe there are infinite universes and the age is eternity.

Also it is possible to have the sum greater than the parts. There is a pseudoscientific theory that claims that our technology is evolving at an ever increasing rate towards a "singularity" upon which computers will surpass human intelligence. After that, the computers would "design" other smarter computers and we as humans would no longer even know what happens.

Now if some process, in different terms and with different structures occurred on other planets with alien structures "designing" structures that "surpass" there own (just as humans may end up designing computers smarter than us) , then you can see how evolution may be quite feasible through this.

 

[DaveC426913]

Natural evolution up to a human is just as far fetched as saying that a god created man in 7 days (or whatever).

Why?

Do you mean you personally have a tough time grasping it? I'll bet you have a tough time grasping the million or so components of a Saturn V rocket, but does that mean you think it's far-fetched?

 

[Fliption]

Why?

Do you mean you personally have a tough time grasping it? I'll bet you have a tough time grasping the million or so components of a Saturn V rocket, but does that mean you think it's far-fetched?

I agree with him that it seems a bit far-fetched as the sole explanation for the diversity in life.

The Saturn V rocket, however doesn't seem far fetched at all.

 

[Paul Martin]

Natural evolution up to a human is just as far fetched as saying that a god created man in 7 days (or whatever).

I agree. I have tried to eplain why in a short essay at http://paulandellen.com/essays/essay120.htm .
I would appreciate hearing any refutation.

Paul

 

[nameta9]

4 billion years seem to little to create such complexity as my mind. This is not a "religions" war or christian debate; I can give 2 crap about religion. I am saying that evolution as we know it can't seem to create such complex structures. So I can imagine an alien race creating me just like we created computers.

I am saying that evolution as we know it may be even mostly correct, but the degree of complexity humans have reached seems way too much for the standard mechanism. I am trying to imagine a case where we could have been designed by other beings even much more "stupid" than us, just as we design computers; consider a case where the speed of calculations was the measure of "intelligence". Well we are a lot slower than a computer, but were able to design one that is a lot faster than us. Just like the "technological " singularity theory suggest that we may be "surpassed" by our own creation, so some alien civilization may have designed us. This is the point I am trying to make.

 

[James R]

4 billion years seem to little to create such complexity as my mind.

4 billion years. Think about that. 4,000,000,000 years. That's a VERY long time. Can you really comprehend what can and can't be done in that time? Hell, Homo sapiens has only been around for a couple of hundred, thousand years, and we've only had civilisation for the last few thousand. Look what we've achieved in even that short a time!

I am saying that evolution as we know it can't seem to create such complex structures.

That's just a gut feeling on your part, though, isn't it. You have nothing to actually base that view on, I suppose.

I am saying that evolution as we know it may be even mostly correct, but the degree of complexity humans have reached seems way too much for the standard mechanism.

Humans aren't much more complex than mice, to take one example. We're not a whole different ballgame - just one more small step in a particular direction.

... so some alien civilization may have designed us.

Yes, but there's less evidence of that theory than there is for totally natural evolution.

Also, if aliens designed us, who designed the aliens? Is it turtles all the way down, or eventually do we reach a point where something evolved naturally, all by itself? What do you think?

 

[nameta9]

Lets put it upside down. Imagine that we are the computers trying to figure out how we came to be. We would think first there was a small program then a larger than a different CPU etc. without ever suspecting that there could be a completely different way matter may interact. Then some "program" comes along and says you guys got it all wrong, we were "designed" by a bag of water full of carbon molecules, that there is no silicon or bits or software. That is the position I am trying to imagine.

Imagine that intelligence "emerges" from a plasma at the center of stars. That these plasmas may create structured electromagnetic fields that are intelligent and that these "self organized" structures emerge as "soliton" solutions to some differential equations.
We can further imagine these organized EM fields can manipulate atoms and molecules beyond anything we can imagine, and they somehow designed us or DNA completely in one shot just like we write a program. So we have a case where intelligence is explained in a very simple way from the solution of equations and we completely bypass billions of years of "evolution", Or maybe evolution is only part of the story.

I repeat, look at the parallelism of us designing computers smarter than us. It is like there are 2 ways to add and subtract, with a biological brain with all its neurons and DNA and chemical circuits or with a simple 8 bit silicon CPU. There may be very simple ways matter can organize itself to provide intelligence, without the need of billions of neurons as our brain.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12562

 

[jackle]

...I can imagine an alien race creating me just like we created computers...

If we were made by aliens, don't you think our ancestory would be missing from the fossil records? What about our genetic similarity to modern day apes?

 

[jackle]

Why aren't the aliens that created us still here? How did they get here in the first place?

 

[wave]

nameta9, Paul Martin and Fliption – care to cite some scientific evidence? Arguments from incredulity are not convincing.

I agree with him that it seems a bit far-fetched as the sole explanation for the diversity in life.

Please explain your reasoning.

I agree. I have tried to eplain why in a short essay at http://paulandellen.com/essays/essay120.htm .
I would appreciate hearing any refutation.

Ideas that are very similar to your challenge have already been demonstrated:

• Lenski, R., Ofria, C., Pennock R., Adami C., 2003. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423: 139-144.

• Lipson, H., Pollack J.B., 2000. Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406: 974-978.

Your claim that "there wasn't enough time for evolution to do what we see has been done" is unfounded. What explanation do you have for transitional fossils? What explanation do you have for vestigial structures? Here are some evidence to refute your claim:

• Nilsson D.E., Pelger S., 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256: 53-58.

• Gingerich P., Haq M., Zalmout I., Khan I., Malkani M., 2001. Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science. 293: 2239-42.

• Besharse J.C., Brandon R.A., 1976. Effects of continuous light and darkness on the eyes of the troglobitic salamander Typhlotriton spelaeus. J Morphol 149: 527-546.

4 billion years seem to little to create such complexity as my mind.

Then how would you explain the gradual intermediate forms of brains between brainless animals and human? In particular, how would you explain the following observations that contradict your statement?

• Kaas, J.H., 2004. Evolution of somatosensory and motor cortex in primates. Anat Rec 281: 1148–1156.

• Marino, L., McShea, D.W., Uhen, M.D., 2004. Origin and evolution of large brains in toothed whales. Anat Rec 281: 1247–1255.

• Preuss, T.M., Caceres, M., Oldham, M.C., Geschwind, DH., 2004. Human brain evolution: Insights from microarrays. Nature Rev Genet 5: 850–860.

 

[nameta9]

Hey man , I am no noble prize physicist, no Prigogine etc. I am just trying to imagine a situation where all the "intelligent design" hype that creationists blatter could possibly be true but without implicating a god. The real cornerstone of my "pseudoscientific" theory is that some simpler mechanism like a plasma standing wave inside stars could be smart and manipulate matter. Now the details are a completely other story. First you got to find the right equations, right solutions and right set of physical laws that make this standing wave manipulate matter. Granted, no easy task. But, nonetheless it is a possibility that parallels our ability to design computers that calculate faster than us, for example.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hey man , I am no noble prize physicist, no Prigogine etc. I am just trying to imagine a situation where all the "intelligent design" hype that creationists blatter could possibly be true but without implicating a god. The real cornerstone of my "pseudoscientific" theory is that some simpler mechanism like a plasma standing wave inside stars could be smart and manipulate matter. Now the details are a completely other story. First you got to find the right equations, right solutions and right set of physical laws that make this standing wave manipulate matter. Granted, no easy task. But, nonetheless it is a possibility that parallels our ability to design computers that calculate faster than us, for example.

Only trouble with imagining a non-divine designer is then, who designed them? The point of the divinity is that it's what the philosopher David Dennett calls a "skyhook"; it just arbitrarily ends discussion and invokes a miracle, or at least a "mystery".

 

[saltydog]

. . .The real cornerstone . . .

No, the reall cornerstone is ignorance. Not you sir. I wish no quarrel with you. But rather the ignorance of man. We really still are in the dark ages; limited by our messy cerebral apparatus. Those limitations reflect in our inability to fully comprehend complexities much beyond an arm's reach. It's easy for me to take the position that I just don't understand. But that does not lead me to conclude that it just cannot be but rather is of a sort we simply have yet to touch.

I've glimpsed it though, not much, just a little: in the marvelous complexities of the Mandelbrot set, the infinite regression of the Lorenz Attractor, and the singular nature of Catastrophe Theory.

Edited statement above: I suppose we conceive of them past an arm's reach but may not always fully comprehend them.

 

[nameta9]

Maybe we have reverse engineered evolution. Maybe on some distant planet silicon and electricity evolved microprocessors that then started evolving to the point of being able to manipulate carbon atoms and design us. Then we were thrown on other planets and after many generations rediscovered digital electronics and chips etc. So the cycle may be first silicon itself evolved into computers directly, then these computers got so smart as to design biological matter and then we rediscovered our roots by reinventing chips.

 

[jackle]

:rofl:

I am just trying to imagine a situation where all the "intelligent design" hype that creationists blatter could possibly be true but without implicating a god.

I think I need to be completely honest and suggest that you would have more success combatting creationists blatter by sticking to main stream science and the real flaws in the ideas.

It was fun to drive through Crazy Town and note that intelligent design still doesn't imply God. I wouldn't like to live there.

 

[neurocomp2003]

the theory of intellgience does not delve in one field its a multidisplinary.
It comprises of neuropsychology, biology, chemistry, physics,computability and programming (mainly adaptive learning techniques and sensorysystems.)

Like people already posted you can't just claim 400billion years seems to short
to evolve intelligence...what people haven't pointed out is that there are spatial dimensions(which i will write about below). Its nice how the short concept of "time" has disillusioned us from the vastness of space. ANd peoples beefs aren't normally with god creating intelligence but the actuual existence of god.

nameta9: what is your educational background that is how much have you read up on the above fields? I personally graduated with BSc Neurocomputation with a minor in astrophysics so hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.

Back to the spatial dimensions:
people always seem to judge based on the concept of just time and not space-motion(mass-multi systems). For example in our human history of intelligence..imagine only one person existed and that s/he tried to amass all the knowledge that our h istory has developed especially within the last 20-30 years alone. Do you think s/he could do it alone within the 5000-10000 yrs
that humans have existed. IMO they can't...the reason we have such vast knowledge is because of the MANY people that have existed over time and of course through our writings and now pdf.

the brain is much the same principle in that the neurons are related in serial but in parallel distribution...

evolution is also in teh same principle...with the however big spatial dimensions you would liek to think of with the fundamental physical structure being <10e-15m.

The best computational simulation you could do is a "cellular automata" well its prolly called just a automata...and create a 3D world large enough to house
10e100 particles let them run on some basica rules and see what forms they can create over some 400 billions of years if you can live that long.


As for the reverse engineering thing..it'd be a wonder if intelligence can be created through crystallation...and about the comments of silicon/other metals...ther's a reason why organic life is prolly made first C is #6,N is #7,#O is 8 and H is #1(hee carbohydrates,amino acids, fatty acids,lipids and oxygen and water. (He,LI,Be,B,) Si is #14 and the other metals >21(except MG and Al) and if you studied astrophysics you can understand why.(wow i remembered the periodic table)

As for intelligence of stars..perhaps there could be...i tend to think that it'd be nice if the stars can create a neural like bond amongst themselves...but two problems arise
[1] how will stars keep intact "synapses" which we attribute in our "higher" intelligence as being one of the dominate features of it. Inside stars motion is always happening and the T is high enough to break almost any molecular/covalent bonds...and there is no complex structure in stars if i remember correctly each area is sectioned off to a type of atom/s. so there is not complex structure that can be forms like the neuron. and if it could be it'd be burned.

[2]sensory/motor...any one who studies neuropsychology...that the senses
doesn't matter which just as long as you have atleast 1 are needed to provide for the human brain...however if we talk interms of other forms of sensations and motor skills maybe you can point out what you think the sun might have.

hope all tha tmakes sense
best
Jack

 

[Paul Martin]

nameta9, Paul Martin and Fliption – care to cite some scientific evidence? Arguments from incredulity are not convincing.

Please explain your reasoning.

I think evidence is in short supply. But, since you asked, it seems to me that the most obvious piece of evidence that is overlooked by scientists is the phenomenon of sleep. It seems to me that the regular and relatively long periods of loss of consciousness, which cripple the sleepers' ability to fight, feed, flee, and initiate reproduction, would be such a disadvantage that any organism requiring it would have gone extinct long ago. Not only is there a loss of those positive survival activities, but the sleeping organism is in a more vulnerable state wrt to many threats. Of course we know that animals need to sleep but we don't have any idea why. This situation would be similar to the situation where we knew that organisms need to eat, but we didn't have any idea why. In the case of eating, we know very well why eating is necessary to life. We don't know anything of the sort about sleep.

In light of this mystery, it seems significant to me that it involves consciousness in a fundamental way. It seems to me that some headway might be made if we took consciousness more seriously as a fundamental player in the process of life and of life's evolution.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that sleep is a counter-example which disproves evolution. Instead, I would say that perhaps the Darwinian explanation is incomplete and that there may be something more at work -- something related to consciousness.

Ideas that are very similar to your challenge have already been demonstrated:

• Lenski, R., Ofria, C., Pennock R., Adami C., 2003. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423: 139-144.

• Lipson, H., Pollack J.B., 2000. Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406: 974-978.

Thank you for the references, but with respect and appreciation, I don't think you read much of my essay beyond the first line. The articles you referenced are not similar to my challenge at all and they do not address it.

Your claim that "there wasn't enough time for evolution to do what we see has been done" is unfounded.

I suppose I would have to agree that the foundation is shaky. My claim was founded on my own uneasiness that Darwinism provides the complete explanation for the origin and development of life, and my suspicions that if you performed the thought experiment outlined in my essay that the result would provide evidence that would support my position. My appeal was for someone to consider my thought experiment and point out problems with it. I don't expect anyone to help me with my uneasiness.

What explanation do you have for transitional fossils? What explanation do you have for vestigial structures?

I see no problem with the Darwinian explanation for those appearances in the fossil record. It's just that I don't think there was enough time. My thought experiment specifically addresses the time element.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Your claim that "there wasn't enough time for evolution to do what we see has been done" is unfounded. What explanation do you have for transitional fossils? What explanation do you have for vestigial structures? Here are some evidence to refute your claim

I myself believe that not only did all life evolve here from scratch, but that we probably aren't going to find any other life in the universe for reasons similar to those outlined in the Ward/Brownlee book "Rare Earth."

However, I am also not convinced natural selection-genetics alone can explain all the evolution we see (I think that's what some of the posters here are trying to suggest); nor am I even slightly encouraged by demonstrated physical principles/processes that abiogenesis can occur. So to me, "something more" seems necessary (and I'm not necessarily suggesting God) to explain both the origin of life, and the progressive quality of evolution (i.e., beyond simple adaptation) that's led to something like the human brain.

 

[nameta9]

nameta9: what is your educational background that is how much have you read up on the above fields? I personally graduated with BSc Neurocomputation with a minor in astrophysics so hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.

Er X-Files, UFO theories, random science fiction novels, some math and physics (the easy parts) a lot of the physics books like Hawkins, random everything.

When you are at the end of the road of possible explanations of how our mind came to be, you must consider even far out possibilities. Maybe there is a planet in some galaxy where silicon dominates and automatically evolves into microprocessors and then they build themselves arms and then manipulate carbon atoms and then create our minds...

Or maybe we have standing "soliton" waves deep down in stars that self organize and can manipulate matter beyond anything ever imagined. The these EM fields designed us and here we are. I think these theories are really cool...

 

[neurocomp2003]

they are but...at the time being stars are considered to start with H->He->Li,Be,B->C,N,O

 

[wave]

It seems to me that the regular and relatively long periods of loss of consciousness, which cripple the sleepers' ability to fight, feed, flee, and initiate reproduction, would be such a disadvantage that any organism requiring it would have gone extinct long ago.

Obviously you have greatly overestimated its disadvantages. There are many instances in nature where the costs of a trait seem to outweigh its benefits. The tail of a peacock is often cited as such an example. Colorful feathers cost an enormous amount of energy to produce. It also attracts predators and hinders a peacock's ability to flee. However, the benefits gained from sexual selection outweighs the detrimental effects on survival.

Similarly, your argument has overestimated the disadvantages and failed to recognize the advantages of sleep. The danger of predation during sleep is mitigated by the fact that most animals sleep in secluded places. Furthermore, adaptations in response to the danger of predation during sleep has been observed in many animals. For instance, ectotherms including fish, amphibians and most reptiles merely rest and never enter REM sleep. In addition, some species of Cetaceans and Pinnipeds exhibit unihemispheric slow wave sleep in order to help avoid predators [1]. Unilateral eye closure accompanied by USWS has also been observed in some species of birds [2].

You have also failed to consider the cost of energy in finding and digesting food. Sleep provide a means to conserve energy while avoiding predators. Reduction in energy expenditure means the animal doesn't have to feed as often. The fact that homeotherm exhibit REM sleep while almost all ectotherms don't is evidence to support this theory [3].

Evidence indicate that sleep can actually enhance reproduction, contrary to your argument. The decrease in metabolic rate during sleep reduce the body temperature, which has been shown to increase semen quality in men [4]

Of course we know that animals need to sleep but we don't have any idea why. This situation would be similar to the situation where we knew that organisms need to eat, but we didn't have any idea why. In the case of eating, we know very well why eating is necessary to life. We don't know anything of the sort about sleep.

Although we don't have a definitive explanation, there are evidence to indicate the functions of sleep. For example, sleep is associated with various biochemical processes and protein synthesis [5]. Sleep is also related to memory consolidation and the dynamic stabilization of motor, visual and other sensory processing circuitry [6, 7].

Thank you for the references, but with respect and appreciation, I don't think you read much of my essay beyond the first line. The articles you referenced are not similar to my challenge at all and they do not address it.

I read your thought experiment in its entirety. Have you read the references I cited? They adequately demonstrate that complex structures can arise in a relatively short time, in both biological and digital organisms. Please state specific points of your argument that you think I have failed to address.

• [1] Lyamin O.I., Mukhametov L.M., Siegel J.M., 2004. Relationship between sleep and eye state in Cetaceans and Pinnipeds. Arch Ital Biol. 142(4): 557-68.

• [2] Rattenborg N.C., Amlaner C.J., Lima S.L., 2001. Unilateral eye closure and interhemispheric EEG asymmetry during sleep in the pigeon (Columba livia). Brain Behav Evol. 58(6): 323-32.

• [3] Lee Kavanau J., 2002. REM and NREM sleep as natural accompaniments of the evolution of warm-bloodedness. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 26(8): 889-906.

• [4] Laven J.S., Haverkorn M.J., Bots R.S., 1988. Influence of occupation and living habits on semen quality in men (scrotal insulation and semen quality). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 29(2): 137-41.

• [5] Cirelli C., 2005. A molecular window on sleep: changes in gene expression between sleep and wakefulness. Neuroscientist 11(1): 63-74.

• [6] Kavanau J.L., 1997. Origin and evolution of sleep: roles of vision and endothermy. Brain Res Bull 42(4): 245-64.

• [7] Kavanau J.L., 1997. Memory, sleep and the evolution of mechanisms of synaptic efficacy maintenance. Neuroscience 79(1): 7-44.

 

[wave]

However, I am also not convinced natural selection-genetics alone can explain all the evolution we see (I think that's what some of the posters here are trying to suggest)

I see that too, but the problem is that no one wants to clarify their position by giving specific examples. Repeatedly stating "there is not enough time to evolve this complexity" is not a very good argument. When I present evidence they simply ignore it and continue to proclaim "I can't see how it can happen!"...

 

[Les Sleeth]

Have you read the references I cited? They adequately demonstrate that complex structures can arise in a relatively short time, in both biological and digital organisms. Please state specific points of your argument that you think I have failed to address.

• [1] Lyamin O.I., Mukhametov L.M., Siegel J.M., 2004. Relationship between sleep and eye state in Cetaceans and Pinnipeds. Arch Ital Biol. 142(4): 557-68.

• [2] Rattenborg N.C., Amlaner C.J., Lima S.L., 2001. Unilateral eye closure and interhemispheric EEG asymmetry during sleep in the pigeon (Columba livia). Brain Behav Evol. 58(6): 323-32.

• [3] Lee Kavanau J., 2002. REM and NREM sleep as natural accompaniments of the evolution of warm-bloodedness. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 26(8): 889-906.

• [4] Laven J.S., Haverkorn M.J., Bots R.S., 1988. Influence of occupation and living habits on semen quality in men (scrotal insulation and semen quality). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 29(2): 137-41.

• [5] Cirelli C., 2005. A molecular window on sleep: changes in gene expression between sleep and wakefulness. Neuroscientist 11(1): 63-74.

• [6] Kavanau J.L., 1997. Origin and evolution of sleep: roles of vision and endothermy. Brain Res Bull 42(4): 245-64.

• [7] Kavanau J.L., 1997. Memory, sleep and the evolution of mechanisms of synaptic efficacy maintenance. Neuroscience 79(1): 7-44.

Just a suggestion. If you really want us to investigate your sources, you can't assume people have these books sitting around to reference. I think you have to either provide an online link, or quote the relevant passages. It doesn't help to have list which looks impressive on the surface, but which we don't have the means to review.

 

[wave]

Just a suggestion. If you really want us to investigate your sources, you can't assume people have these books sitting around to reference.

You won't find them in books. They're scientific journals that are freely accessible online. You can often find the PDF's just by searching on Google.

I think you have to either provide an online link, or quote the relevant passages. It doesn't help to have list which looks impressive on the surface, but which we don't have the means to review.

NCBI's National Library of Medicine digital archive would be a good place to start. I reference those publications to show my source and for anyone who's interested in reading more. It's all within the context of my arguments and I provide my own interpretation. It's a fairly standard thing to do when discussing evolution. I agree it would be pointless if no one else can review them.

 

[pattylou]

I'd like to go back to the original incredulity regarding evolution----

I'll second the notion that 4,000,000,000 years is a very long time. Consider that we worry about bacterial infections mutating to a drug resistant form, in a matter of days! ("be sure to finish your complete course of antibiotics!")

And I'll add this. You may think that you are completely different than a bacterium. Are you aware that your major enzymes are about 30% *identical* to those in bacteria, at the DNA level? And another 30% similar?

I guarantee anyone who finds the idea of evolution "farfetched:" If you take a few advanced biology and genetics courses, evolution won't seem so far fetched. But intelligent design might seem a little bit more like a "God of the Gaps" argument to you.

Oh, here's another idea. Are you discounting the fossil record? We have fossilized evidence of the simplest life forms, with estimates of their age, through more advanced life forms (with dates), through today's present life forms. How can you possibly say evolution is too "far fetched" when we can lay out the record and see it before our eyes? How can you suggest that life started somewhere else first, when we have the fossilised evidence that it started right here?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I guarantee anyone who finds the idea of evolution "farfetched:" If you take a few advanced biology and genetics courses, evolution won't seem so far fetched. But intelligent design might seem a little bit more like a "God of the Gaps" argument to you.

Oh, here's another idea. Are you discounting the fossil record? We have fossilized evidence of the simplest life forms, with estimates of their age, through more advanced life forms (with dates), through today's present life forms. How can you possibly say evolution is too "far fetched" when we can lay out the record and see it before our eyes? How can you suggest that life started somewhere else first, when we have the fossilised evidence that it started right here?

I think sometimes protesters don't phrase their protest in such a way that their real objections are apparent. For me anyway, it isn't that 4.5 billion years isn't enough time. What's incredible to me is that chemistry alone could achieve that.

I have no doubt about the gradual development of all life we see here; I don't even slightly doubt that natural selection and genetic mutation are responsible for "ordinary" adaption to changes in the environment. This sort of "automatic" evolution seems like it very well can explain the origin of new species.

The problem arises when something too creative occurs for mechanics to account for. If you take pure mechanics in a non-living situation, they never, not ever, get as creatively adaptive as what's occurred in the living environment. Yet most evolutionists claim mechanics alone are responsible for all change found in life forms.

Now, theorists who claim nothing but chemistry's mechanics are behind evolution insist that once some level of complexity is achieved by the physical system, then creative adaptation is bound to occur. Okay, I say, I'll buy that as a hypothesis, but then (being a proper empiricist) I expect you to demonstrate that creative mechanistic potential in the laboratory.

Look, they say, at what happens when you put some basic chemicals in a jar, and apply a bit of electricity. Why you get amino acids, an organic compound! True I say, but soon afterwards the whole process either stops or turns repetitive. That certainly doesn't demonstrate the billions-years long, virtually-perpetual kind of self-organizing potential needed to explain something like the human brain. Show us THAT sort of mechanistic change ability, and then your hypothesis starts to hold water.

So one way to interpret the objection to 4.5 billions years of evolution being enough time is when the skeptic means IF evolution is interpreted to mean that it's all happened by way of mechanical/chemical potentials alone.

 

[wave]

Now, theorists who claim nothing but chemistry's mechanics are behind evolution insist that once some level of complexity is achieved by the physical system, then creative adaptation is bound to occur. Okay, I say, I'll buy that as a hypothesis, but then (being a proper empiricist) I expect you to demonstrate that creative mechanistic potential in the laboratory.

Look, they say, at what happens when you put some basic chemicals in a jar, and apply a bit of electricity. Why you get amino acids, an organic compound! True I say, but soon afterwards the whole process either stops or turns repetitive. That certainly doesn't demonstrate the billions-years long, virtually-perpetual kind of self-organizing potential needed to explain something like the human brain. Show us THAT sort of mechanistic change ability, and then your hypothesis starts to hold water.

Please clarify something for me - are you saying you'll accept evolution when someone can demonstrate abiogenesis?

 

[Paul Martin]

Obviously you have greatly overestimated its disadvantages.

I may have, but it is not obvious to me.

There are many instances in nature where the costs of a trait seem to outweigh its benefits.

True, but in the case of sleep, I don't see any benefits.

Similarly, your argument has overestimated the disadvantages and failed to recognize the advantages of sleep.

I don't agree that the disadvantages were overestimated, but you are right: I don't see any advantages.

The danger of predation during sleep is mitigated by the fact that most animals sleep in secluded places. Furthermore, adaptations in response to the danger of predation during sleep has been observed in many animals. For instance, ectotherms including fish, amphibians and most reptiles merely rest and never enter REM sleep. In addition, some species of Cetaceans and Pinnipeds exhibit unihemispheric slow wave sleep in order to help avoid predators [1]. Unilateral eye closure accompanied by USWS has also been observed in some species of birds [2].

These are hardly advantages. As your choice of the word 'mitigated' implies, these strategies only make the disadvantage less severe. None of them produces an advantage.

You have also failed to consider the cost of energy in finding and digesting food. Sleep provide a means to conserve energy while avoiding predators. Reduction in energy expenditure means the animal doesn't have to feed as often. The fact that homeotherm exhibit REM sleep while almost all ectotherms don't is evidence to support this theory [3].

It makes sense for an animal to hide and relax to conserve energy during periods when no exertion for other reasons is necessary. But it makes no sense that consciousness and alertness should be given up. The little amount of energy it would take to keep eyelids open, or to pump the little extra blood to the brain, or to burn a little more sugar would surely be worth the extra protection that would result from being awake. You make a good argument for hibernation but not for sleep. They are quite different.

Evidence indicate that sleep can actually enhance reproduction, contrary to your argument. The decrease in metabolic rate during sleep reduce the body temperature, which has been shown to increase semen quality in men [4]

That may be a fact but it is hardly an advantage that would offset the obvious disadvantages of sleep.

Although we don't have a definitive explanation, there are evidence to indicate the functions of sleep. For example, sleep is associated with various biochemical processes and protein synthesis [5]. Sleep is also related to memory consolidation and the dynamic stabilization of motor, visual and other sensory processing circuitry [6, 7].

Those associations notwithstanding, we still don't know why animals sleep.

I read your thought experiment in its entirety.

Thank you. I apologize for having doubted that you did.

Have you read the references I cited?

I read what I found on the Internet, which may only have been abstracts. I am familiar with both of those projects from other reading, however.

Please state specific points of your argument that you think I have failed to address.

The point of my argument was that the problem of developing the information in the genome is harder to explain than the developing of the chemical substrate which holds and uses the information. If there were any Intelligent Design involved, it would be in the development of the information in the genome; the laws of chemistry and physics would explain all the rest.

My argument was to compare two processes: software development and biological evolution. My attack was to demonstrate that the problem of developing a genome is a bigger problem than that of developing a computer operating system. Since we know that design is involved in developing operating systems, we can try to imagine how an operating system might be developed without any design. I sketched out how this might be done with some rough guesses at the time it would take for various processes and successes.

The specific points of my argument that I think you have failed to address are:

1. Do you agree that evolution should provide an explanation for how genomes are developed?

2. Do you agree that a genome is roughly equivalent to a computer operating system in size and function, with the genome being of greater or equal complexity?

3. Do you agree that Darwinian Evolution provides no abstract design encoded in language or other symbols prior to the initial instantiation of any biological structure?

4. Is the method I outlined for developing an operating system without any use of abstraction or symbolic representation (design) a fair comparison with the Darwinian processes?

5. Are my time estimates reasonable? (This is where I would really like some help because my estimates are very rough and unsupported.)

Thanks for the energy you have put into this discussion, Wave. I appreciate it.

Paul

 

[wave]

It seems to me that the regular and relatively long periods of loss of consciousness, which cripple the sleepers' ability to fight, feed, flee, and initiate reproduction, would be such a disadvantage that any organism requiring it would have gone extinct long ago.

Obviously you have greatly overestimated its disadvantages.

I may have, but it is not obvious to me.

Canis lupus arctos require sleep but they are not extinct. Is it more obvious now?

These are hardly advantages. As your choice of the word 'mitigated' implies, these strategies only make the disadvantage less severe. None of them produces an advantage.

I never denied there are disadvantages to sleep. I was only demonstrating that they are not as detrimental as you may think. Many animals have evolved adaptations to address those issues.

But it makes no sense that consciousness and alertness should be given up.

Like I said, most ectotherms, Cetaceans, Pinnipeds and birds are relatively alert when they sleep. Alertness is not totally absent during sleep, even in people. Otherwise alarm clocks would be useless. What exactly is the problem with sleep in terms of evolution? All you're saying is that sleep has disadvantages. Granted it's not a perfect solution, but since when does evolution require perfection?

That may be a fact but it is hardly an advantage that would offset the obvious disadvantages of sleep.

You dismissed my supporting evidence and came to that conclusion because...? If it's just a personal belief then please say so and we'll move on.

Those associations notwithstanding, we still don't know why animals sleep.

Do you consider the maintenance of cognitive functions, such as learning and memory, to be benefits of sleep? If not, why?

I read what I found on the Internet, which may only have been abstracts. I am familiar with both of those projects from other reading, however.

If you can't access a reference, just let me know and I'll be happy to send it to you.

1. Do you agree that evolution should provide an explanation for how genomes are developed?

In what sense? An explanation for the mechanisms of evolution? An explanation for how mutations occur? Please be more specific.

2. Do you agree that a genome is roughly equivalent to a computer operating system in size and function, with the genome being of greater or equal complexity?

I assume you're referring to the Homo sapiens genome. You can make analogies between the two, I suppose. Whether it is accurate will depend on the details and it's open to interpretation. For the sake of discussion, I will give you a tentative affirmation.

3. Do you agree that Darwinian Evolution provides no abstract design encoded in language or other symbols prior to the initial instantiation of any biological structure?

I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps a simple example would help.

4. Is the method I outlined for developing an operating system without any use of abstraction or symbolic representation (design) a fair comparison with the Darwinian processes?

I have no doubts with this one - your method is not a fair comparison with biological evolution in many aspects. A fundamental flaw is that your experiment has a predetermined goal, namely "to build an operating system". On the other hand, biological evolution has no specific goals. Your experiment resembles Dawkins' Weasel program rather than a genetic algorithm.

To illustrate my point, suppose Panthera leo never existed and you have the ability to observe whether such an animal would eventually come into existence. Further suppose that Pathera leo will never exist. Is that evidence for or against evolution? There is no reason why that specific outcome should or shouldn't occur, therefore it is neither for nor against evolution. Now suppose your experiment does not produce an operating system, and you end up with some nonsense or a compiler instead. How would you interpret those results? In order to compare with biological evolution, it is necessary that your algorithm do not have any preordained goals regardless of your fitness functions or setup - period.

5. Are my time estimates reasonable? (This is where I would really like some help because my estimates are very rough and unsupported.)

I don't know because there is insufficient information. You haven't even defined a fitness function. The vague idea that you presented is a greedy algorithm that does not relate to biological evolution at all. Inferior individuals of a population (even the worst ones) are not necessarily excluded in biological evolution. Similarly, the best individuals in a population are never guaranteed to be selected. On the other hand, in your experiment "only successful "mutations" would drop out the other side to be integrated with various versions of the rest of the operating system". That is another crucial and fundamental flaw.

Before we proceed, it would be helpful if you tell me how an evolutionary biologist would define "biological evolution".

Thanks for the energy you have put into this discussion, Wave. I appreciate it.

You're welcome. I enjoy our discussion. It's a lot better than those "my brain is too complex" arguments that I've been reading.

 

[pattylou]

Look, they say, at what happens when you put some basic chemicals in a jar, and apply a bit of electricity. Why you get amino acids, an organic compound! True I say, but soon afterwards the whole process either stops or turns repetitive. That certainly doesn't demonstrate the billions-years long, virtually-perpetual kind of self-organizing potential needed to explain something like the human brain. Show us THAT sort of mechanistic change ability, and then your hypothesis starts to hold water.

Well, they've done those sorts of things. Theyve put nucleotides and nucleotide analogs in conditions that could have existed on early Earth, and found spontaneous formation of oligonucleoties ("DNA") that directed its own replication.

The reaction takes on the order of a day to a week, to generate a "replicator" in this fashion. I gave some references on this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80736

So, I'd say the hypothesis already holds water. What do you say?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Please clarify something for me - are you saying you'll accept evolution when someone can demonstrate abiogenesis?

I accept evolution now, I just don't think the theory has all it needs to explain what's evolved.

But to answer your question, I do think demonstrating the potential for abiogenesis would be hugely indicative that physicalness possesses a level of self-organization that could explain all of what's evolved. But this "demonstration" has to be done properly.

The issue isn't if chemicals can be formed into a self-sustaining system we call "living" (basically, a cell), or that it might contain the materials necessary to participate in natural selection. The issue is, can those chemicals organize themselves into a living system.

If researchers are manipulating things every step of the way, then an organizing force has intervened in the process . . . human consciousness. Beyond trying to recreate conditions that would occur naturally, what must be shown is that chemistry possesses the inherent potential to organize itself into a cell, all by itself.

Now, that doesn't prove that because a living, adapting system self-organizes itself it can go on to evolve all the advanced features found in life forms. But it does demonstrate a level of self-organizing ability which seems capable of something like that.

So yes, I think a demonstration of natural (i.e., not unnaturally manipulated) abiogenesis would convince me at least that a purely physical explanation can account for all that's evolved.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, they've done those sorts of things. Theyve put nucleotides and nucleotide analogs in conditions that could have existed on early Earth, and found spontaneous formation of oligonucleoties ("DNA") that directed its own replication. . . . So, I'd say the hypothesis already holds water. What do you say?

I am familiar with this, and I say it doesn't satisfy what it needs to. I fully concede chemistry/physical conditions possesses the potential for some level of self organization. But remember what I claim happens every time . . . the organization either deadends, or it turns repetitive.

I've debated this subject many times here, so hopefully you'll allow me to use terms I've coined to explain myself. If we are to put faith in the potentials of physics and chemistry alone as the "creator" of life/consciousness, then I've isolated self-organization as the focal point (not that it's the only place to focus, but I think it's a good place because without self-organization nothing could have evolved). I'll try an analogy.

Let's say you are a disembodied consciousness, smart but without any experience with how the universe works. You suddenly find yourself floating around on planet that is nothing but rocks and what seems to be machine parts lying around uselessly all over the place. The one exception is this robot vehicle that's zipping around collecting rocks, pulverizing them, and flashing the rocks' chemical analysis on a screen. This robot has a solar panel that powers the whole thing, so it is self sustaining. If it breaks a wheel, it is programmed to fix it from the parts lying around.

You theorize that since there is nothing on the planet but rocks and the parts, the robot must have accidentally formed itself. To test your theory, you get a bunch of parts, put them together in pile (I guess you have pretty strong will power in this story), and push it around a bit. And guess what? Every once in awhile two or three parts connect to each other in a way that is similar to how parts are connected in the robot. And if you make a pile of only those three parts, and roll them around the same way, lots of the same connections will occur.

Of course, the robot has a million little parts all organized perfectly to create a functioning, adaptive system. So while you can demonstrate some level of self organizing ability, what you cannot demonstrate is how the quality of self-organizing you observed can lead to the robot. All you've observed is something that will get repetitive far too soon to create a million steps of organization, one built on top of another, all working toward the establishment of some "whole" self-sustaining system.

That kind of non-repetitive, system-building organization is what I call "progressive" organization, and no one has ever been able to demonstrate that chemistry/physical conditions left to their own devices can kick into sort of organization.


Patty, I noticed you still haven't read the private message I sent you regarding reference materials you expressed interest in. I mentioned this in your thread in General Discussion too, but you can set your preferences to notitify you when you sign on if you have messages.

 

[DaveC426913]

Consider that the major driver for evolution is death. If a collection of molecules can't keep itself together long enough to make a copy of itself, it simply does not survive. If it does manage to stick around, it does because its abilities are well-tuned to its environment.

The *real* miracle to advanced life is that it managed to survive *at all*. It should have died off quickly in an ever-changing environment. The only things that did survive were things that managed to not die off as quickly as their neighbours.

 

[pattylou]

I am familiar with this, and I say it doesn't satisfy what it needs to. I fully concede chemistry/physical conditions possesses the potential for some level of self organization.

Not only organization, but the ability to replicate itself.

But remember what I claim happens every time . . . the organization either deadends, or it turns repetitive.

I don't know what you mean by repetitive. Just as self - replicating RNA will be able to dominate a microenvironment, in terms of abundace, and given availability of raw materials, so to should anything that can replicate *better* than the RNA be able to dominate the environment. Any time a *better* relatively stable replicator arises by chance (due to -progressively- acquisition of a cell membrane, or better catalytic ability, or the advent of protective *behavior*, or the advent of conscious awareness) that replicator will suddenly become most pronounced.

This is precisely what we see in the fossil record. Simple forms become more complex and better able to compete and replicate. We had no replicators for a few hundred million years. We then had simple forms for a good, long time. More advanced forms came later.

Let's say you are a disembodied consciousness, smart but without any experience with how the universe works. You suddenly find yourself floating around on planet that is nothing but rocks and what seems to be machine parts lying around uselessly all over the place. The one exception is this robot vehicle that's zipping around collecting rocks, pulverizing them, and flashing the rocks' chemical analysis on a screen. This robot has a solar panel that powers the whole thing, so it is self sustaining. If it breaks a wheel, it is programmed to fix it from the parts lying around.

But this isn't what we see when we look at our planet.

What we see instead, as we float around, is the robot zipping around as you have described. We also see simpler robots lumbering by. We see non-robots, that are sessile, and don't seem to accomplish much. We see solar panels that don't do anything but gather energy. We see that some solar panels are configured in one way, and others in another way. Likewise, we see variations in all the other "levels" of robots that are present. And oddly, we see that some of the advanced robots use the solar panels with configuration A, and others use solar panels with configuration B.

We start to dig on the planet, and we find evidence of additional forms that once zipped around but are now extinct. We find some that seem to be associated with the solar panels, but only occasionally. We see others that have wheels of a design that is less efficient than the extant robots. We discover that the deeper we dig in the crust, the more primitive the fossilized robots become.

We can draw lines to connect these various forms, and we call those diagrams that we make, cladograms.

You theorize that since there is nothing on the planet but rocks and the parts, the robot must have accidentally formed itself. To test your theory, you get a bunch of parts, put them together in pile (I guess you have pretty strong will power in this story), and push it around a bit. And guess what? Every once in awhile two or three parts connect to each other in a way that is similar to how parts are connected in the robot. And if you make a pile of only those three parts, and roll them around the same way, lots of the same connections will occur.

I agree with virtually everything you say here. As you say, it obviously took a while for parts A, B, and C to match up (few hundred million years is a long time after all). Then for ABC to engulf DEF took a while again. For ABCDEF to become multicellular (ABCDEFABCDEFABCDEF) took another long bit. No one is debating that - we have billions of years to work with.

Of course, the robot has a million little parts all organized perfectly to create a functioning, adaptive system. So while you can demonstrate some level of self organizing ability, what you cannot demonstrate is how the quality of self-organizing you observed can lead to the robot. All you've observed is something that will get repetitive far too soon to create a million steps of organization, one built on top of another, all working toward the establishment of some "whole" self-sustaining system.

That kind of non-repetitive, system-building organization is what I call "progressive" organization, and no one has ever been able to demonstrate that chemistry/physical conditions left to their own devices can kick into sort of organization.

I fail to understand your use of the word repetitive. Repetitive is good, in my view. You use the word disparagingly and that confuses my understanding of what you are trying to say. I also trut that you understand that we speculate that a complete cell took many hundreds of millions of years to form. Asking to observe it on demand in a lab is about as ridiculous as asking to observe any large event - like the big Bang. What we *have* observed is the formation of every theorized necessary step. Membrane formation, spontaneous nucleic acid formation, autocatalysis within this nucleic acid, we are even able to identify Margulis' endosymbiotes occurring.

In short, you seem to be continuing to use the "God of the Gaps" thinking. As an aside. at a molecular level, there is very little to distinguish us from a simple flatworm. And yet we diverged 1 -2 billion years ago. Our similarities at the molecular level? We are eukaryotic, multicellular, have nervous system, behavior, gender, our enzymes are highly, highly conserved and even damn near identical (more than 70% identical) in many instances.

Why don't we look like a flatworm? Why are we able to meditate and leave our bodies (assuming flatworms don't) and be self aware?

It's only one more minor step forward, anbd a great deal of that step has to do with gene *regulation.* It's *less* of a change than the evolution of single - celled life to multicellular life, or of prokaryote to eukaryote. You seem to be elevating self awareness or consciousness to a realm beyond physicality (as near as I can tell) and we have no reason to do so, from a scientific perspective.


Hi Les, I don't know how to retrieve private messages but I'll try to figure it out. With regards to meditation, I would guess that after 32 years you have reached some level of understanding that (1) we may *not* persist past bodily death, and it doesn't matter and (2) integrity and honesty in the moment is more important than any personal belief system. I mention it only because you seem to be distorting issues here, although I may well be the one with the distortion. And your mileage may vary.