Is Evolution on Alien Planets the Key to Understanding Intelligent Design?

[wave]

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.

What difference does it make to the theory of evolution, whether life on Earth was created by gods, aliens or through abiogenesis?

 

[Evo]

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 certainly am not qualified to intelligently discuss this but my question is how can you expect anyone to recreate life instantaneously in a laboratory? We have no idea what the exact mix might have been or how long it took under certain conditions. Maybe we have the "right mix" but it took 400,000 years to form. It could have been a fluke (my guess) that the odds of replicating in a lab would be impossible to do.

Let's take gold. Do you believe it's real? Why can't scientists make gold? Should be simple, right? A LOT simpler than creating life.

 

[James R]

Les Sleeth:

It seems to me that you're doing what many non-evolutionists do, in playing up the random elements and chemical processes, and at the same time downplaying or ignoring natural selection.

Evolution is not just a random bunch of chemicals coming together, and every now and then chancing on a good combination. Chance is a vital part of the process, but it is natural selection which determines which organisms proliferate and which do not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . I mention it only because you seem to be distorting issues here, although I may well be the one with the distortion.

I started with this accusation of yours because I hope you’ll be patient. I don’t believe I’m distorting anything. I hesitated to start this debate (again) to spare fellow PF members who may be tired of it by now. But also because every time it seems to take quite a while before the other side understands my point (if ever). I’m pretty sure from your responses you don’t get precisely where I am claiming something is lacking since you are talking about things that aren’t relevant to it. I’ll take responsibility for that and try to be more clear. I hope you don’t mind that I’m going to rearrange your comments to help me with my explanation (if you feel it distorts your views, please let me know).

Not only organization, but the ability to replicate itself.

I realize that is important, but not to the organizational problem I’m pointing at. Clue: my entire point can be boiled down to a question of organizational quality. “Quantity” type factors aren’t disputed, and don’t have anything to do with the objection. Stick with me!

I don't know what you mean by repetitive.

“Repetitive” is the failure to turn “progressive,” as I described in my prior post (I’ll explain more as I go).

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.

See, the issue I am trying to isolate is whether there exists within the set of all possible physical principles the ability to progress organizationally to some of the advanced features of evolution (e.g., the human brain). The position most evolution theorists take is that those principles do exist, and I am trying to dispute it and suggest there may be “something more” within a living system which causes it to not only to evolve past simple adaptive change, but to have self-organized into life in the first place.

So you can’t make your case by citing what occurs within an established living system since the “something more” if it exists, could be what is causing the organizational quality we can observe. You would be abandoning the debate by assuming the adaptive changes are caused by physical conditions alone, when that is what I’m challenging.

To get at the theory (i.e., outside of living systems), my strategy is to level my attack at the most elementary, or at least the initial, point where theorists claim physical self-organizing potentials created the first life. If chemistry can organize ITSELF into a living system, then researchers should be able to arrange conditions and chemicals in such a way that demonstrates progressive organization. More below.

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.

You are talking about how you draw conclusions from what you find (and I’m not contesting that you find it), but I don’t think you realize you draw your conclusions from an assumption that is already very firmly in place, and that is that natural selection alone has produced all evolutionary change. If you already think that’s the truth, then you will search for evidence which supports your a priori conviction. I can’t challenge your assumption with what happens within living systems, so I am challenging that physicalness possesses the potential to self-organize with the quality that will lead to, say, a brain.

Where do I challenge it? At the point of abiogenesis.

Just as self - replicating RNA will be able to dominate a microenvironment, in terms of abundance, and given availability of raw materials, so to should anything that can replicate *better* than the RNA be able to dominate the environment.

Quite so, but dominating “in abundance” doesn’t demonstrate progressive organization. In fact, it’s just what I predict happens . . . abundance without progressive change.

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.

That’s right, but you still have to demonstrate that what becomes “pronounced” can go progressively on, and on and on and on . . . to build an evolving system. You, nor anyone else, can do it.

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.

It did take a long time, but that, again, doesn’t mean that physical principles alone are what produced all evolutionary change. Also, it is hedging to the extreme if we apply empiricism’s own standard of proof, to claim “just give us more time to demonstrate it and in the meantime (with a little patronizing pat on the head), believe our unproven theory.” Oh yeah, and here’s the other part that’s often added, “And if you don’t believe our unproven theory, then you are being obtuse and obdurate, are ignorant of and distorting the facts, are a creationist, probably stupid . . .”

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.

Repetitive is good for a great many things, but it won’t produce creative change.

I also trust that you understand that we speculate that a complete cell took many hundreds of millions of years to form.

Yep.

In short, you seem to be continuing to use the "God of the Gaps" thinking.

You aren’t likely to catch me being so sloppy in my thinking. Don’t assume my skepticism is due to ignorance of the facts. Lots of facts doesn’t necessarily equal relevant facts. So far the people I’ve debated here most often try overwhelming me with facts which really don’t address what I am questioning: the potential of physicalness to self-organize with the quality needed to produce a living system that can evolve for 4 billion years and produce a conscious brain.

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.

Well, why do you assume the scientific perspective is going to explain it all? The only thing that science has told us so far is what’s physical. How do you interpret that? I say, if you are unbiased, then you will admit it is equally possible that science ONLY reveals physical facts as it is that there are only physical facts. Just because science can’t reveal something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Some of us explore the nature of consciousness, for instance, in a way that science is incapable of. What should we do when confronted with some inner experience that science can’t confirm? Deny the experience?

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.

Here is the crux of it all. You seem to think that because you can get bits and pieces of things to self-organize, you are justified in concluding those bits and pieces are going to join together all by themselves into a system which will evolve. Bad, bad logic. It’s like saying, I will throw in all the parts of a transistor radio into the centrifuge and eventually a radio will form (before demonstrating that that can actually happen). Well, I challenge that.

It isn’t ridiculous to insist that you make your case before assuming you are right. It is only because you are convinced ahead of time that chemistry can self-organize itself into a cell that you think my skepticism is “ridiculous.”

And I am willing to be reasonable about this too (not that anyone cares, I just mean in the context of this little debate). I don’t ask physicalist believers to actually create a living cell. Here’s my challenge, and what would make me extremely open to abiogenesis theory.

Demonstrate chemistry entering into perpetual and progressive self organization. Progressive means, one change after another which can lead to a functioning system, rather than one change after another which is exactly the same (thus “repetitive”). I say, physicalist believers cannot now demonstrate this, and because they can’t they are premature in claiming physical potentials alone are responsible for abiogenesis, and, by extension, all that has evolved. Either chemistry can self organize into life or it can’t. But you can’t claim it can before you are able to demonstrate it can; and I say the only reason people treat skeptics’ doubt as ridiculous is because they think they are “right” despite not having proven they are.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I certainly am not qualified to intelligently discuss this but my question is how can you expect anyone to recreate life instantaneously in a laboratory? We have no idea what the exact mix might have been or how long it took under certain conditions. Maybe we have the "right mix" but it took 400,000 years to form. It could have been a fluke (my guess) that the odds of replicating in a lab would be impossible to do.

That's right. So if you don't have any idea what the mix could have been, then how can you assume you know enough to claim physical potentials alone have both generated life and then are responsible for all evolution?

Do you see my objection? It is that physicalist believers won't admit that they really don't know what brought about life, and what causes the quality of evolution that led to the human brain. Yet they act as if there is no other possible explanation from what they already believe. It is what they believe up front that makes it all seem so certain, not that they actually have the facts they need to preach certainty.

Let's take gold. Do you believe it's real? Why can't scientists make gold? Should be simple, right? A LOT simpler than creating life.

That logic is non sequitur. I don't question that life is real. And gold can be predicted quite nicely with known and demonstrated mechanistic physicalistic principles. That is in sharp contrast, I claim, to the demonstrated physical principles still needed to explain progressive organization.

 

[Les Sleeth]

It seems to me that you're doing what many non-evolutionists do . . .

I'm not a non-evolutionist!

. . . in playing up the random elements and chemical processes, and at the same time downplaying or ignoring natural selection.

I'm not ignoring anything. I am complaining about exaggerated claims by physicalist believers.

Evolution is not just a random bunch of chemicals coming together . . .

Never said it was.

. . . and every now and then chancing on a good combination. Chance is a vital part of the process, but it is natural selection which determines which organisms proliferate and which do not.

Again, no dispute. I think you should contemplate my objection more carefully, as I discussed it in my response to Patty.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What difference does it make to the theory of evolution, whether life on Earth was created by gods, aliens or through abiogenesis?

It doesn't make a difference if you only attribute simple adaption to local/temporal changes to something automatic that genetics can handle.

But what doesn't seem accounted for by mechanics is the level of super creative organization needed to produce something so functionally competent as a human brain. The defense of "billions of years of natural selection" is nonsense (if you ask me) if you can't show physicalness is even capable of being creatively organizational to that degree of quality. And you can't! Yet the theory that physicalness is causing all known organization is being propagated as unquestionable by many scientists.

 

[James R]

Les Sleeth:

I'm not a non-evolutionist!

Methinks you protest too much. I never said you were a non-evolutionist! Defensive?

Here is the crux of it all. You seem to think that because you can get bits and pieces of things to self-organize, you are justified in concluding those bits and pieces are going to join together all by themselves into a system which will evolve. Bad, bad logic. It’s like saying, I will throw in all the parts of a transistor radio into the centrifuge and eventually a radio will form (before demonstrating that that can actually happen). Well, I challenge that.

That's right. You're missing a piece of the puzzle - as I said before. What is needed in addition to these chemical self-organising process is some outside influence which drives that organisation in one direction or another. Otherwise, you just get the "repetition" you keep talking about. In the case of evolution, that outside influence is the environment of the particular living organism, which includes all the other organisms competing for the same limited resources.

If you want to start with abiogenesis, then the competition is between different chemicals as to which ones can build more complex structures, though a natural tendency to bond with available resources (amino acids or whatever). Probably at this point you will complain that nobody has ever identified that crucial step from non-life to life. I, and others here, think that is a problem which will be sorted out; you obviously think otherwise. So, it seems we have a stalemate, since neither side can currently produce the kind of evidence needed to prove their case. We need to produce for you a laboratory demonstration of the spontaneous generation of life, it seems, while you need to produce some evidence of "intelligent intervention" or some other non-natural process.

 

[pattylou]

Hi Les,

I'm sorry, I just don't appreciate the subtleties of your argument. It sounds as though we agree on more than what we disagree on. We probably even agree that science can only describe part of the workings of the world (subjective experience and "meaning" belonging to other disciplines. I would argue that "organisational quality" can not be scientifically measured, either.) Thank you for taking so much time to try to lay out your position.

Unfortunately, I am not up for a discussion on meaning - it takes more time than I have in my very crowded life. My main beef, for the record, is that despite recognizing the limitations of science, you seem to be attempting to use science to *prove* something which by its very nature ... cannot be addressed with science. But I can't really point to anything in your post and say "Here is where you do this" - it's just the general approach that strikes me that way. You are using jargon (the idea of quality) that does not lend itself to scientific analysis.

I will say this, from your post to Evo (only because it is easy to refute with a reference, which is a scientific way to debate a topic):

It is that physicalist believers won't admit that they really don't know what brought about life, and what causes the quality of evolution that led to the human brain. Yet they act as if there is no other possible explanation from what they already believe.

I emphatically disagree, as a scientist. For example, one of the articles that I directed you towards, ends the abstract explicitlywith this sentence:

"However, as has been pointed out in several publications, these systems should be regarded as models rather than as a literal representation of prebiotic chemistry."

The questions that can be asked by those in the field of abiogenesis are of the nature: "What sorts of conditions might have allowed life?" If we find various conditions that might have led to the production of replicators (And I can think of four or five scenarios off hand ,that have been shown to be good candidates), then by golly - we can say conclusively that life might have formed without without design ... if conditions were "such and such!" And since life might have formed under those conditions, then we can say that there are conditions that would allow life to start!

Nowhere is this a proof of the nonexistence of God. What it is, is a demonstration that the beginning life does not necessarily require God. A very different thing.


Patty

"The heart of a skeptic and the mind of a child, put my life in a box and let my imagination run wild, pour the cement on my feet. The heart and the mind on a parallel course, never the two shall meet."

-Indigo Girls

 

[pattylou]

Also, I recognize that you are arguing from the other end of evolution - But whether the human brain is truly more evolved than a bacterium, believe it or not, is another discussion entirely.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not in the mood to get into another ID debate tonight, but just wanted to point out one thing here.

It is that physicalist believers won't admit that they really don't know what brought about life, and what causes the quality of evolution that led to the human brain. Yet they act as if there is no other possible explanation from what they already believe.

This is simply not true. Biologists do not act like there is no other possible explanation, what we say is that there is currently no better alternative. Right now, evolutionary theory is the only theory we have that is consistent with the evidence we have.

Without having been present at the moment life began, none of us can know conclusively how that happened, but that's abiogenesis, not evolution per se. Creationism, intelligent design and aliens from outer space do not have evidence to support them, rather they use guesses about what we cannot observe to make their claims. That is why it is not scientific theory. Could evolution be wrong? There is always the remote possibility, but even if we found evidence that completely overturned the theory, it does not make any of the currently proposed alternatives any more viable or any less pseudoscientific without any direct evidence in support of them.

 

[Fliption]

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

Are you saying that there is scientific evidence that natural selection alone explains life as we know it? As I said, there is no doubt that natural selection works. Siting examples of it working does not make the case that it alone has done all that we see.

Please explain your reasoning.

Well, first of all, I'm not covinced either way. I debate myself on these very issues all the time. I will admit that the "far-fetched" idea is one of incredulity and this alone is not a sufficient argument for me to convince anyone else.

Whenever I'm working on a project no matter how great the details look, I always find it useful to step back and contemplate the big picture. And when I do this with natural selection, quite honestly, it leaves me speechless. On any other project, I would re-think my approach. Given the history of science and its constantly improving theories, it's easier for me to believe that there is more to learn and current theories will be tweaked than to accept things that seem statistically unfathomable to me simply because it's the best answer we have today. In addition, there are areas of life (consciousness) that are problematic for science. It seems reasonable to me to be open-minded to the possiblity that reality truly is stranger than we currently imagine.

I realize that none of this is a convincing argument in a debate club but I find it a reasonable thought process that has guided me through life quite successfully.

 

[Fliption]

I'm not in the mood to get into another ID debate tonight, but just wanted to point out one thing here.


This is simply not true. Biologists do not act like there is no other possible explanation, what we say is that there is currently no better alternative. Right now, evolutionary theory is the only theory we have that is consistent with the evidence we have.

The truth of this statement depends on who you observe. Obviously it is untrue in some cases but this forum is full of professed scientists who do indeed exhibit the behaviours descibed by Les. Perhaps he has been influenced by these people in endless forum debates. But it also seems to me that in many of the ways that scientists communicate to the masses i.e. television shows, books etc. they do not choose the same words you do. They do indeed state theses things as truth. But that's just my recollection. I could be wrong (but I doubt it ).

 

[neurocomp2003]

Its called "Creation"(3D simulations) Science...no religious relation.
AI/ALife, particle physics programming, Computational Biology & Chemistry(plant modelling, molecular modelling)...The field is relatively young because only in recent history(~10yrs) has the computational power and algorithmic power been available...plus all the old fogies in the sciences excluding cs don't really know how to code or start from the "legos". Give it another 10-15 years(heh to squeeze 4billion years of evolution) where teh current 30 year olds will have been able to code this stuff. I mean creatures adn that fish programm by that chinese lady from uft and now in silicon are good examples of it and that algorithmic Plant modelling book.

I wonder if any of you would believe in evolution if a similar phenomenon would occur on a computer to alter one species into another int o another etc...all the way to a biped. Or even the simpler version of just plant modelling.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Its called "Creation"(3D simulations) Science...no religious relation.

Really? Doesn't being the programmer of these algorithms make you God?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm not in the mood to get into another ID debate tonight, but just wanted to point out one thing here.

Do you think I am an IDer? Guess again. I am a skeptic of physicalist enthusiasm, and tired of physicalist propaganda. Period. Fliption is right to say I might be jaded by too many debates with people who claim they haven't assumed a physicalist ontology, yet every single ontological thing they say suggests otherwise. If it weren't for physicalist ontology constantly being slipped into the media, textbooks, and remarks here . . . I would have absolutely no problem with all the truly awesome things discovered through science.

 

[Moonbear]

Do you think I am an IDer? Guess again. I am a skeptic of physicalist enthusiasm, and tired of physicalist propaganda. Period. Fliption is right to say I might be jaded by too many debates with people who claim they haven't assumed a physicalist ontology, yet every single ontological thing they say suggests otherwise. If it weren't for physicalist ontology constantly being slipped into the media, textbooks, and remarks here . . . I would have absolutely no problem with all the truly awesome things discovered through science.

Oh, sorry, no, I didn't mean to imply I thought you were an IDer. I was just prefacing with that to say I'm not going to discuss the ID part of this debate tonight.

Out of curiousity, were those others with whom you have debated the topic of evolution biologists? I've seen other scientists who are not biologists jump in too quickly into debates on evolution without a solid understanding of the theory themselves. As for how it's portrayed in the media, I'm afraid much of that is likely reactionary to those promoting ID and Creationism. It's hard to explain it in 30 second clips in a way that explains the aspects of it that are theory without having the Creationists and IDists jump in and use that possibility of doubt to leverage their position.

 

[wave]

The defense of "billions of years of natural selection" is nonsense (if you ask me) if you can't show physicalness is even capable of being creatively organizational to that degree of quality.

I am having a really difficult time in understanding your position, so please be patient with me. Are you saying that the theory of evolution is inadequate because it fails to explain how abiogenesis supposedly occurred?

 

[wave]

Are you saying that there is scientific evidence that natural selection alone explains life as we know it?

I am guessing you mean evolution instead of just natural selection. "Life as we know it" is rather vague. Please be more specific.

I always find it useful to step back and contemplate the big picture. And when I do this with natural selection, quite honestly, it leaves me speechless.

I get how you feel, I really do. But what is it in particular about evolution that makes you feel this way? Please be more precise than "all that we see" or "diversity in life".

But it also seems to me that in many of the ways that scientists communicate to the masses i.e. television shows, books etc. they do not choose the same words you do. They do indeed state theses things as truth.

Sometimes scientists speak as if they are omniscient. However, they still implicitly subscribe to the scientific method. It's unfortunate that the general public has misconstrued notions of scientific proof, scientific evidence, scientific fact, etc. I am not laying blame, but it's too bad they don't know that when a scientist says "this is the truth" they really mean "this is the truth (but I might be wrong)".

 

[Paul Martin]

Wave,

Thanks again for your responses and your thought. I apologize for the delays between my responses.

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

Since I haven't used the term 'biological evolution' in this discussion (as far as I remember), and since you didn't ask me how I would define the term, I don't see how my guess at how others might define the term would be useful.

But what I think might be useful before we proceed would be to clear up exactly what we are debating. You used the phrase "for or against evolution" a couple times in your response which makes me wonder if you think our debate is you taking a position "for evolution" and me taking a position "against evolution". Let me make myself clear: I am "for evolution". I believe that evolution occurred pretty much exactly like Darwin described it. I believe the fossil record shows how changes happened and in what time frames.

Where I think you and I disagree is that I don't believe that Darwinian evolution is the complete explanation. I believe there is something more going on than the physical processes of random mutation, Mendelian genetics, natural selection, and changing environmental factors. I think there was some process of design involved in addition to the physical processes.

The reason I think so is that there are some (yes) gaps in the purely physical evolutionary explanation. The most salient of these is the lack of an adequate explanation for consciousness. The second most important, IMHO, is the lack of an adequate explanation for sleep. Following these are the lack of adequate explanations for the origin of life, morphogenesis, regulation, instinct, learning, etc.

After considering these problems, it seems to me that all of them could be solved by hypothesizing that consciousness itself is ontologically fundamental. (See post #32 in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=667129#post667129 ). One consequence of this hypothesis would be that a designer would be available to close those gaps.

Now, back to our discussion. We were pursuing two prongs: 1) Sleep as an explanatory gap, and 2) my thought experiment attempting to show that there was "not enough time".

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

Is what more obvious now? It is obvious to me that the arctic wolf is but one of many counter-examples to the proposition that animals requiring sleep will go extinct. But it is not obvious to me that I "have greatly overestimated [sleep's] disadvantage".

Let me put this issue in the context of my hypothesis. Let's say that your car is parked right now as you are reading this sentence (It's my guess that it is.) Then, let's say Joe comes in and asks you, "Wave, why is your car parked?". Before you can answer, Joe interrupts and says, "Wait, wait, don't tell me. I think your car is parked because the advantages of it being parked outweigh the disadvantages. Isn't that right?"

To this my guess is that you would respond something like, "Well, I suppose you could say that, but it really doesn't make much sense. The real reason my car is parked is because I am not driving it (and nobody borrowed or stole it). It has nothing to do with advantages or disadvantages without some real contrivances. I suppose you could say that it is advantageous to park my car when I read the PF posts because I don't have a computer in my car, etc., but that would be silly."

In my view, based on my hypothesis, the reason animals sleep is simply because they aren't being "driven" during those intervals (consciousness being the driver and the chemical/biological organism being the vehicle). Now, the reasons they aren't being driven could be as varied and unrelated to the particular animal, as are the varied reasons you aren't driving your car, most of which reasons have nothing to do with your car.

I will demote sleep on my list of gaps, or remove it entirely, as soon as science comes up with a plausible explanation for sleep. Until then, it is a gap worth working on. I wish more people would.

Before I leave the topic of sleep, I'll address your specific questions.

What exactly is the problem with sleep in terms of evolution?

The problem is really not with evolution, but it is related. If evolution is true, then the fact that sleep is ubiquitous among animals implies that there is an important reason for it. The problem is that science cannot tell us that important reason. If there is no important reason for sleep, then that would cast some doubt over evolution as a complete explanation for biological phenomena.

All you're saying is that sleep has disadvantages.

That may be all I said, but that is not all I meant to imply. I meant to imply that sleep is no small, insignificant problem that doesn't deserve study and resolution. The scope of the phenomenon is enormous. First of all, sleep affects virtually all animals. Secondly, sleep occupies a significant portion of the lifetimes of most animals (nearly a third in humans, and maybe 90% in my cats.) This great scope, coupled with the obvious disadvantages to living, and further coupled with the fact that no biological function seems to need it, should, in my opinion, justify much more attention than the problem is getting. If, for example, we found that sleep was truly unnecessary, and a way could be found to eliminate it in humans, think of what a boon to humanity that would be. If, on the other hand, if we discovered the real reason for sleep, we might be on the track of some great extension to our understanding of the universe.

Granted it's not a perfect solution, but since when does evolution require perfection?

It's not a perfect solution to what problem? There is no known problem to which sleep is any kind of a solution, perfect or imperfect.

You dismissed my supporting evidence [that sleep may enhance semen quality] and came to that conclusion because...?

Because it is irrelevant and immaterial.

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

There are obviously benefits to sleep; if we are sleep-deprived we can't function as well as if we sleep. But exactly what those benefits are is not obvious. I know of no compelling evidence that sleep contributes to the maintenance of cognitive functions.

Now, on to my thought experiment. Thank you so much for thinking about it.

Before I begin, I should explain what I mean by 'designer' and 'design'. By 'designer' I mean a conscious entity who uses conscious imagination to construct representations of some intended artifact prior to the physical instantiation of the artifact. By 'design' I mean some of the representations constructed in the imagination of a designer transcribed or encoded in some symbolic physical form.

The two important features are that the designer is conscious and that the design is produced prior to the first actual artifact.

So, in the example I used of a computer operating system, the design, which may run to many hundreds of thousands of pages of diagrams, words, and other symbols, is developed long before the actual operating system is actually written on the first CD. And those hundreds of thousands of pages were all produced from the imaginations of conscious, thinking designers.

Originally Posted by Paul Martin
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.

In the sense of the information encoded in the genome, not in the sense of the chemical mechanisms. For the purposes of this thought experiment, the mutation mechanism is not important except that we must rule out any mechanism that would involve conscious choice or interference. The whole point is to describe a scenario where a designer is absent from the process. If, as I expect it will, it turns out that there was insufficient time without a designer, then it would be reasonable to hypothesize that a designer was involved after all. In this case, a hypothesis of deliberately chosen mutations would make sense.

Originally Posted by Paul Martin
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.

It is important to understanding my argument that you do know exactly what I mean here. And, after reading what I wrote, I can see that I was not careful enough. Sorry.

For a simple example, let's consider a new airplane type built 80 years ago (prior to computers). Prior to actually building the first prototype airplane, the designers would make a lot of drawings and write a lot of paragraphs which would describe (to a person then; to an automatic milling machine later on) how the airplane was to be built and what it would look like. Those papers containing drawings and paragraphs constituted the design of the new airplane. The important idea here is that the design (or a significant part of it) existed prior to the actual construction of the first airplane of that type. My question number 3 to you is whether you agree that no such "design" exists prior to the first, or initial, organism or organ or other biological structure.

Now it gets complicated here in both cases. No airplane was ever built exactly according to its initial plan, and all organisms carry a "plan" for development in their DNA complements. But what I am getting at is that even if there are design changes that are implemented part-way through the assembly of the first prototype airplane, or design changes which affect later versions of the airplane, all of those design changes started in the imagination of a conscious designer and only afterwards, did the design (change) get implemented.

That is in contrast to the biological case in which evolutionary theory disallows any conscious designer involvement, even though there is significant symbolic representation at work (e.g. codons representing amino acids via tRNA.).

I am just asking you to agree that according to evolution, there is no conscious designer and no "prior" design. I hope that makes it a little more clear.

Originally Posted by Paul Martin
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.

Here again I don't think I made myself clear. I probably confused two different methods of developing the operating system. The first is the familiar way in which they have been developed. In this method, there certainly is a predetermined goal for what the end result should be. But the second method is the hypothetical (and unrealistic) method of the thought experiment. In this second method, we have deliberately removed all design involvement and we have reduced the designer's involvement to what would be equivalent to environmental processes in evolution. Specifically, we don't allow the designers to produce any designs or to directly influence the development of the code. Specifically, there would be no predetermined goal of building an operating system. The idea is that the thought experimenter will watch the thought experiment to see how long it would take for an operating system, (or compiler or any other useful computer system) to get developed.

Your experiment resembles Dawkins' Weasel program rather than a genetic algorithm.

I'm not familiar with Dawkins' Weasel program, so I can't comment.

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?

I would say that if any useful program (not nonsense) were produced, then the experimenter could stop the clock and report how long it took.

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.

I think it has no pre-ordained goals.

Originally Posted by Paul Martin
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.

Sorry about that. I'm not sure what a fitness function is, but my guess it would be something like viability in biology. If so, I would say that the usefulness I mentioned above would provide that function. I guess I would qualify that though after thinking about it for a moment. If the "non-design" program development process produced a useful program that was only 1K bytes in size, then I would balk. To be fair, the program would have to be on the same order of complexity as a genome. You mentioned that you would accept that sort of comparison if I was talking about a human genome. In fact, I think that the range of sizes of genomes among the various organisms would be about the same as the range of sizes of various operating systems. So my condition would be that a qualifying "useful program" must be at least of the size of some genome.

The vague idea that you presented is a greedy algorithm that does not relate to biological evolution at all.

I'm not sure what a "greedy algorithm" is but I think the process I outlined does relate to biological evolution. The mutation mechanism could be based on pure chance, or it could be environmentally related in the thought experiment just as it is in real biology. The marketplace for useful software in the thought experiment corresponds to the struggle for survival in biology. Etc.

Inferior individuals of a population (even the worst ones) are not necessarily excluded in biological evolution.

Inferior programs (even the worst ones) are quite often bought and sold in the software markets.

Similarly, the best individuals in a population are never guaranteed to be selected.

Nor are the best programs, as you must surely know.

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.

I don't see the flaw. In biology, only successful mutations will be propagated. What's the difference?

Thanks once again for your efforts. It's fun talking with you.

Paul

 

[neurocomp2003]

Paul: If there are designers...then why would you believe in chemical or physical mechanisms...like reproduction, or even simple chemical reactions? The designer could simply put those new frames in place without the actual reaction occurring...so then no reaction exists in our universe like the processes in developing a computer game

 

[Paul Martin]

Paul: If there are designers...then why would you believe in chemical or physical mechanisms...like reproduction, or even simple chemical reactions?

Because I have no reason to believe that those designers are omnipotent. In particular, I don't believe they can break the laws of physics. I also believe there are designers of cars but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in the laws of physics that determine how cars work. Cars have physical mechanisms as well as designers. I think the same is true of organisms.

The designer could simply put those new frames in place without the actual reaction occurring...

Not without violating the laws of physics.

so then no reaction exists in our universe like the processes in developing a computer game

I don't understand that last comment.

Paul

 

[wave]

what I think might be useful before we proceed would be to clear up exactly what we are debating.

I agree. Since our discussion revolve primarily around the theory of evolution, let's make sure we're using the same definition or at least understand what the other mean by "evolution".

When I talk about the theory of evolution, I am referring to Modern Synthesis as it is accepted by mainstream biology. Are you using it in the same sense? If not, then what is your definition of "evolution"?

When you use the term "Darwinian evolution", are you referring to the original theory that Darwin created as is? If you don't mind, let's agree to use it only in that context so we can distinguish between the original theory from modern synthesis.

In case you're wondering, I use "biological evolution" in order to explicitly distinguish between evolution of biological and non-biological systems.

I will reply to the rest of your post as soon as we establish our definitions. I apologize for the delay.

 

[Paul Martin]

Hi Wave,

I am not familiar with the term "Modern Synthesis" so I don't know if my understanding of biological evolution is the same as yours or not. I am no expert in evolution, but I understand that Darwin's original theory of random mutation, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection has been augmented by Punctuated Equilibrium. In this version, species typically develop over a relatively short period and then remain in stasis for sometimes extremely long periods.

I have no quarrel with any of these ideas except that they don't explain everything that needs to be explained.

Paul

 

[nameta9]

My original thought was something very different. I think that a pure physical process can evolve to any extent. The idea I put forward was simply that you could have a system that "evolves" as understood in biology or something similar (without introducing any metaphysics like consciousness/ god /mystery) only either much faster or with different materials and processes. So for example a "silicon" planet given a combination of conditions and elements could possibly evolve a microprocessor after a billion years. And from there that CPU could evolve to the point of intelligence and intelligent design. Or something similar could have occurred with a soliton electromagnetic field in a star or planet that self organizes up to the point of becoming intelligent and designing biological systems. Now of course this is all wild speculation, but if we won't be able to resolve the evolution riddle, maybe some of these far out ideas could be plausable. Remeber that we desing CPUs "faster" than us, and we are still at the beginning. A material system could "design" a higher system than itself in a similar way.

 

[wave]

I understand that Darwin's original theory of random mutation, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection has been augmented by Punctuated Equilibrium.

Close enough. We'll settle for a definition that is consistent with modern mainstream science, OK?

 

[Paul Martin]

Close enough. We'll settle for a definition that is consistent with modern mainstream science, OK?

Yes. In fact, for the purposes of my thought experiment, it is important that the imagined software development method match as closely as possible to the mechanisms and methods of the mainstream theory of evolution. For example, the mutations of the code should be made on the same sort of basis as they are in evolutionary theory.

Looking forward to your responses.

Paul

 

[nameta9]

I think the abstraction level of this thread is higher than most posts replying. I am trying to imagine if evolution or self organization of complex material systems and processes can occur only with carbon molecules or with other systems and materials.

A silicon planet with metals and all kinds of heavy elements that slowly evolves into a cpu that slowly evolves into a superbrain that manipulates carbon atoms. Maybe bacteria are their computers! It sounds far out but if you look at it from the "end result" , a CPU is effectively much much simpler than a bacteria. It could be possible if evolution goes from simpler to more complex items.

So maybe evolution started on other planets with other elements and other processes we can't even imagine...

Someone said that that is "spontaneous generation". But Why call that "spontaneous generation" and call carbon molecules that synthesize into amino acids that automatically evolve into DNA and cells and bacteria and man "evolution" ? Is it just an "aesthetical" choice ? Fundamentally we are always talking about physical systems that "spontaneously" evolve into complex forms and processes. Why should this be allowed and apply only to carbon molecules ? A silicon planet could have storms and electricity and germanium that "evolve" into a full blown 8080 CPU and then a pentium and then a trillion bit CPU etc...

Or maybe the strange new processes occur in a superfluid ocean where self organized vortices grow larger and larger with turbulance and then become intelligent and manipulate carbon atoms and then decide to design US humans. Then they threw us around the galaxy and here we are.

 

[neurocomp2003]

it is possible...its a matter how teh sensorimotor(not necessary humans type) is generated to interact with the environment[ie my comment on crystallography]...however I believe that since stars generates CNO before SI/Ge and with the amount of time it took for our planet to evolve and for us to be placed on this planet(either by evolution or by design) it is more plausible for CNO to evolve intelligence ina time scale shorter than Si/Ge

as for teh comment on game programming i was suggested that perhaps the chemical reactions we observed is not real motion but frame based at some low time scale like that of game programming where motion is based on frames not true motion.

 

[chronon]

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.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html see#8

(Or maybe you do mean Stephen Hawkins, who does seem to have contributed to the subject in question - see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp )

 

[Paul Martin]

as for teh comment on game programming i was suggested that perhaps the chemical reactions we observed is not real motion but frame based at some low time scale like that of game programming where motion is based on frames not true motion.

Thanks. I think I see what you meant now. Yes, I agree that is a possibility. In fact we really don't know what the "real" substrate for the physical universe is. Whatever it is, it evidently supports the evolution of features within it according to the laws of physics. It is entirely possible that the substrate is some eqivalent of a computer memory and that the laws of physics are implemented in the software that drives the evolution of the information stored in that memory. That would make our physical reality nothing more than a virtual computer game. Could be.

Paul

 

[wave]

Sorry for the delayed response.

I think there was some process of design involved in addition to the physical processes.

The reason I think so is that there are some (yes) gaps in the purely physical evolutionary explanation. The most salient of these is the lack of an adequate explanation for consciousness. The second most important, IMHO, is the lack of an adequate explanation for sleep. Following these are the lack of adequate explanations for the origin of life, morphogenesis, regulation, instinct, learning, etc.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because there are no naturalistic explanations at this time does not mean a naturalistic explanation is impossible. Considering how little we understand about consciousness, it's no surprise that evolution cannot yet provide an adequate explanation. It's a logical fallacy to use that as a reason to invoke a "God of the Gaps" or a similar argument.

Evolution deals with how life developed after its origin. That's why Darwin titled his book "The Origin of Species" and not "The Origin of Life". The entire theory is based on the premise that life already exists. Whether life was created by gods, aliens or abiogenesis is irrelevant to the theory. You might as well add the origin of the universe to that list because evolution has nothing to say about that either. These are "gaps", in the sense that they are irrelevant to the theory of evolution. However, to use that as a justification for design is irrational.

What in particular are you referring to regarding morphogenesis? I fail to see why evolution should explain morphogenesis. As for "regulation", it is ambiguous so I don't know what you are referring to.

Instincts evolve when an organism's behavioral trait is favored by natural selection relative to those without that disposition. For example, natural selection could favor the instinct to flee when smoke is detected, if those who remain are more likely to perish. Similarly, the ability to learn allows an organism to adapt its phenotype in response to environment stimuli, thereby increasing its survival probability in unpredictable environmental conditions. There are ample evidence to support those ideas. What makes you think evolution doesn't have an explanation for the origin of instinct or learning?

The problem is really not with evolution, but it is related.

Then why did you say that sleep is such a "disadvantage that any organism requiring it would have gone extinct long ago"? You made it sound like sleep is an anomaly that contradicts evolution, so I presented some evidence in an attempt to show you otherwise. If I interpreted your statement incorrectly then I apologize, and we probably don't have any reason to discuss the topic of sleep.

If evolution is true, then the fact that sleep is ubiquitous among animals implies that there is an important reason for it. The problem is that science cannot tell us that important reason.

How did you reach that conclusion? Once again, just because science doesn't have a definitive explanation now does not mean it cannot provide one.

I know of no compelling evidence that sleep contributes to the maintenance of cognitive functions.

Did you read reference 6 and 7 in post #22? On what grounds do you dismiss those evidence?

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.

In the sense of the information encoded in the genome

Sorry, I still don't quite understand what you're looking for. Are you suggesting that evolution should account for the origin of every base in your genome? If not, can you give me an example of what you mean?

I am just asking you to agree that according to evolution, there is no conscious designer and no "prior" design. I hope that makes it a little more clear.

It's a little more clear now, thank you. If you are referring to before the existence of life, then I fail to see what it has to do with evolution. If you are referring to after the existence of life, then I agree that it would be wrong to characterize the mechanisms of evolution as a "conscious designer". However, I disagree that evolution "disallows any conscious designer involvement" because scientists have tempered with nature before. Does any of those answer your question?

The idea is that the thought experimenter will watch the thought experiment to see how long it would take for an operating system, (or compiler or any other useful computer system) to get developed.

That is a crucial piece of information. I don't recall anything like that in your essay.

I'm not sure what a fitness function is, but my guess it would be something like viability in biology.

No, they're different concepts. Your marketplace idea is an unintentional attempt at a fitness function, although I wouldn't qualify it as such in its current form.

If the "non-design" program development process produced a useful program that was only 1K bytes in size, then I would balk.

If usefulness is a halting condition, then you need to quantitatively define what you mean by "useful". Otherwise your experiment would require conscious and subjective decisions to work.

To be fair, the program would have to be on the same order of complexity as a genome.

In that case, you also need to quantitatively define what you mean by "complexity" for the same reason stated above.

You mentioned that you would accept that sort of comparison if I was talking about a human genome.

I played along for the sake of the discussion, so that you can make your point. How you define "complexity" will determine whether or not I accept the comparison.

So my condition would be that a qualifying "useful program" must be at least of the size of some genome.

Why?


Several things are still unclear in your essay. I would like a better understanding before commenting on the rest of your post.

1) What do you mean by "successful mutation"?

2) Please elaborate on the marketplace idea. In addition, what kind of information do you gather (e.g. number of units sold)? How do you use that information in your experiment?

3) Please clarify on how new generations are created and how code is propagated. You mentioned "various versions" but it is unclear if and how they interact. I am also uncertain in regards to how "different components" relate to the process.

4) What do you start with? You said "we would ask developers to induce some random changes into some of their code" but you never mentioned what kind of code exist in the first generation.

 

[neurocomp2003]

wave are you a programmer? in AI/graphics/ALife?

 

[nameta9]

The real problem is how to explain the first single cell from the molecule soup that was in oceans 4 billion years ago. Since the first cell is very complex it seems hard to imagine all the steps that lead to it. So the idea is that maybe a much simpler physical system with fewer "steps" could self organize into a somehow intelligent "designer" that designed the first cell. Now an 8 bit CPU is way more simpler than the simplest cell. If there is a process that can somehow evolve matter into an 8 bit cpu and then this evolves into a superbrain that can design a biological cell, you have the problem licked. The fact is an alternative physical process that can generate intelligence more directly without all the very complex biology would be very welcome. Is there one available ? There are "complexity" theories and chaos theories that somehow suggest some remote possibility. Can an "intentional" intelligence emerge from much simpler physical systems than a human brain ? It is a very abstract question indeed or maybe the origin of life problem will never be understood because we can't perform a planet wide experiment with all the trillions of macromolecules in the oceans to see what happens.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Scientists are looking at the idea that orderly reproduction preceded cellular life in all its glory, and they are particularly interested in RNA, which of course can carry a genetic code, but can also act as a protein, even a catalyst. So maybe there was an RNA world (google that phrase for more) starting with just a two-base RNA string. In a famous old experiment, strings of one-base RNA (all Uracyl) self assembled from inert precursor chemicals in a test tube.