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

[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]

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.

 

[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?