• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#121 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 June 2007 - 01:01 PM

So "we" don't know what initiated Abiogenesis!?


So what?

It is something that can be determined through sufficiently careful observation, testing, analysis and theoretical models. It does not require a mystical explanation to understand.

No one has claimed that we are in possession of all the facts of nature to be known, only that all the facts of nature can be known.

Also as Aegist said:

I do personally think that the whole process is a sort of evolution. But it isn't Darwinian Biological Evolution until AFTER biogenesis.


It is valid to consider abiogeneisis a part of a larger model of evolution that deals with a more universal set of rules (cosmological evolution?) but it is not precisely the same as the set of rules that govern the more specific set of laws under natural selection after abiogeneisis.

Think of the rules of Natural Selection as a more defined and clearly understood set of rules that are a subset of a larger more encompassing set of rules that we still lack sufficient data to fully comprehend so that we can model them in all their detail. However that data is out there and we can gather the facts, ultimately understand them and even likely someday manipulate them to our advantage as a species.

#122 pSimonKey

  • Guest
  • 158 posts
  • 4

Posted 30 June 2007 - 01:15 PM

I wasn't suggesting a mystical explanation but I was relating abiogenesis to a "spark" of a sorts the moment at which life "became". I was thinking of an Egyptian god called Ptah which has been described as a, with out wanting to sound mystical, divine spark that can only be acknowledged by it's manifestations not as a reason but as an interesting comparison.
I do think that "we" will develop a (yet another deffinative) theory that explains the origin of life but/and I also think that no matter how deffinate that explanation is, it will still be awesome and amazing how it [life] happened started and continued. and still further observes itself and it's origin.

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#123 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 30 June 2007 - 01:24 PM

I think the origin of life was just a fluke.

Life is just chemicals interacting according to chemical laws. There is no secret to it. All that is required in the beginning is the once in a lifetime fluke cyclical reaction which produces more of the same. That in turn becomes a Template reaction. Eventually that template reaction becomes like DNA, which is a mutually opposite template. One side creates the other and vice versa.

Its just chemistry, and chemicals will react given the right conditions.

#124 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 June 2007 - 01:26 PM

I wasn't suggesting a mystical explanation but I was relating abiogenesis to a "spark" of a sorts the moment at which life "became".


You migh think of it as a *spark* and I might see it in terms of planetary cooling cycles on a geological timescale as a sort of infinitesimally slow pressure cooker in ocean bottom volcanic vents in a process that requires a billion years of time to from phase one to phase two. Now we are dealing with the subjective aspects of human perception.

I suspect calling it a *spark* is a little misleading because it is really about a qualitative phase change in material that describes the difference between animate matter and inanimate matter but it does not necessarily happen all at once. In fact part of the problem may be the human insistence on seeking that kind of *miraculous* image; like seeing the birthday cake and not the preparation and cooking that went into it.

However the *awesome* aspects of the majesty of nature are never diminished by truthful knowledge of them, only the misconceptions of false belief are decimated by the light of reason and fact.

#125 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 June 2007 - 01:33 PM

I think the origin of life was just a fluke.


I somewhat disagree Aegist but here it is because I don't think of *flukes* as a scientific explanation, only a recognition of laws we as of yet do not fully understand. That is why I tried to describe that process in terms of a larger set of xenobiological rules that derived from cosmological physics and will apply to how life evolves under any specific set of conditions anywhere in the universe.

Life is just chemicals interacting according to chemical laws. There is no secret to it. All that is required in the beginning is the once in a lifetime fluke cyclical reaction which produces more of the same. That in turn becomes a Template reaction. Eventually that template reaction becomes like DNA, which is a mutually opposite template. One side creates the other and vice versa.


Here I tend to agree but I am simply cognizant of our ignorance in the matter and willing to pursue more information rather than accept a *fluke* as an argument for what I may never live long enough to fully understand. However it is also one more reason for longevity to my mind as there are a vast number of such wonderful questions out there deserving answers and the more we learn the more we understand we need to learn.

#126 pSimonKey

  • Guest
  • 158 posts
  • 4

Posted 30 June 2007 - 01:48 PM

For sure our deffinition of what life "is" and when it "is" determines how we then try to describe it and verse vica. I'm sure that will constantly evolve too and in time comparrisons "billion years of time to from phase one to phase two" will seem infinitesimal to say billions of universes expantions and collapses etc (how easy that was to write in so many words... here it is there it goes LOL). I am interested in the comparrisons between religion and science and the use of the language used to convey the ideas of life and the evolution thereof etc. Once upon a time all the "scientist" of the day "knew" the world was flat and any other idea was unexeptable, I wonder how far modern day science will go along a similar path.
Again I do not wish to prove that some bearded fella on a cloud had a bit of a moment and voila, thus begat etc just interested in the science and also the comparisons, in places, with legends, myths etc

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#127 pSimonKey

  • Guest
  • 158 posts
  • 4

Posted 30 June 2007 - 01:55 PM

I somewhat disagree Aegist but here it is because I don't think of *flukes* as a scientific explanation, only a recognition of laws we as of yet do not fully understand.  That is why I tried to describe that process in terms of a larger set of xenobiological rules that derived from cosmological physics and will apply to how life evolves under any specific set of conditions anywhere in the universe.


Doesn't this smack of ID at all.

#128 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 30 June 2007 - 02:00 PM

Doesn't this smack of ID at all.

Not at all.

#129 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 June 2007 - 02:15 PM

pSimonKey do you understand why I happen to agree with Aegist that this does not appear at all like ID but instead the very idea of ID appears to be the simple human need to fill in the blanks for our ignorance because of our species emotional insecurity with uncertainty?

My dispute with Aegist was over specifics or at least the semantics of describing abiogenesis, not on the broader issue of ID v Darwinism.

#130 pSimonKey

  • Guest
  • 158 posts
  • 4

Posted 30 June 2007 - 02:18 PM

There is a set of laws that create life. Sounds like a degree of underlying intelligence.
Maybe I take intelligent design in a different way in this instance, than is meant in a religious way. To me life is intelligent in it's ability to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, evolve etc.
How "it" does "it" has always stuck me as really rather clever, even when an explanation, equation, process etc has been presented I still marvel. Too much of a poet maybe and not enough science!? Natural philosophy possibly.

#131 pSimonKey

  • Guest
  • 158 posts
  • 4

Posted 30 June 2007 - 02:24 PM

the very idea of ID appears to be the simple human need to fill in the blanks for our ignorance because of our species emotional insecurity with uncertainty?


Is that not what science does!? Try to fill in the blanks of our ignorance!

#132 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 June 2007 - 04:54 PM

Is that not what science does!? Try to fill in the blanks of our ignorance!


Of course science tries to fill in the blanks of ignorance but the difference is whether you are interested in factual truths or simply desire to accept any *comforting* belief or wishful fancy to fill those voids.

The modern scientific method can be thought to begin with the Socratic method and refined by Aristotle and later many others. This does not mean that empiricism, math, logic, or science did not exist prior to Socrates and Aristotle but that they began a structural organization of rules that still adhere today even if many of their conclusions do not.

The point is whether or not one is willing to accept their ignorance and seek to resolve it through patient analysis, observation, testing, etc or simply jump to a conclusion because it makes you feel good.

Socrates said:

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

And

“Wisdom begins in wonder.”

Follow that sage advice on the importance of introspective and external observation with his opinion that:

“I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.”

for

"in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all.”

because,

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance”

thus science deals with what is truly good, *objective knowledge* and blind faith takes us down the path to *evil* (Socrates' definition) or what is *bad* by modern definition, because it promotes ignorance by the complacent acceptance of ideas.

You are welcome to propose the hypothesis of the blind or divine watchmaker, the problem is not really in the proposition, it is in the proof and perhaps even more importantly; the recognition that proof is requisite, and that there are standards for such proof, which are dependent upon models of objectivity, not faith.

History of Science
http://en.wikipedia....tory_of_science

http://www.fordham.e...iencesbook.html

http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/

BTW, to propose ID you also need to construct the proposal in a testable (falsifiable) model and explain how such a model helps us better understand its integration in all other aspects of our understanding of the natural universe. To do otherwise is not valid and certainly not science, it is fantasy, potentially interesting and possibly good art or allegory but not particularly useful or helpful as science.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 22 July 2007 - 10:48 AM.


#133 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 11 July 2007 - 12:06 AM

A couple of Evolution vs Intelligent Design debates I have run across:

Evolution vs Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) debate at University of Texas at San Antonio between James Bower, Ph.D., a neurocomputation professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio and creationist John Morris Pendleton:

http://video.google....930854195650071

Creationist Kent Hovind debates well known skeptic Dr. Mike Shermer (chief Editor of Skeptic magazine):

http://video.google....330225420430733

#134 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 11 July 2007 - 12:08 AM

In addition to the above debates, here are a couple of overviews of Intelligent Design/Creationism:

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education giving a talk at the University of Michigan on ID (really interesting):
http://www.uwtv.org/...ID=4925&fID=572
(sorry, it can't be embedded, but if you go to the link you can view the video in a couple different formats)

Ken Miller on Intelligent design (provided by Aegist earlier in this thread, but it is good so I thought I would provide it again):



#135 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 22 July 2007 - 04:12 AM

"Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists
8 evolutionary scientists analyze the current controversy between evolution and creationism, or all anti-evolution forces, including intelligent design":




#136 apoptosos

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 July 2007 - 04:26 AM

Doesn't this smack of ID at all.


pSimonKey, can you provide a definition of ID as you understand it?

#137 pSimonKey

  • Guest
  • 158 posts
  • 4

Posted 25 July 2007 - 04:25 PM

The "design" or actuality of matter and life appears to have a structure which one can comprehend and quantify. Those qualities are already present, which are then interpreted by using current methods ie it is what it is, we give it a name and/or number. At any point in the lineage of matter/life there seems to be, from the point of view of a quantification method, a type of equation that proceeds it as well as defines it. The equation is almost irrelevant at this point, other than to communicate to those with the appropriate translator, but the process has direction otherwise how would we be able to quantify it and apply probability to outcomes thereof.
Big Bang, Helium, Hydrogen, fusion, fission, plasma, Sun, photons, light (cameras action) Bloody hell! that's clever in and of itself.
I am not a scientist but I do try to understand science. I am not religious but I do try to understand religion.

#138 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 30 July 2007 - 11:44 PM

Even the pope now admits evidence for evolution: http://www.news.com....5002700,00.html

(not that it should matter what he thinks since he isn't an expert on the subject, but it is interesting that even someone like him would make such an admission since there is so much evidence)

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#139 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 31 July 2007 - 12:39 AM

No one has claimed that we are in possession of all the facts of nature to be known, only that all the facts of nature can be known.


...one would hope...




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users