-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
evolutions biggest mystery
- Thread starter Iti oj
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
This is a mystery... but I'm not sure it's "the biggest".
Most likely replication started before life did... viruses and prions are both non-living replicators and experiments show that certain molecules can self-replicate under the proper conditions.
Relatively simple RNA sequences can self-replicate acting both as a template and the enzyme.
wa:do
Chemistry.
It is in the nature of randomness to weed out patterns that don't sustain themselves.
Given an environment with random molecules under the right conditions, it is not that hard to believe that some would grab pieces from around them and build rough copies of themselves. Those that did would tend to remain present in the environment in greater numbers while those that don't would naturally tend to be destroyed eventually.
Of course, that would take a lot of attempts, particularly because they are supposed to be random attempts instead of true experiments. But I don't see why it would be unlikely; we did have a lot of molecules and a lot of time and space for them to interact, along a considerable variation of humidity, pressure, temperature and radiations.
Given an environment with random molecules under the right conditions, it is not that hard to believe that some would grab pieces from around them and build rough copies of themselves. Those that did would tend to remain present in the environment in greater numbers while those that don't would naturally tend to be destroyed eventually.
Of course, that would take a lot of attempts, particularly because they are supposed to be random attempts instead of true experiments. But I don't see why it would be unlikely; we did have a lot of molecules and a lot of time and space for them to interact, along a considerable variation of humidity, pressure, temperature and radiations.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
One of the ironies of entropy is that a certain amount of order is actually good for it.
Entropy is not the exact same thing as chaos.
wa:do
Think about how DNA works. A always pairs with T and C always pairs with G. So if you have a line of A's, T's, C's, and G's, with other A's, T's, C's, and G's floating around them, they'll attach in the mirror sequence, and then in turn, they'll attach to the mirror sequence in the original sequence.
It's like if you have a row of magnets, some facing positive some facing negative. Other magnets hanging out will orient themselves based upon the order of the existing row of magnets.
Super simplified version, and I'm sure there's flaws with seeing things like this, but I like the visual.
It's like if you have a row of magnets, some facing positive some facing negative. Other magnets hanging out will orient themselves based upon the order of the existing row of magnets.
Super simplified version, and I'm sure there's flaws with seeing things like this, but I like the visual.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Single cell creatures replicate In much the same way we do, by splitting and sharing DNA.
DNA carries many redundancies and perhaps failures with in the genome, it seems to retain a history as well as a blueprint. It always contains the opportunity for variants that can be subject of future change.
DNA carries many redundancies and perhaps failures with in the genome, it seems to retain a history as well as a blueprint. It always contains the opportunity for variants that can be subject of future change.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
there are lot's of rules in evolution.
Some examples include:
Hardy-Weinberg
Mendel's laws of inheritance
Differential fitness
Metabolic scaling
Bergman's rule
Cope's rule
Just for example.
wa:do
I agree with what you're getting at.
Evolution is obviously true but I believe conscious Intelligences had the big hand in it. By just the processes accepted by modern science, I think the earth would look just like the moon and every other planet we see; just miles and miles of lifeless natural formations.
For all I know, you may be right. It is hard to be conclusive one way or the other. IMO it ends up being a matter of perception and esthetical preference.
I still disagree, but who knows?
I still disagree, but who knows?
How do you come to that conclusion? Isn't the history of science one of continual discoveries of natural, reasonable mechanisms for phenomena previously attributed to divine intention and magic?
This isn't to say there is no God, of course, but it does give the necessity of God a good kick in the pants. Add the manifest lack of evidence for such a personage, and proposing one becomes a curious speculation.
The other planets and their satellites, by the way, are pretty variable and un-moonlike, with seas, volcanoes &c.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Laws are really just mathematical constructs that describe simple mechanics.
Evolution does have a lot of mathematics to describe it's mechanics, but it's not a purely mathematical discipline.
wa:do
If you read my post closely, you'll see I said 'conscious Intelligences', I did not say God. God is something even beyond these intelligences. I believe this physical plane is a small part of a vast universe. There are myriads of beings very different from us on the many planes. Some of those ('Nature Spirits if you will) concerned themselves with the fostering of life on earth through ingenious physical designs.
Why do I come to that conclusion. It comes from masters and seers that I respect who I believe can see farther into this mind-boggling complex universe than I. Their explanations of the universe are, IMO, the most complete, intelligent and believable that I know.
But that was my point, they are just natural structures without the complexity of even a worm with its DNA and reproductive methods, etc..
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Some will say there are no laws. Physicists especially feel that a law must be mathematical. But that is not really true. Hypothesis becomes Theory when it has been supported and confirmed by an abundance of evidence, evidence of different types, repeated over and over, and provides accurate predictions.
Theory becomes Law, when there no longer seems to be any tweak possible, hence a formula.
In evolution and other very complex theories, it is doubtful the entire theory will ever reach the point that there is nothing left to learn. But the following 4 fundamentals do seem to be inviolate;
1) Variability in characteristics of a population. (We are all different.)
2. Heredity of characteristics. (We are all more similar to our relatives than others.)
3. Competition for limited resources. (Reproduction capacity is such that there will always be more individuals produced then can be supported by the environment.)
4. Differential survival, i.e. Natural Selection. (When a trait is inherited, and provides a competitive advantage, its frequency will increase in the population.)
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually theories do not become laws.
Theories unite several laws under a unified conceptual model.
The theory of gravitation unites both Newton's law of universal gravitation and General relativity.
Neither of these laws can function properly without the theory of Gravitation to unite them.
wa:do
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Then were do laws come from?
The simplest hypothesis, the most complex hypotheses, theories, laws? Aren't they all conceptual models? Isnt pretty much every idea we have a conceptual model? Even an hypothesis can have numerous components, which in themselves are hypotheses. I do realize different disciplines use the terms slightly different. But Im not aware that any place theory above law in a hierarchy of complexity. As far as Ive previously been aware, the terms have always related to our confidence in the truth value of the model, not its complexity.
My first question, where do laws come from? In your view, does an hypothesis go directly to law? Is your view based on mathematics? That may be our disjunct. My understanding is based solely on observational science.