How did the first living thing on earth come to life?

[Rough_ER]

I understand.

What I was saying is it reinforces my original statement "it raises more questions than it answers". It is quite a stretch to give natural selection, which is based almost solely on coincedence, the title of boss. But at the same time it fits perfectly in the perspective of creation.

Explain yourself. What do you mean by coincidence?

 

[Flappycat]

Lets start with the factory analogy you used. The way I see it this is a clearer decription of creation than evolution.

Not at all. The factory is just a metaphor for natural selection. Like the "invisible hand," it's just plain stupid to take it literally. Also, there's no coincidence TO IT. Sure, there are some dice rolls involved in practice, but the principle of it is that the best reproducers invariably get ahead.

 

[Navigator]

Explain yourself. What do you mean by coincidence?

Accident, fluke, random occurrence.

 

[Navigator]

Not at all. The factory is just a metaphor for natural selection. Like the "invisible hand," it's just plain stupid to take it literally. Also, there's no coincidence TO IT. Sure, there are some dice rolls involved in practice, but the principle of it is that the best reproducers invariably get ahead.

Its not stupid in relation to creation, its actually quite logical.

 

[Navigator]

best reproducers invariably get ahead.

What is the determining factor? Is it improvement of self or the community?

 

[Rough_ER]

Accident, fluke, random occurrence.

Then you are simply wrong. There is no accident involved with natural selection. The only random aspect is the mutation. Once the mutation occurs a logical process kicks in.

For example:

You are a male bird of paradise. Females of your species select males for mating based on the attractiveness or size of their tails. Your peers have tails that are about 4cm long. A random mutation causes your tail to grow to 5cm in length and the females notice this. Now a process of natural takes place (strictly speaking it is sexual selection, but ignore that, it's exactly the same). All your peers with normal length tails have 10 offspring each. Due to your longer tail you attract more females and have 15 offspring. All your male offspring are born with your long tail, and have 15 offspring each etc. As the gene that causes the long tail is being passed on more that the common tail gene, over many generations the average male tail length increases.

This is a crude example and I have not expressed it well, but it should help you understand that natural selection is not a process of randomness.

 

[Rough_ER]

What is the determining factor? Is it improvement of self or the community?

Read "The Selfish Gene".

 

[Navigator]

Then you are simply wrong. There is no accident involved with natural selection. The only random aspect is the mutation. Once the mutation occurs a logical process kicks in.

For example:

You are a male bird of paradise. Females of your species select males for mating based on the attractiveness or size of their tails. Your peers have tails that are about 4cm long. A random mutation causes your tail to grow to 5cm in length and the females notice this. Now a process of natural takes place (strictly speaking it is sexual selection, but ignore that, it's exactly the same). All your peers with normal length tails have 10 offspring each. Due to your longer tail you attract more females and have 15 offspring. All your male offspring are born with your long tail, and have 15 offspring each etc. As the gene that causes the long tail is being passed on more that the common tail gene, over many generations the average male tail length increases.

This is a crude example and I have not expressed it well, but it should help you understand that natural selection is not a process of randomness.

I understand, but once again you raise more questions than you answer.
When and how did the female bird decide what is attractive?
When and how did the female bird decide a long tail was better than a short one?
At what point did molecules begin to comprehend what other molecules were better than others in order to support your definition of natural selection?

Once again creation can logically answer all these questions.

 

[Flappycat]

I understand, but once again you raise more questions than you answer.
When and how did the female bird decide what is attractive?
When and how did the female bird decide a long tail was better than a short one?
At what point did molecules begin to comprehend what other molecules were better than others in order to support your definition of natural selection?

Open up a textbook. Actually gaining any real understanding about nature takes more effort than you're putting out.

Once again creation can logically answer all these questions.

No. It's cheap, it's kitschy, and it's stupid. You'd realize that if you actually had enough passion for knowledge to trudge through the reading materials it takes to gain any real understanding of the world around you. Grow some balls, go out to the nearest university library, and get an armload of reading materials on the subject. Dedicate a few full weekends to filling your head with understanding. You'll feel better about yourself, and you'll be less annoying to others.

 

[fantome profane]

I understand, but once again you raise more questions than you answer.
When and how did the female bird decide what is attractive?
When and how did the female bird decide a long tail was better than a short one?
At what point did molecules begin to comprehend what other molecules were better than others in order to support your definition of natural selection?

Once again creation can logically answer all these questions.

Perhaps you could explain how creation answers any of these questions.

 

[fantome profane]

You are a male bird of paradise. Females of your species select males for mating based on the attractiveness or size of their tails. Your peers have tails that are about 4cm long. A random mutation causes your tail to grow to 5cm in length and the females notice this. Now a process of natural takes place (strictly speaking it is sexual selection, but ignore that, it's exactly the same). All your peers with normal length tails have 10 offspring each. Due to your longer tail you attract more females and have 15 offspring. All your male offspring are born with your long tail, and have 15 offspring each etc. As the gene that causes the long tail is being passed on more that the common tail gene, over many generations the average male tail length increases.

What Rough_ER is describing here is sexual selection. And it definitely has a random element to it. If the majority of female birds of a given breeding population tend to prefer males with a larger tail then the gene that provides for longer tails in males will be more successful and will become more prevalent in the population. Likewise if the majority of females happened to prefer shorter tails, or a specific colour, or a kind of beak etc, then that gene would become more prevalent.

Keep in mind that the offspring receive genes from both the male and the female. So in the example given not only is the gene that cause a longer tail in males being selected, but gene that causes the female to prefer a longer tail is also being selected at the same time. What might have started as a slight preference in the females evolves into something much more distinct. So although there is a random element here, it will follow a predictable evolutionary pattern. It is an example of a positive reinforcement cycle, once the trend establishes itself it will tend to continue.

So does this mean that the tails on the male birds will continue to get longer and longer with each generation? No, it does not; there are other factors to take into account. A birds tail feathers are not used solely to attract a mate, but are very important in flight. At some point a longer tail becomes a hindrance to the bird and eventually the disadvantage of a longer tail in flight will outweigh the advantage in attracting a mate. So what we find is that nature strikes a balance. These birds will have a tail that is much longer than would be optimal for flight, but not so long that it makes flight too difficult.

 

[Navigator]

Open up a textbook. Actually gaining any real understanding about nature takes more effort than you're putting out.

Sorry I was such a dissapoint. I thought the questions I asked were pretty simple.

No. It's cheap, it's kitschy, and it's stupid. You'd realize that if you actually had enough passion for knowledge to trudge through the reading materials it takes to gain any real understanding of the world around you. Grow some balls, go out to the nearest university library, and get an armload of reading materials on the subject. Dedicate a few full weekends to filling your head with understanding. You'll feel better about yourself, and you'll be less annoying to others

Seems as though I have really touched a nerve, somehow set you off. I bet you know the old saying "nothing stings or hurts more than..."

While many books written by man are vital to our human nature, the word of God is essential to our immortal spirits well being.

 

[Rough_ER]

While many books written by man are vital to our human nature, the word of God is essential to our immortal spirits well being.

Remind me, who exactly wrote the bible again?

 

[Navigator]

What Rough_ER is describing here is sexual selection. And it definitely has a random element to it. If the majority of female birds of a given breeding population tend to prefer males with a larger tail then the gene that provides for longer tails in males will be more successful and will become more prevalent in the population. Likewise if the majority of females happened to prefer shorter tails, or a specific colour, or a kind of beak etc, then that gene would become more prevalent.

Keep in mind that the offspring receive genes from both the male and the female. So in the example given not only is the gene that cause a longer tail in males being selected, but gene that causes the female to prefer a longer tail is also being selected at the same time. What might have started as a slight preference in the females evolves into something much more distinct. So although there is a random element here, it will follow a predictable evolutionary pattern. It is an example of a positive reinforcement cycle, once the trend establishes itself it will tend to continue.

So does this mean that the tails on the male birds will continue to get longer and longer with each generation? No, it does not; there are other factors to take into account. A birds tail feathers are not used solely to attract a mate, but are very important in flight. At some point a longer tail becomes a hindrance to the bird and eventually the disadvantage of a longer tail in flight will outweigh the advantage in attracting a mate. So what we find is that nature strikes a balance. These birds will have a tail that is much longer than would be optimal for flight, but not so long that it makes flight too difficult.

I must come accross as an idiot. But, I'm up to my waist, I've still got the shovel in hand and I'm goin deeper.

Thank you for your patience fantôme profane.

At some point some mass made a coherent decision to mate/join with another mass based on input.

Up to that point was it random, accident, fluke?

 

[Navigator]

Remind me, who exactly wrote the bible again?

What good would that do? You can look up the dead sea scrolls and have empirical evidence of every book in the old testament except Esther. Many of the Greek septiguaints contain the New Testament. The words of God have lasted over 4k years and is the most prevalent ancient text avialable. I don't think thats coincedence.

 

[Flappycat]

Sorry I was such a dissapoint. I thought the questions I asked were pretty simple.

No, they're tactical. I'm calling your honesty into question.

Seems as though I have really touched a nerve, somehow set you off.

Nope. I'm just disappointed.

I bet you know the old saying "nothing stings or hurts more than..."

"...disappointment." I'll also have you know that there is nothing more fearsome than the truth, for only the truly bold will go out in search of it. Books of knowledge are the hunting dogs of the truth-seeker. Logical analysis is a snare used to trap it.

 

[fantome profane]

I must come accross as an idiot. But, I'm up to my waist, I've still got the shovel in hand and I'm goin deeper.

Thank you for your patience fantôme profane.

At some point some mass made a coherent decision to mate/join with another mass based on input.

Up to that point was it random, accident, fluke?

Ok, have patience with me too, it is sometimes difficult to understand exactly what it is you are asking.

In my post that you quoted I was talking about birds, now you are asking about “masses” and I am not quite sure what you mean. I am going to assume that you are trying to ask about the first molecules of matter that created self-replicating structures. I hope I am in the ballpark.

Fist let me say that in this case there is no “coherent decision” made. Sometimes when we describe the actions of non-sentient matter we will often use words that indicate they have some kind of desire, but it is just a figure of speech. I might say for example that electricity wants to find the path of least resistance, but you would understand that I am referring to natural laws, not to a conscious desire of electric forces.

I have to be honest with you, molecular chemistry/biology is not my field of expertise. But maybe that is a good thing as I will have to put this in simple terms. Molecules have the capability to come together in many different ways under different conditions. It is not an accident or a fluke when they do so, they do so according to the laws of nature. But it is random in the sense that it is not consciously directed by anyone, or at least I can say that there is no evidence of conscious direction and there is no need to hypothesis a conscious direction.

Now if some of these molecules form self-replicating systems, then we have something for natural selection to work on. Those self-replicating machines that are most adept at replicating themselves will tend to become more prevalent, using up more of the resources available, resulting in a struggle for survival, resulting in natural selection.

Does this in anyway answer your question?

 

[Flappycat]

And natural laws aren't the kind of laws we write down to govern a society. This is another figure of speech. These "laws" are written by researchers to describe ways that matter has a propensity to behave. When these "laws" are persistently broken in one instance of another, we attempt to discover why and even consider the possibility that our law is faulty.

 

[Navigator]

Ok, have patience with me too, it is sometimes difficult to understand exactly what it is you are asking.

In my post that you quoted I was talking about birds, now you are asking about “masses” and I am not quite sure what you mean. I am going to assume that you are trying to ask about the first molecules of matter that created self-replicating structures. I hope I am in the ballpark.

Fist let me say that in this case there is no “coherent decision” made. Sometimes when we describe the actions of non-sentient matter we will often use words that indicate they have some kind of desire, but it is just a figure of speech. I might say for example that electricity wants to find the path of least resistance, but you would understand that I am referring to natural laws, not to a conscious desire of electric forces.

I have to be honest with you, molecular chemistry/biology is not my field of expertise. But maybe that is a good thing as I will have to put this in simple terms. Molecules have the capability to come together in many different ways under different conditions. It is not an accident or a fluke when they do so, they do so according to the laws of nature. But it is random in the sense that it is not consciously directed by anyone, or at least I can say that there is no evidence of conscious direction and there is no need to hypothesis a conscious direction.

Now if some of these molecules form self-replicating systems, then we have something for natural selection to work on. Those self-replicating machines that are most adept at replicating themselves will tend to become more prevalent, using up more of the resources available, resulting in a struggle for survival, resulting in natural selection.

Does this in anyway answer your question?

:sorry1:
My questions were trying to establish what constitutes living self-replicating structures.
First we have to establish living. To me it would be when self-replicating systems become aware of their surroundings enough to make a decision based the input. Prior to that they are not alive, the natural selection is based on more than the laws of nature. Do you agree?

 

[Flappycat]

:sorry1:
My questions were trying to establish what constitutes living self-replicating structures.

Anything. Arguably, we could even create a self-replicating computer program and call IT life. Perhaps life can even be born in the heart of a sun.

First we have to establish living. To me it would be when self-replicating systems become aware of their surroundings enough to make a decision based the input. Prior to that they are not alive, the natural selection is based on more than the laws of nature. Do you agree?

No. Monerans and protists are obviously not aware of their surroundings, yet we call them life. Among monerans, you will find bacteria and types of algae. Among protists, you'll find some of the most sophisticated single-celled organisms in nature.