Origin of life

[LuisDantas]

yet when it comes to evolution, the exact opposite premise must be applied to 'the nature of biological life' whereby a rich diverse set of almost every imaginable viable template springs into competitive existence-

a tiny bit of a double standard for the nature of biological life is it not?

It is not a "double standard". You are just confusing science with belief. Do you realize how empty of meaning your statements are?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What exactly is the double standard? That life isn't diverse enough for you?

that a single monopolistic platform 'winning out' over the rest, was inherent to the nature of biological life

except from then on, when the exact opposite premise must apply for diversity to exist- there must be no monopolistic winner of species.

For intelligent design, this makes sense, we only need one platform for life, no more no less, while we'd want richness, diversity of life supported by it

but again- it's just one more strange coincidence for chance to have accidentally achieved the same.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is not a "double standard". You are just confusing science with belief. Do you realize how empty of meaning your statements are?

clear it up for me then.. is the nature of biological life to produce a single winner, or a rich diversity?

there's no right/ wrong answer, we're all here to debate different ideas, I just want to know which you believe.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

that a single monopolistic platform 'winning out' over the rest, was inherent to the nature of biological life

except from then on, when the exact opposite premise must apply for diversity to exist- there must be no monopolistic winner of species.

For intelligent design, this makes sense, we only need one platform for life, no more no less, while we'd want richness, diversity of life supported by it

but again- it's just one more strange coincidence for chance to have accidentally achieved the same.

Not really. What it means is that the genetic platform for life on our planet can be traced back to that point. The issue isn't that there was on molecule that eventually became life as we know it but that a group of similar proteins that eventually became life developed. It is also likely that the majority of the different "platforms" were highly similar and may have jointed together. In fact we know that for some of the advancements made there wold have had to have been bindings of different proteins together which would mean that more than one strand would be our ancestor.

But lets use an analogy to see if I have this right. Why does it make sense that there are several different types of guns but we don't see any bows and arrows in combat?

 

[Aquitaine]

God thats told us (Muslims) in Quran , that humans editing His messages

If the Humans are persistantly getting God's messages wrong, then perhaps the all-wise all-knowledgable God should try a more effective method of communication?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Arabic a very complex and sometimes vague language where words can have multiple different meanings?

 

[LuisDantas]

clear it up for me then.. is the nature of biological life to produce a single winner, or a rich diversity?

It is whatever it is, and it takes research to find out what that turns out to be. My current understanding in most situations life tends to organize itself in cycles of recyprocal nurturing, and therefore diversity is all but unavoidable.

there's no right/ wrong answer, we're all here to debate different ideas, I just want to know which you believe.

I believe that facts ought to trump dogma. Which is why I find your attempts at "gotcha'ing" science so naive.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not really. What it means is that the genetic platform for life on our planet can be traced back to that point. The issue isn't that there was on molecule that eventually became life as we know it but that a group of similar proteins that eventually became life developed. It is also likely that the majority of the different "platforms" were highly similar and may have jointed together. In fact we know that for some of the advancements made there wold have had to have been bindings of different proteins together which would mean that more than one strand would be our ancestor.

But lets use an analogy to see if I have this right. Why does it make sense that there are several different types of guns but we don't see any bows and arrows in combat?

that's what i'm getting at, whether 'survival of the fittest' produces diversity or monopoly depends on point of view- and here is assumed to produce the opposite outcome in close relation

another example- for atheists, survival of the fittest, natural selection is the best mechanism for a healthy diverse biosphere of life in it's entirety, and any creative meddling would only be throwing a wrench in the works.
yet the exact opposite is often held true for economics

 

[Monk Of Reason]

that's what i'm getting at, whether 'survival of the fittest' produces diversity or monopoly depends on point of view- and here is assumed to produce the opposite outcome in close relation

another example- for atheists, survival of the fittest, natural selection is the best mechanism for a healthy diverse biosphere of life in it's entirety, and any creative meddling would only be throwing a wrench in the works.
yet the exact opposite is often held true for economics

Survival of the fittest means that the species with the best traits will survive and become more diverse. It means that over time most of the species die out and only the few that are descended from the strong live. The diversity comes from mutation. It makes sense that all life on earth at some point comes from a single ancestor as it would have been the most fit. The vast majority of life fails and only the strongest survive. The mutation rate that we have causes a flourishing of diversity.

In economics it is a totally different beast. I may be able to play a trumpet but no matter how hard I blow on a harp it just wont work. If the mechanics are different then the results and rules in which those things apply will be different. Economies and are not biological organisms. IF you have some reason to believe that evolutions of economies and evolution in the biological sense should be held at the same standard I am going to need a fairly convincing argument as to why.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe that facts ought to trump dogma. Which is why I find your attempts at "gotcha'ing" science so naive.

I agree we should not have any dogma, we should be open to the possibility our assumptions are wrong. I think key to this is respecting other opinions, it's very difficult to change your mind to an opinion you have already ridiculed, no matter the facts that arise- that's how dogmas are created.

I have no problem with evolution, abiogenesis, they may turn out to be proven, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it!

on this issue, I think the point is that there is no ' inherent natural tendency' towards diversity, I agree with you on your original statement that biological life would tend towards homogeny- all things being even.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

on this issue, I think the point is that there is no ' inherent natural tendency' towards diversity, I agree with you on your original statement that biological life would tend towards homogeny- all things being even.

Why?

 

[Parsimony]

clear it up for me then.. is the nature of biological life to produce a single winner, or a rich diversity?

Out of a group containing a toaster oven, a refrigerator, a lamp and a television, which one is the single winner? There is none. They are all designed for their own particular applications and superior/inferior to each other in their own unique ways.

Out of a group containing an E.coli bacterium, a German cockroach, an American alligator and a cottontail rabbit, which one is the single winner? There is none. They are all adapted for their own particular niches and superior/inferior to each other in their own unique ways.

The reason that evolution has produced such an array of diverse organisms is because there is such a diverse array of niches that can be filled by them. There is no one best solution. Each niche has a different optimum.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Survival of the fittest means that the species with the best traits will survive and become more diverse. It means that over time most of the species die out and only the few that are descended from the strong live. The diversity comes from mutation. It makes sense that all life on earth at some point comes from a single ancestor as it would have been the most fit. The vast majority of life fails and only the strongest survive. The mutation rate that we have causes a flourishing of diversity.

In economics it is a totally different beast. I may be able to play a trumpet but no matter how hard I blow on a harp it just wont work. If the mechanics are different then the results and rules in which those things apply will be different. Economies and are not biological organisms. IF you have some reason to believe that evolutions of economies and evolution in the biological sense should be held at the same standard I am going to need a fairly convincing argument as to why.

of course the mechanisms exist in different contexts, but in and of itself, the mechanism of 'survival of the fittest' is identical- and it's the mechanism itself which is held to produce differing results re diversity versus homogeny.

Why?

in a word, entropy

because the driver of natural selection is reproduction first and foremost, not diversity- which faces an ever increasing headwind of entropy.
Entropy is the same reason classical physics failed to account for physical reality. atoms, the universe would collapse without further underlying information, a blueprint guiding specific results that we superficially see as the results of simple, intuitive classical physics

just as the universe would quickly collapse into its simplest state under classical physics, so too I believe life would collapse into it's simplest state under 'classical evolution'

The former was held 'immutable' by endless examples for hundreds of years, the implications of a 'clockwork universe' leaving no room/need for any further guiding design, was part of it's appeal for many in the scientific community. It's no coincidence that Max Plank was a skeptic of atheism. Evolution has even greater support from the same implications as classical physics had.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

of course the mechanisms exist in different contexts, but in and of itself, the mechanism of 'survival of the fittest' is identical- and it's the mechanism itself which is held to produce differing results re diversity versus homogeny.

Not if the definitions of survival and fittest are both drastically different. For example in the economies you could have a true monopoly of a single entity controlling everything. That is possible. This is impossible however with life. In economics there is no natural "limit" the size or strength of any single entity in today electronic age. This is not true in biology. Economics are based on numbers and math. Biology is based on mutation.

in a word, entropy

because the driver of natural selection is reproduction first and foremost, not diversity- which faces an ever increasing headwind of entropy.
Entropy is the same reason classical physics failed to account for physical reality. atoms, the universe would collapse without further underlying information, a blueprint guiding specific results that we superficially see as the results of simple, intuitive classical physics

just as the universe would quickly collapse into its simplest state under classical physics, so too I believe life would collapse into it's simplest state under 'classical evolution'

The former was held 'immutable' by endless examples for hundreds of years, the implications of a 'clockwork universe' leaving no room/need for any further guiding design, was part of it's appeal for many in the scientific community. It's no coincidence that Max Plank was a skeptic of atheism. Evolution has even greater support from the same implications as classical physics had.

Entropy has always been in the direction of more chaos and more diversity.

There is no classical evolution. If there was such a thing it would possibly be Darwin's origin of species which showcased a rudimentary understanding of what the theory developed into. So we have already shed this "classical evolution". There are no portions that the theory or the known mechanisms that require it to fall back into a basic state. I honestly have no idea, aside from assuming that it is personal belief, where you got that inclination. If you could explain it and the evidences behind it I would be much appreciated.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Out of a group containing a toaster oven, a refrigerator, a lamp and a television, which one is the single winner? There is none. They are all designed for their own particular applications and superior/inferior to each other in their own unique ways.

Out of a group containing an E.coli bacterium, a German cockroach, an American alligator and a cottontail rabbit, which one is the single winner? There is none. They are all adapted for their own particular niches and superior/inferior to each other in their own unique ways.

The reason that evolution has produced such an array of diverse organisms is because there is such a diverse array of niches that can be filled by them. There is no one best solution. Each niche has a different optimum.

Right. so in your 1st analogy, creative intelligence is a pre-requisite for diversity, without the desire for diversity, it does not exist- ultimately I believe only purpose can overcome entropy, only purpose can predict and implement an alternative.

Similarly with 'natural' niches- it is often said that only mutation and natural selection are required for diversity- but scratch the surface of this, and right of the bat we find much more is needed- life is only as diverse as the idiosyncrasies of environment and many other circumstances dictate. As in another thread- the phenomena of 'death' is something we of course take for granted, is vital to diversity, yet not an inherent requirement of arbitrary life at all. Mortality is specifically hardwired into the 'motherboard' of life.

If the blueprint for humanity is written in all the planet, and beyond- the size, speed, timing of the meteor which surgically removed the physically dominant species which would otherwise rule indefinitely... perhaps that may be written off as another coincidence, but the fact remains that 'mutation, natural selection' alone does not inevitably lead to a sentient being, a means for the universe to literally contemplate it's own existence. Far from it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not if the definitions of survival and fittest are both drastically different. For example in the economies you could have a true monopoly of a single entity controlling everything. That is possible. This is impossible however with life. In economics there is no natural "limit" the size or strength of any single entity in today electronic age. This is not true in biology. Economics are based on numbers and math. Biology is based on mutation.




Entropy has always been in the direction of more chaos and more diversity.

There is no classical evolution. If there was such a thing it would possibly be Darwin's origin of species which showcased a rudimentary understanding of what the theory developed into. So we have already shed this "classical evolution". There are no portions that the theory or the known mechanisms that require it to fall back into a basic state. I honestly have no idea, aside from assuming that it is personal belief, where you got that inclination. If you could explain it and the evidences behind it I would be much appreciated.

entropy tends towards equilibrium, decay, homogeny, that is the sense in which I am using the word at least.

I first got the inclination as an avid believer in evolution, I was writing a simulation to demonstrate the simple power of random mutation and natural selection- to a very intelligent creationist friend, a doctor, who I could not believe could possibly doubt evolution.

Of course my humble experiment was far from scientifically conclusive, but at the very least I demonstrated to myself that the mechanism was not nearly as simple as I had imagined and I think many others do.

As Emergence notes here, niches are vital, without them there is no diversity, but that's just the beginning, niches have to be bridged and staggered in very specific way. successful species hit dead ends, like the horseshoe crab- the pool is simply too large and stable to evolve further, significant change is only possible in very small, stressed pools... but those are susceptible to extinction altogether,

in general, diversity has to be actively pursued by various finely balanced means

So by far the easiest result to achieve through the 'classical laws' of mutation and selection- is a vast homogenous simple blob of life which thrives to the exclusion of all others. Of course this does not reflect Earth, and that's the point, it's a far more 'guided' process than I'd imagined. Whether guided accidentally or on purpose, is debatable of course, but it's not a simple inevitable process.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

entropy tends towards equilibrium, decay, homogeny, that is the sense in which I am using the word at least.

The fact that is the sense you are using the word doesn't make it so for whatever it is that you are talking about. What I mean to ask is why do you think that entropy of this manor will scale back advancement from evolution?

I first got the inclination as an avid believer in evolution, I was writing a simulation to demonstrate the simple power of random mutation and natural selection- to a very intelligent creationist friend, a doctor, who I could not believe could possibly doubt evolution.

Of course my humble experiment was far from scientifically conclusive, but at the very least I demonstrated to myself that the mechanism was not nearly as simple as I had imagined and I think many others do.

This is good. Understanding that it is not simple is the first step to understanding why so much of what is brought against it is rubbish based off of misunderstanding. I blame our education system first as it creates individuals who do not have a strong sense of what the theory states. Even those that do accept evolution they are sometimes highly mistaken. This is what leads to threads of individuals, much like yourself, who obtain some degree of understanding of the theory and debate against supporters of the theory that do not fully understand the content. This leads to threads like "people who believe evolution simply accept it without question" which can be true in some cases but is not true in all cases.

As Emergence notes here, niches are vital, without them there is no diversity, but that's just the beginning, niches have to be bridged in very specific way. successful species hit dead ends, like the horseshoe crab- the pool is simply too large and stable to evolve further, significant change is only possible in very small, stressed pools... but those are susceptible to extinction altogether,

Indeed but I do not yet see how you have hit a snag.

So by far the easiest result to achieve through the 'classical laws' of mutation and selection- is a vast homogenous simple blob of life which thrives to the exclusion of all others. Of course this does not reflect Earth, and that's the point, it's a far more 'guided' process than I'd imagined. Whether guided accidentally or on purpose, is debatable of course, but it's not a simple inevitable process.

No particular mutation is inevitable. Some more more likely than others. For example wings, the eye, hearing organs ect. All have on separate occasions evolved independently from one another. But the key here that creates diversity with mutations is that that term "fittest" is not a universal meaning. The competition is different in different areas. The food sources are different in different areas. The climate is different in different areas. And EVERY SINGLE FACTOR changes dramatically over time. It is either evolve or die for all species on the earth at all times. I do not see evidence of anything being guided. The Earth is not a perfect place for life as it constatly tries to kill us. The earth is "just" livable enough to have life stay here and evolve for a short period of time. This is what drives the diversity of life. This along with the random mutations that cause different changes. Different populations at different times face different challenges. And those lucky few who are able to have evolved to fit and survive to pass on offspring that then also survive is what causes change and evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree we should not have any dogma, we should be open to the possibility our assumptions are wrong. I think key to this is respecting other opinions, it's very difficult to change your mind to an opinion you have already ridiculed, no matter the facts that arise- that's how dogmas are created.

I have no problem with evolution, abiogenesis, they may turn out to be proven, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it!

on this issue, I think the point is that there is no ' inherent natural tendency' towards diversity, I agree with you on your original statement that biological life would tend towards homogeny- all things being even.

Abiogenesis may or may not be evidenced. Evolution is basically as proven as anything can be, though.

You are attempting to hamstring biology to your expectations in order to create a "gotcha" situation. Unfortunately, such an effort is doomed from the start.

 

[Parsimony]

Right. so in your 1st analogy, creative intelligence is a pre-requisite for diversity, without the desire for diversity, it does not exist-

It's not just a matter of desire for diversity but a necessity for diversity. You can't use refrigerator to cook a turkey any more than a brine shrimp can survive in the tundra. Likewise, there is a necessity for diversity in nature if all the niches are filled.

ultimately I believe only purpose can overcome entropy,

A pond freezing in Winter reduces the entropy of that pond. No purpose needed.

only purpose can predict and implement an alternative.

Given that evolution doesn't predict things that don't follow a pattern in the first place, what's the relevance?

Similarly with 'natural' niches- it is often said that only mutation and natural selection are required for diversity- but scratch the surface of this, and right of the bat we find much more is needed- life is only as diverse as the idiosyncrasies of environment and many other circumstances dictate. As in another thread- the phenomena of 'death' is something we of course take for granted, is vital to diversity, yet not an inherent requirement of arbitrary life at all. Mortality is specifically hardwired into the 'motherboard' of life.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. Why is anything more needed to explain diversification?

If the blueprint for humanity is written in all the planet, and beyond- the size, speed, timing of the meteor which surgically removed the physically dominant species which would otherwise rule indefinitely... perhaps that may be written off as another coincidence, but the fact remains that 'mutation, natural selection' alone does not inevitably lead to a sentient being, a means for the universe to literally contemplate it's own existence. Far from it.

Practically all living things are sentient (in that they can "sense" the world around them). I'm guessing you meant "sapient" or "intelligent". Why does it matter whether intelligence is an inevitable result of evolution or not? Also, we don't know that it isn't inevitable. It's also possible that any biosphere that survives long enough will give rise to intelligence. Or it might not. Even still, Homo sapiens may speciate in the future and give rise to hundreds of other intelligent species. Or it might not. We only have one example of a biosphere and one example of an intelligent species to study and a sample size of one is not enough to extrapolate conclusions from.

Of course my humble experiment was far from scientifically conclusive, but at the very least I demonstrated to myself that the mechanism was not nearly as simple as I had imagined and I think many others do.

I would be quite interested in hearing the details of your simulation. I've been wanting to do one myself but lack the programming knowledge.

 

[David M]

for your question is God incompetent to protect His message ? indeed He did with Quran , God said He will protect Quran (from editing) . and did not with other books (that's up to him ).

If that is the case then why are there slightly different versions of the Quran today? About 10 different versions that are considered "authentic" and a number more that are not considered "authentic" because the chain of narration is considered weak.

 

[David M]

yet when it comes to evolution, the exact opposite premise must be applied to 'the nature of biological life' whereby a rich diverse set of almost every imaginable viable template springs into competitive existence-

a tiny bit of a double standard for the nature of biological life is it not?

Firstly all the life on earth falls under, at most, only a couple of templates (depending on whether you consider viruses or prions to be a form of life), DNA/RNA is the single template that dominates this world's life.

The world consists of a multitude of different environments with a variety of possible ecological niches and those environments change over time. That makes diversity inevitable. If the entire world was a single stable environment we would not expect to see much change or diversity, and that is what we do see when we look at the smaller exceptionally stable environments that do exist in a few places.

Consider the bacteria recently discovered in deep rock formations, an exceptionally stable environment with very few niches, there we see little diversity and very little change over huge expanses of time.