The Creation of life on Earth explained

[Kilgore Trout]

Star Wars was a movie.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Star Wars was a movie.

:thud:

 

[fallingblood]

Star Wars was a movie.

That's blasphemous. I have a little figuring of Darth Sidious that would disagree with you. And it just happens that Jesus is his best friend.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

the complex nature of organisms and their relations to one another cannot happen just by random mutation/natural selection.

And you know this how?

What you propose in your OP does not affect the facts of evolution.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Star Wars was a movie.

It still is!

 

[PolyHedral]

You've seen what Lucas did to it, haven't you?

 

[Valjean]

Not a theory -- fantasy.

 

[Photonic]

You've seen what Lucas did to it, haven't you?

No. I HAVEN'T.

I'm sticking with that story.

 

[atanu]

I have a new theory regarding the existence of life on Earth.
After the Big Bang particles were spread throughout the Universe - normal particles to make up the physical items and anti matter to make up the complementary force / Chemical Life Force.
This Life force (LF) ------

Actually you are not saying anything new yet somehow you have attracted a lot of flak, possibly because you are passing it off as your own discovery and you are trying to make it look like a scientific hypothesis.

Philosophers have talked about World as Will or Will to Power or even something like selfish gene.

Older religious philosphies recognise Soul, which go by many names like Life Force or Jivatma for example. As per HIndu philosphy, the Primal Nature has three basic qualities and that give rise to three basic kinds of functions: Creating, Maintaining, and Destroying.

Destroying is basically obliterating all distinctions and this increases entropy. Creating is creating the distinctions and this process organises things locally and thus appears to go against the law of thermodynamics.

Living beings do locally violate laws of thermodynamics. To explain this, it is stated that in open systems, in local areas entropy may in fact decrease by drawing upon external energy such as of sun. But this does not yet explain this power of some local things to decrease entropy and seem as living opposed to some other things which appear inert.

Schrodinger proposed a concept called Negentropy to explain this local phenomenon to integrate the knowledge of Biology on one hand and Thermodynamics on the other hand. Now, I think, to ask for measurable evidence of entitities that go by Negentropy principle is to negate the self, which breath.

 

[meogi]

This could explain how organic life 'knows how' to mutate in the correct way.

Do you 'know how' to mutate? Let alone correctly...? Evolution is a sieve, not a ladder.

for example, how does a plant manage by 'mutation' just to chance upon producing a yellow spot on a certain leaf that looks like its main predator thus warding off a potential plant eating insect? How does it 'know' that the predator is yellow for instance. Mutation in this respect just does not explain it - why does the plant not produce a blue spot by mistake?

Mimicry is well known and explained adequately.

 

[atanu]

Or....
The same plant produces many mutations over time (red spots, blue spots, pink fuzzy lines...) most of these random mutations have no beneficial affect and do not survive long in evolutionary terms. However the random appearance of the yellow spot does indeed turn out to mimic a predator and thus has a beneficial effect. More plants with the yellow spot survive than those that don't have the yellow spot. Thus over a long period of time the yellow spotted variety becomes the norm.
That is really how evolution really works and to understand it you have to get your head round probability statistics over huge eons of time.

Don't get me wrong. I am prepared to believe there may be some more guided elements to evolution than present theories postulate. But so far there is no proof and seemingly no need for them.

That is good explanation. But how does this random mutation align with deterministic laws of physics? Why should anything be random?

 

[Looncall]

That is good explanation. But how does this random mutation align with deterministic laws of physics? Why should anything be random?

Some laws of physics are not all that deterministic. Uncertainty is built right into the nature of the universe.

 

[atanu]

Some laws of physics are not all that deterministic. Uncertainty is built right into the nature of the universe.

If you bring in that at macro levels of biology then possibilties get further complicated.

 

[javajo]

I believe life comes from God.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John 5:26

 

[Looncall]

I believe life comes from God.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John 5:26

How nice for you. Do you have any real evidence?

 

[A. T. Henderson]

That is good explanation. But how does this random mutation align with deterministic laws of physics? Why should anything be random?

"Random" isn't exactly the best word to describe mutations, it's just the only one that fits reasonably well. Mutations do of course have causes, both internal (transcription errors during cell division and gametogenesis, for example) and external (damage to genetic information by radiation etc.), so in that sense they are dictated to a certain extent by deterministic physics.

They're random in the sense that they're unguided, purposeless if you will. Mutation occurs as a result of what might be called a stimulus, but it's not a reaction that displays intent, and the same stimulus can produce a range of reactions so broad that it's verging on infinite. It would probably be better to say that mutation is "completely unpredictable in nature", rather than "random".

 

[javajo]

How nice for you. Do you have any real evidence?

Nope, its just my belief because of the deaths of the men who testified unto death that Christ rose from the dead. Where do you believe life came from?

 

[atanu]

Mutation occurs as a result of what might be called a stimulus, but it's not a reaction that displays intent[/COLOR], and the same stimulus can produce a range of reactions so broad that it's verging on infinite. -----

This part i can never digest. May be i am a programmed machine and yet have the notion of intelligence and that misconception that causes this problem (for me).

It is our common everyday experience that we adapt. We do things automatically but we also do things concsiously to overcome difficulties. So, i can never digest this inane suggestion that there is or there never was any intention.

The evolution's object is always the form of the whole living organism and never the inert matter, which left on their own (separated from living organism) never has shown any evidence of evolution.

 

[waitasec]

I have a new theory regarding the existence of life on Earth.

After the Big Bang particles were spread throughout the Universe - normal particles to make up the physical items and anti matter to make up the complementary force / Chemical Life Force.

This Life force (LF) swirls around the universe but collects in certain areas like a foreign liquid in a pond. When the Earth formed this LF was present in the same area.

Random carbon atoms in the 'primeval soup' of the Earth were pulled together due the the immanent presence of this negatively charged anti-matter Life Force (similar to a magnet) - thus the first DNA was produced - atomic attraction.

This could explain how organic life 'knows how' to mutate in the correct way. Due to the pull of the Life Force and the push of natural selection - life forms grow towards their opposing pole in the LF , like a tree growing upwards to the light.

any questions for further clarification or views please ask.

i wouldn't call it a correct way but rather the way in which it turned out to be

i look at our awareness of this LF as the umbrella for our other senses...
our awareness brings our senses together...and sometimes that's a good thing other times it doesn't feel so good.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The evolution's object is always the form of the whole living organism and never the inert matter, ...

What do you mean by "evolution's object." Evolution is an unintended consequence.