The Origin of Complex Life Forms and Their Purpose

[jhwatts]

One thing that I find strange is how the same trait can show up in many different species. An example would be a horn for defense. I suppose a particular trait in a particular species could show up given enough time and enough dice roles. It seem imposable that many different species that are completely unrelated and in different environments, and in completely different time era's would develop the same trait regardless of the length time and dice roles. Fish, birds, insects, mammals, reptiles have all managed to develop the same trait as defense mechanism over time. Many independent of each other in location and unrelated. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

 

[DavidFirth]

The theory of evolution without a Creator involves all kinds of fallacious delusions.

1. There must not be a God. (Fallacious argument from assumption)
2. Evolution does not cover it's origin. (Fallacious premise of, "Evolution isn't about the first life form...") Yes, it is. Without the first life form there is no evolution.
3. Evolution depends upon many assumptions such as millions of years (cannot be proven).
4. Intermediate forms. There are no proven intermediate forms on the planet today; there should be millions of them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why does it matter that she claims to be well studied on the theory of evolution? Is there any indication that is actually the case?

She appears to be pretty well versed on the subject based on what I've read.

 

[David T]

In another thread, a poster said the following.

"I didn’t start believing in the existence of God because some religion said so. What made me a believer was my study of science. The more I learned about how the universe works, specially life forms, the more I realized how incredibly connected and complex everything is. There is so much intelligence, so much creativity and so much purpose behind everything that I couldn’t believe it happened without someone designing it.
That's the base of it. I could develop this subject but there is so much material I would rather do it on a separate post."

I am setting my beliefs and knowledge aside for a moment to solicit thoughts on why it would require intelligence and creativity to create complex beings and to understand what purpose is behind this, and why this would be more plausible to an individual than evolution through natural selection.

This thread was not created as a call-out. The poster offered to expound on this, and I asked her if she would be kind enough to participate in this thread and share her thoughts. I welcome anyone else's thoughts on this as well.


ETA: I neglected to include the fact that the poster mentioned above claims to be well studied on the theory of evolution.

Intelligence creating intelligence is circular, and thus a false idea about God and N

The process of biological evolution isn't random, though. Natural selection is quintessentially non-random. It has to be in order to actually work.

Ahhh dependencies!!! A novel awareness in these discussions.. It's like in construction how is the paint exactly where it needs to be? The religious fanatic response "God did it just like I do it!!! Ha now that's funny and self referential and virtual all at the same time. So there is some structure but symbiosis was only scientifically expressed 80 years before I was born 1870's so I doubt we can fully understand dependencies till that is clearer and that isnt literally answerable scientifically speaking. There is a whole huge blank spot in scientific understanding today on symbiosis,, most of the time "self organising" is expressed which is as nonsenical as the virtual reality statements dressed in religious drag pretending to understanding the topic God. Ha and "normal," .....

 

[Valjean]

I am setting my beliefs and knowledge aside for a moment to solicit thoughts on why it would require intelligence and creativity to create complex beings and to understand what purpose is behind this, and why this would be more plausible to an individual than evolution through natural selection.

This thread was not created as a call-out. The poster offered to expound on this, and I asked her if she would be kind enough to participate in this thread and share her thoughts. I welcome anyone else's thoughts on this as well.
ETA: I neglected to include the fact that the poster mentioned above claims to be well studied on the theory of evolution.

I don't see any evidence of intentionality or purpose, or any need for it. But, as Laika pointed out, it's hard to relate to the complex interactions and deep time that are reality.

I will say this that we are able to design things, although to design anything very complex we need multiple people and computers. Design as we know it is labor intensive. It begins with a good set of assumptions and guesses, followed by testing, then more design, then more testing and so on. The sculptor works with the material. The artist works with the limitations of the paint and canvas. Actually the process of design and the process of evolution are almost identical. The only real differences are the toolsets and the timescales, and I think that is why evolution has so much appeal in the first place.

Design and evolution may produce similar looking results, but the 'processes' are different. We're familiar with the intentional complexity of human technology, but the unintentional complexity of Nature appears similar. Many jump to the facile conclusion that to account for this, there must be an intentional designer magically arranging things..

To me you are missing a point that's true at least for me. I believe in God and in natural selection - the "God is who, evolution is how" stance. The intelligence in the design is built into the original laws of the universe. And to me God does not violate the laws he designed in the first place.

So you're a Deist? You believe God wrote the program, pushed the 'on' button then left the room?

 

[sayak83]

First, thanks for posting this. I had it in mind to do it myself but I’m happy you gave me the motivation. The biggest challenge for me is to not make it too long. I chose only 3 issues to address otherwise this would have to become a book.

The origin of life

Scientists believe that the first cells emerged in the ocean, result of a spontaneous chemical reaction between non-living elements that somehow managed to form complex molecules, so complex they were able to work together and make cells.

With all the technology we have available today, in the controlled environment of a sophisticated lab, with brilliant scientists creating and manipulating the experiments, no one has been able to produce the elements believed to exist back in those days, provoke a chemical reaction between them and create living cells afterwards. Imagine it happening by chance.

Knowing that in order to survive, a cell needs RNA, DNA and proteins to work in sync, what is the probability of having these elements appearing by chance at the same time, in the same place and with the ability to self-replicate? It is easy to talk about “simple life forms, or “simple” cells, but the truth is: there’s no such thing as a simple cell, much less a simple organism.

The human body contains around 100 trillion cells of different kinds, each with its own structure and function. Our body is a network of cells, brilliantly organized, working together nonstop from the moment the embryo is formed until the moment the person dies.

The same way this works for humans, it works for all other species. Every living thing is a feat of engineering, so much so that engineers study animals and plants, to create things that imitate their features (ex the wings of airplanes, contact lenses, fabrics, etc). Am I expected to believe that those life forms appeared by chance? That the human brain is the fruit of many coincidences?


All forms of life have the same origin.

Even though no one really knows how the first living cells originated, for many people it seems reasonable to believe that those few original cells gave rise to the millions of species alive today.

We know that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We see this in our own families, and plant and animal breeders see it in their work. It is undeniable that mutations occur in species, but does descent with modification explain the origin and diversification of all living things? Do mutations really produce entirely new species?

We know that some DNA mutations are neutral (they have no effect at all) but the clear majority is harmful, often leading to the weakening and premature death of the organism. In the struggle for survival, natural selection would have to ignore the first and eliminate the second, leaving only the mutations that favor the organism.

Again, scientists have tried to replicate this. In several studies they artificially induced human selected mutations that would favor the organism but after many years of research, they didn’t succeed in creating any new species, only different breeds of the existent ones.

What are the odds that chance succeeded in something that intelligent scientists were unable to do, not only once, but millions and millions of times, since there are millions of species alive today, believed to have evolved from a common ancestor?

That leads me to the 3rd issue.

The fossil record

When Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, the oldest known fossils were from the Cambrian period. But the Cambrian fossil pattern didn’t fit Darwin’s theory. Instead of starting with one specie that diverged gradually over millions of years into families, orders, classes then phyla, the Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many fully formed phyla and classes of animals. So, complex biological forms appeared right at the start.

Darwin was aware of this problem but he hoped that more data would be found to support his theory. Since that time, further exploration has turned up many layers of the earth older than the Cambrian. Paleontologists have also found Cambrian rocks in Canada, Greenland and China with well preserved fossils. Thanks to that improved knowledge many paleontologists are now convinced that the major groups of animals did appear abruptly in the early Cambrian. The fossil evidence is so strong that this event has become known as “biology’s big bang”. Ancestors or intermediaries are still unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing in the Cambrian period.

There are other problems with presenting fossils as proof for evolution, such as the comparative size and the evidence that these creatures are related, since they are separated by millions of years. With such a big interval of time separating the fossils, it is very difficult to establish a connection between them.


This is as simple as I can make such a complicated, vast subject. I would like to finish with a quote from Richard Dawkins, from the book The Blind Watchmaker: (biology) is “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed with a purpose”. Dawkins implies that although living things look like they were designed, in fact they weren’t. I believe that living things appear to have been designed and they were.

Dawkins states that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectual fulfilled atheist”. He has the right to profess atheism and to make it intellectually fulfilling. But atheism is not science.


PS – I think I failed at not making it too long.

Each of the three points requires detailed discussion each by themselves. I would like to focus on any one of them initially if you are interested. Do you have a preference on which one?

 

[Valjean]

One thing that I find strange is how the same trait can show up in many different species. An example would be a horn for defense. I suppose a particular trait in a particular species could show up given enough time and enough dice roles. It seem imposable that many different species that are completely unrelated and in different environments, and in completely different time era's would develop the same trait regardless of the length time and dice roles.
Fish, birds, insects, mammals, reptiles have all managed to develop the same trait as defense mechanism over time. Many independent of each other in location and unrelated. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

This is one of the strongest evidences for evolution. These species aren't unrelated, and didn't ramify into different forms by a series of random dice rolls. They look different largely because they are in different environments.The horns in different species are variations of the same feature, programmed by the same genes, passed down over thousands of generations.
We have genes for all sorts of atavistic features. We have the genes that once coded for a tail, and that once coded for gills. They're still there, from half a billion years ago, but epigenetically switched off. Sometimes the gene remains active but evolves different purposes in subsequent species.
Sometimes the same gene or feature arises independently and, if it proves functional, will be passed down through later generations. Different species in the same ecological niche develop similar forms through ordinary natural selection.

 

[Vee]

Each of the three points requires detailed discussion each by themselves. I would like to focus on any one of them initially if you are interested. Do you have a preference on which one?

They are very complex indeed and I've done research on all 3 individually. I've read entire books on these subjects but if you have anything to add, I'll be happy to learn more. Preference? The first one since it is the base of everything.
I'm on my way to the airport and I'll be away for a week so if you don't have a reply from me straight way, that's why. But when I come back I'll carefully read anything you post.

 

[Vee]

The process of biological evolution isn't random, though. Natural selection is quintessentially non-random. It has to be in order to actually work.

I agree. Random things don't generally work. They have to be planned, methodical, systematic, specific even. The opposite of something that would happen by chance.

 

[sun rise]

sunrise123 said: ↑
To me you are missing a point that's true at least for me. I believe in God and in natural selection - the "God is who, evolution is how" stance. The intelligence in the design is built into the original laws of the universe. And to me God does not violate the laws he designed in the first place.
So you're a Deist? You believe God wrote the program, pushed the 'on' button then left the room?

No because he is the room as well as the button pusher. Immanent and transcendent. And he manifests (Avatar) from time to time as part of the original program.

As a not very good analogy, parents don't conceive a kid and then walk away (typically). They are around watching over and guiding the child. The program, in this case DNA, has already been written. But ideally the parents help the child to realize his true potential.

This verse from the "Song of the Avatars" illustrates this

When righteousness declines
And wickedness is strong,
In the dying of an age
As a new age comes along,
That is when I rise again
And yet again to light the flame
Of truth within the sons of men.

 

[siti]

There are no proven intermediate forms on the planet today; there should be millions of them.

All forms of life on the planet today are intermediate forms. Your error stems from the baseless assumption that humans are the intended goal or pinnacle of "creation".

 

[siti]

I agree. Random things don't generally work. They have to be planned, methodical, systematic, specific even. The opposite of something that would happen by chance.

And yet hundreds of people have actually become millionaires in lotteries. About 5 x 10^20 new human cell "lottery tickets" have been issued around the globe today.

 

[blü 2]

thoughts on why it would require intelligence and creativity to create complex beings and to understand what purpose is behind this, and why this would be more plausible to an individual than evolution

Well, it's obvious, isn't it?

You only have to look at a well-formed snowflake to see it's designed ─ some Master Snowcrafter Elf has stayed up all night with her genius and her tiny hammer and bitty oxytorch ...

Nature could never do that!

 

[blü 2]

The theory of evolution without a Creator involves all kinds of fallacious delusions.
.

I agree.

No way can creationists and humans have a common ancestor.

 

[HonestJoe]

First, thanks for posting this. I had it in mind to do it myself but I’m happy you gave me the motivation. The biggest challenge for me is to not make it too long. I chose only 3 issues to address otherwise this would have to become a book.

All of your points boil down to incredulity though. You can’t understand how these things could have come about by “chance” and therefore you assert that can’t have happened.

The second issue is how do you make the logical leap from “Life must have been designed” to “A specific God exists and a specific religion is the truth”? It seems especially problematic since “God” is surely at least as complex and unexplainable by “chance” as anything else.

 

[Onyx]

Bill Mensch (a world-renowned microprocessor engineer) has an interesting view, just throwing it out there.

Why The Philosophy of Embedded Intelligence was written | The Mensch Foundation

 

[Quintessence]

I agree. Random things don't generally work. They have to be planned, methodical, systematic, specific even. The opposite of something that would happen by chance.

That's not quite what I was getting at, but however you want to spin it, I suppose. I wouldn't describe the inevitable results of inherent properties of reality to be "planned."

 

[leibowde84]

One thing that I find strange is how the same trait can show up in many different species. An example would be a horn for defense. I suppose a particular trait in a particular species could show up given enough time and enough dice roles. It seem imposable that many different species that are completely unrelated and in different environments, and in completely different time era's would develop the same trait regardless of the length time and dice roles. Fish, birds, insects, mammals, reptiles have all managed to develop the same trait as defense mechanism over time. Many independent of each other in location and unrelated. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

You are forgetting that all life is related on earth. There is a common ancestor to all life on this planet. So, it shouldn't be surprising that certain traits exist in more than one species.

 

[leibowde84]

1. There must not be a God. (Fallacious argument from assumption)

Anyone who claims to have proof that there is no God is using faulty logic. Agreed.

2. Evolution does not cover it's origin. (Fallacious premise of, "Evolution isn't about the first life form...") Yes, it is. Without the first life form there is no evolution.

Wrong. Evolution is about speciation. The theory does not in any way shape or form speak to the origin of life. You can have your opinion that it is incomplete, but that is an unfair assessment. There are other scientific hypotheses that speak to the origin of life. It's just that evolution doesn't even attempt to.

3. Evolution depends upon many assumptions such as millions of years (cannot be proven).

Actually it is billions of years. The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old, and the first life appeared roughly 3.8 billion years ago. But, the important thing here is why you believe that the scientific understanding of the age of the earth is wrong. Sure, nothing is 100% certain in science, but I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts the age of the earth being billions of years. Can you provide any?

4. Intermediate forms. There are no proven intermediate forms on the planet today; there should be millions of them.

There have been many many transitional fossils found. It is just a creationist myth that they haven't.

 

[DavidFirth]

Anyone who claims to have proof that there is no God is using faulty logic. Agreed.
Wrong. Evolution is about speciation. The theory does not in any way shape or form speak to the origin of life. You can have your opinion that it is incomplete, but that is an unfair assessment. There are other scientific hypotheses that speak to the origin of life. It's just that evolution doesn't even attempt to.
Actually it is billions of years. The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old, and the first life appeared roughly 3.8 billion years ago. But, the important thing here is why you believe that the scientific understanding of the age of the earth is wrong. Sure, nothing is 100% certain in science, but I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts the age of the earth being billions of years. Can you provide any?
There have been many many transitional fossils found. It is just a creationist myth that they haven't.

So where are all the millions of transitional forms on the Earth alive today?