Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 69 by Wissing]

I would be inclined to agree that technology evolves and indeed the definition for life is beginning to blur. However, it still is a false equivocation. I say this because while both technology and biology evolve they don't evolve in the same way. reproduction biologically speaking is where an organism(s) replicate/combine their DNA into offspring. For technology its an idea that is replicated this is the fundamental difference. You simply cannot draw conclusions on one from the other because even at the most basic philosophically comparable level they are completely different.

an idea is implicit of a consciousness which assumes a designer. Indeed even technologies environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought, we could call this evolution by design.

biological evolution doesn't imply this, merely the genes that are most prevalent in a given environment succeed and are passed on. Even though the discovery of genes and evolution allows us to manipulate the future of our and other organisms environmental factors will always be the defining guide. This is the inescapable truth of evolution; it is inextricably attached to uncontrollable particles colliding throughout the universe.

clear proof of evolution not being designed is insectivorous marsupials. Through environmental pressures of competing males for sperm domination causes the males to reproduce continually until death once they reach sexual maturity.

[scourge99]

If you feel I have an inadequate understanding of evolution, I would be very interested in some clarifying quotes by Darwin

Our understanding of evolution today is different then what Darwin believed. He got some things right but not all things right. Darwin was just a scientist. His words are not scripture or infallible. Scientific claims stand on its own merit, regardless of who proposes them.

or possibly a presentation from your Biology class to clear up my lack of understanding.

Those classes were awhile ago. Though there are free online classes at Yale: http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evoluti ... gy/eeb-122

I'm not going to parse through them just to find the applicable lesson for you.

Premises:
1.) The car evolves.
2.) The car is created.
3.) Both processes are necessary for the car to exist in its current state.

Conclusion:
At least one entity in existence can both evolve and be created.

1) this is equivocation. Which i have tyold you at least two times before. Cars do not "evolve" as organisms evolve. Organisms evolve according to the Theory of Evolution. Cars do not. You are using "evolution" in the generic form of "change over time" and conflating it with the scientific definition of "evolution" which is:
any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

2) I agree that cars change over time and were created. Now why should i care about this?

The point is to counter the idea that "if we evolved, we need not have been created".

We can't prove negatives. For example, we can't prove that unicorns or leprechauns don't exist. The best we can do is say that we have no evidence or reason to believe they do. Likewise, no one is claiming that "we weren't created" because that would be trying to prove a negative. Instead what we will argue is that there is no reason to believe we were created. Furthermore, there is good evidence and reason to believe we (humans) evolved from ape-like ancestors.

here is but one line of evidence: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... nteractive

To successfully counter that idea, I would then have to insert the premise that I've been working on the past few posts - that the car (technology) can in fact be compared to the human (biology), inasmuch as the compatibility of evolution and creation are concerned.

And even if you did. SO what? Analogies do not an argument make.

Which really just boils down to a little question - how do we define "life"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
There is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells " the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Its much like our definition of "healthy". Its not static but we have general ideas on what is and isn't healthy. For example, vomiting all the time isn't healthy. In the future, the definition will likely change. perhaps one day, not being able to run a marathon at age 100 will be considered unhealthy.

[olavisjo]

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
There is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells " the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Given such a complicated definition of life, I am sure that you will agree that life never began to exist from non-life.

[keithprosser3]

Given such a complicated definition of life, I am sure that you will agree that life never began to exist from non-life.

Note that the definition quoted says 'all or most of the following characteristics'. I can easily imagine a series of evolutionary stages that display at first only one one or two of the items listed, then three or four of list, then finally all of them. At what point the result would count as 'alive' is of interest only to pedants.

That definition makes it easier to get life from non-life, by allowing for intermediate stages between living and non-living.

Almost certainly life arose from non-life through a series of stages, each more 'nearly alive' than the one before.

[olavisjo]

.

I can easily imagine a series of evolutionary stages that display at first only one one or two of the items listed,...

Why would we not then call those items 'life'? Why the need to define life with terms not necessary for life to begin? Why would life not begin when non-life ends? What would it even mean to be half alive and half not-alive?

[keithprosser3]

The difference between living and non-living may have more to do with a quibble over words than the facts.

For example, extracting the headlines from the definition of life offered:

1 Homeostasis,
2 Organization.
3 Metabolism.
4 Growth,.
5 Adaptation.
6 Response to stimuli,
7 Reproduction.

There might be a stage where something displays 1,3,4,5 but not 2 6 an 7.

Whether you call that alive or dead is a matter of words. Whether that counts as alive is a matter of opinion which doesn't alter the fact is that it does 1,3,4,5 and doesn't do 2,6 and 7.

I am not endorsing the list - just using it to suggest that living/non-living is a sliding scale, not a on/off switch.

[olavisjo]

.

The difference between living and non-living may have more to do with a quibble over words than the facts.

For example, extracting the headlines from the definition of life offered:

1 Homeostasis,
2 Organization.
3 Metabolism.
4 Growth,.
5 Adaptation.
6 Response to stimuli,
7 Reproduction.

There might be a stage where something displays 1,3,4,5 but not 2 6 an 7.

I am surprised you would leave out 7. Can you name any living thing that is not the result of reproduction?

Whether you call that alive or dead is a matter of words.

It is not just words, if all living things have a common ancestor then that common ancestor was not a living thing. That non-living thing became a living thing.

I am not endorsing the list - just using it to suggest that living/non-living is a sliding scale, not a on/off switch.

Talk to me about something that is in the middle of this living/non-living sliding scale.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 76 by olavisjo]
Viruses is the answer to all your questions. Are they alive or inanimate?

[olavisjo]

.

Viruses is the answer to all your questions. Are they alive or inanimate?

I don't think there is any reason to think that a virus is alive. And since they do not reproduce they are a moot point.

[Wissing]

Nice post, Daniel. Very concise.

It appears my argument gets stuck when I try to compare biology to technology. The counter argument is that they're just not the same thing. Why? Because technology rests on conscious thoughts and ideas, as you stated:

an idea is implicit of a consciousness which assumes a designer. Indeed even technologies environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought, we could call this evolution by design.

So here's a new point to add: where does our consciousness come from? If our consciousness arises exclusively out of the fact that we have brains... well, brains evolved, didn't they? If we agree that "environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought", then we should also agree that conscious effort and thought are derivatives of biological evolution.





On the 7 decided-upon qualifications for life

1 Homeostasis,
2 Organization.
3 Metabolism.
4 Growth,.
5 Adaptation.
6 Response to stimuli,
7 Reproduction.

I can agree to those. There are many technologies that display many of those traits as well. Machines can self-replicate, control their own temperature and humidity, upgrade themselves, etc. HVAC? Driverless cars? Self-balancing robots? Rapid prototyping machines? Think about software! We have programs that write programs that write programs. We have self-replicating programs. We have programs that automatically update. We have programs that change their own coding to adapt to their environments.

The lines are beginning to blur, indeed.