Fossil and Evolution

[VonNeumann]

I would be interested to know how you could play with the mathematical probablities when i don't think we know all the mechanisms by which genetic change occur.

Of course I must be presumptuous... the conclusion I am countering is presumptuous. Where there exists a gap, for instance between a few naturally forming amino acids and the structure of DNA, it is presumptuous to presume the gap can be crossed by intermediate steps. I'm not saying it can't be done - I say that there needs to be a means for this to happen, because the arithmetic to show the leap is too large is simple to do. The conclusion is that you need near infinite time for something like DNA to pop into existence. So we try to find something intermediate like autocatylitic sets of molecules a la Kauffman. Still: gaps. So it is because we DON'T KNOW any mechanism that bridges the gap, going on that amount of structure change, just about any model you use results in vanishingly small probability of spontaneous appearance in the 14BY space presumed.

... I don't think a human-like mind is necessary for creative potential. The very obvious counter regarding the creation of new information is gene duplication with mutation. That process leaves the native gene product in place, but creates a new gene product with new potentials with no loss of function and a clear gain of function (new information).
.

You said this and gave more interesting examples that I snipped out for brevity. Some of what I've read about this subject of "new information" emanating from genetic mutation of various kinds, is so specialized it is difficult for me with my background to understand the detail.

I'll have to resort to analogy if I am to respond at all. Let's say that you can take Microsoft XP and tear it apart, put it back together, and splice it in random ways and retry the operating system until you get something that isn't so crippled, that atleast it comes up and runs. In the older days of Fortran etc, this would probably be less probable than with object oriented programming ... reason being there is more robustness to the OOP method. By definition, you get new information... the question is whether or not you get a new program that helps in its function (in the context of it's use) relative to it's previous function. I think this is vanishingly small and do not even hope to be able to calculate a quantity of probability. But those Microsoft dudes would be super clever if they programmed so that the likelihood was better than vanishingly small.

Someone presented to me the example of nylonase as evidence of "new information" produced by a frame shift mutation. Without going into the details of what is "frame shift" and the nylonase argument, assuming anyone can look it up, I'll sequey to my response...

Again with analogy... think of Sagan's story "Contact". Through SETI, we receive a message that turns out to be a blueprint of a special machine that seemingly allows you to travel through a wormhole or something like that. What if you did a right-shift on all the Ones and Zeros of this information received via SETI and find that you get another blueprint? The second blueprint is a frame shift of the first, yet it is a design of something else. Let's say, a fusion energy machine.

First of all, none would doubt that the SETI message was not from a pulsar but rather from an intelligence, because of the highly organized complexity of the message particularly that it is of a machine that has useful function. That would be Paley's argument for intelligent design. But nylonase goes further than that. It shows that the blueprint of one enzyme can be frameshifted to get the blueprint for yet another useful design. If this had come from SETI we'd say, "SHeeeeeeez! How incredibly intelligent are these aliens!" But since we assume biological systems are created from chance, and from non-teleological machinations, when we see a frame-shift giving another useful solution that allows the bacteria to survive, we go, "Sheeeeez! Look: proof that random mutation can EASILY produce new design, new information."

That's what I still see in this - to the extent that I can understand it.

...

We have also recently learned that supposedly silent mutations (mutations in which the nucleotide change results in a slightly different codon, but one that codes for the same amino acid) can actually produce slightly different proteins -- not different in terms of the amino acid content, but different in terms of protein folding. The change depends on the speed with which the protein folds -- the way I envision it is that the less common transfer RNA needs more time to be recruited by its local ribosome for incorporation into the nascent peptide strand. That extra time can result in more folding of the peptide such that the protein has a slightly different function -- which could be either a loss or gain of function.
.

That folding produces multiple useful functions out of ONE protein, is incredible - very cool. Again my argument is from incredulity: it would be hard enough for a very clever human to write a program that did the tantamount thing to "folding" such that different forms made the program do different things. We do this very directly with "calling parameters" to a program function. I can't even think, off hand, of an analogy between this and protein folding. I'd have to believe that randomness is so clever that it must have already been thinking about this when the physical forces of the universe were frozen - because all the mechanism of protein folding would depend, in a reductionist way, all the way back to the fundamental objects, such as physical laws and components.

So I see this folding ambiguity thing as similar to the frame-shift ambiguity thing. Looks too damn clever. Way too damn clever. Why do design doubters always say evolution is dumb. Cripe! Evolution is clever as hell! It thinks way ahead! (Okay..... 'seemingly' ???)

sonic hedgehog.
.

...over my head. My son used to play that... but otherwise I dunno whadaya mean.

I can understand the "argument from incredulity" but I think it largely rests on a lack of information. .

...or on our respective biases.

It is very clear to me that we cannot simply say that information cannot be created by natural processes. We have far too many examples of new information creation to deny it..

If in Sagan's "Contact", the blueprint could be frameshifted to produce new information, you'd have to conclude it was intended to do so by the ONEs who designed the first blueprint. Clear to me, in that analogy. Therefore, splices, folding, and frameshifts do not compel me so much.

Well, we part company there. Minds can create, but it does not follow that creation, especially of new information, is restricted to minds.
.

Yes, well I can understand this if you find the examples you gave sufficient to make evident mechanistic creation of new information.

Well, it could, but it isn't necessary for us to postulate a "mind" behind natural selection, so I don't. There are natural processes that can account for it that I have no reason to associate with mind. If you wish to see it as being directed by a mind, then that is fine. I doubt you could convince many others of that fact, though, especially if they wish to be parsimonious in their explanations.
.

Einstein said "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
I think random mutation and natural selection is "simpler than possible."

Being able to convince others or lack of being able to, is irrelevant. Most everyone believed the earth was flat at one time, etc etc. Besides, I like to provoke and like to stay in contrarian territory. It's fun.

...
Kids with hemimegancephaly have far too many neurons in one hemisphere, but all that hemisphere can normally do is produce seizures. Complexity is important, but it can never be the complete story.
.

Yes, you are correct. But it seems like a Goedelian question how an incompetent super-complex mechanism can spontaneously bring about an intelligent much-lesser-complex brain. Seems backwards. Seems out of sequence. Evolution may be over-bloated with complexity, and may even have it's own seizures , but how does it make something that is intelligent and yet it, itself, is not? You assume evolution is a zombie. I could assume all other human beings were zombies and I'm the only one who is self-aware - everyone else is a robot who merely has appearance of intent and "will". Yet, I'm sure I'd be wrong. To assume evolution is a zombie is a prejudice, not a fact.

A cognitive entity without a limbic system would more closely resemble a CPU than a human.
.

My analogy of evolution being as a neural network probably fails pretty quickly when you try to identify subsystems and heirarchical structure in terms of comparison to brains.

Because the underlying structure of the nervous system of that self-aware machine allows it to survive and pass on its genes. I know that is not a satisfactory answer for you and essentially amounts to "well, because", but that seems to be the way that the world works..

We could carry the analogy too far.

But... our brains constantly re-wire synaptical connections. Learning in the brain seems somewhat parallel to evolution "learning" how to adapt the whole biosphere to changing conditions.

To be clear, I don't try to sell a self-aware universe here. I brought up a non-self-aware universe, at least the evolution part of the universe, as ironic. The prevailing theory is that it's not self-aware but it can make self-awareness in little isolated places, and those little isolated self-awarenesses argue about whether any self-awareness exists in the universe besides in ourselves.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It will take me a while to sift through the entire argument, but it appears from reading what I have read of your response that the fundamental difference of opinion rests in different basic worldviews -- teleological and non-teleological. You seem to see design in frameshifts, but I do not. Most frameshifts are harmful. That nylonase could be created from a frameshift mutation is great for those bacteria that are near nylon, but it would be useless and very harmful for bacteria nowhere near the stuff. The same is true for the alternate protein folding -- most of the examples result in genetic disease from loss of function. I could easily imagine a gain of function in a particular circumstance, though. The difference depends on the surrounding environment and whether or not the organism with the changes can take advantage of some new niche that it could not have previously. That is not the result of a designer looking for new niches to exploit. Rather, the natural state of biological life is to be variable. Those organisms that produce a great variety of offspring tend to pass most of their genes on, while those with little or no variety can exploit an unchanging environment well but fail miserably when the environment changes.

The microsoft example would work only if you have two copies of XP, allow the first to continue running, then splice the second to create something new -- so you keep XP intact and have a new program that can perform some new function. Many attempts will result in failure, but one might work to produce something new and interesting. With organisms in nature, since the number of experiements is so incredibly high -- billions of bacteria with fast generation times -- while many may die from such alterations, others will live. And it only takes one to exploit something new.

Regarding the abiogenesis issue, we simply do not have enough information. I consider the jury still out on that one. I think it is very presumptuous to think that there is no way to bridge the gap. We have thought that so many times in the past and found such elegant solutions to ther problems that made the naysayers look foolish, that I think it wisest to suspend judgment.

 

[articulett]

About Articulett:



Fair enough.

Also, evidence?

Oh ye of little faith...

Perhaps you should make it to the next TAM...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If I remember correctly you still owe me a moon shot.

 

[articulett]

This is straying from the OP (which I agree isn't a particularly fertile field for interesting discussion), but my earlier mention of polyploidy got me to thinking about different ways variation can happen. One of the requirements for evolution by natural selection is variation, but that variation need not be only from point mutations.

I've always been fascinated by genes swapping around via viruses and so on. Is there much known on that subject these days?

Also, at any moment my body is host to a bajillion (one bajillion is equal to 5000 scads, BTW) organisms, is there gene flow among all of us? (Actually, I'd have to assume there is, since even mitochondria became part of cells from some sort of symbiotic relationship with a bacterium, right? Of course, this is waaay back in our family tree.)

What other means of variation are there? (Oh yeah--sex, for one.)

Damn, I gave a great reply to this yesterday, and it got lost in cyberspace. Yeah, sex is a good way to recombine genes--you get more diversity--but there are lots of goodies as already mentioned...there's uniparental disomies, insertions, deletions, translocations, retroviruses, folding changes which don't change the protein itself due to the redundancy in the amino acid codons. There's frameshift mutations, ring chromosomes, chimeras, parthenogenesis, fungal spores, promoter regions getting turned on and off, lyonization, reactivation of fossil genes, cojoining (like cojoined twins but on a smaller scale), non disjunction, the various ploidies (triploidy, haploidy,etc.), hybridization, etc. There is thought that one of the genes responsible for the rapid growth of our brain came from some intermingling between us and neanderthals when we were first speciating. There are living organisms on every inch of our skin, in the air we breath, deep underground, in ice, and in boiling lava--all having DNA--the same code we have. Just like the 8 basic notes used in music is responsible for all music--symphonies, ditties, ringtones, chords, etc. Just like letters form all the words and writings and texts and tomes and internet pages ever written. The GATC code is constantly going under experimental modifications via mutation and the above--and who knows what else--and when something works and enhances reproductive succes, it gets passed on. All the other failed experiments die out or never start to grow. The invisible sperm that made you was one of 200 million per ejaculate and a mere hiccup could have prevented your existance, and instead there would be another sperm that fertilized the one of 50,000 eggs your mother had since she was a 3 month old fetus.

Life is so damn abundant and there is so much waste--so much potential life that just never gets to be--it's cool to understand how chaos can and does produce this complexity and also incredibly hard to understand why an "intelligent designer" would need this amount of waste and experimentation and gametes that never get to be organisms themselves. If any on us was specifically "meant to be" what the hell was all those billions of extra sperm and thousands of extra eggs for. Change with time brings about unplanned complexity all the time. The cities we live in weren't designed in their present form No human really understands each and every aspect of the internet, but we all help build it. Knowledge evolves. The planet evolves. Life evolves, landscapes evolve...and it's super cool that we are finding out just how it happened. We can SEE it. And the code changed in the exact same way per generation for each of us for every generation back in time from our common ancestor backwards.

The creationists have this stupid analogy about a whirlwind going through a junkyard and assembling a 747--because they understand the randomness, but refuse to understand how that randomness is then selected for by the environment. That 747 evolve from the Wright brothers first plane...and all knowledge that allowed humans to get that far--the steps for all planes trace the same path backwards in history prior to the first plane--and all airplanes since then are "species" from that common ancestor. The stuff that worked was honed and added onto--the mistakes were corrected for--our knowledge evolved.

I don't know if there is geneflow amongst our microbes, but we cannot live without microbes, and we are learning that for the very first time--they are essential to life--and to converting dead things into nutrients for more life.

 

[fishbob]

. . . Someone else (maybe most people here), have no trouble with adding that they believe another creative power exists that they have evidence of. . . .

In this forum, where evidence is a prerequisite, given that no evidence at all of some other 'creative power' has ever been produced, you have to be oblivious to reality to post something like that.

 

[articulett]

For a moment I thought that said "dwarfism". Too bad it didn't. That would have been a truly interesting theory.

Yes...it would have--dwarfism is actually pretty interesting in genetics. The short limbed dwarfism associated with the "Oompah Loompah" look is the same mutation that keeps the legs from growing in Dachshunds and Basset Hounds.

But other than that...Darwinism and Dwarfism are not intrinsically linked as far as I know.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Of course I must be presumptuous... the conclusion I am countering is presumptuous. Where there exists a gap, for instance between a few naturally forming amino acids and the structure of DNA, it is presumptuous to presume the gap can be crossed by intermediate steps. I'm not saying it can't be done - I say that there needs to be a means for this to happen, because the arithmetic to show the leap is too large is simple to do. The conclusion is that you need near infinite time for something like DNA to pop into existence. So we try to find something intermediate like autocatylitic sets of molecules a la Kauffman. Still: gaps. So it is because we DON'T KNOW any mechanism that bridges the gap, going on that amount of structure change, just about any model you use results in vanishingly small probability of spontaneous appearance in the 14BY space presumed.

OK, now, point by point.

We know so very little about this, as I mentioned before, that any decision to leap toward "there is no way" seems incredibly premature. It isn't as though we have been working on the problem for centuries and just can't figure it out so that giving up seems like a good option. There are some recent efforts to answer the question of origins of life -- forgot the names of the two guys working steadily on this -- and I thought Harvard was putting some serious money towards this issue a few years ago. It may just be a matter of time.

No one is saying that we have it all figured out. I mean, come on, we've only done the one experiment and repeated it to make sure that one was correct.

You said this and gave more interesting examples that I snipped out for brevity. Some of what I've read about this subject of "new information" emanating from genetic mutation of various kinds, is so specialized it is difficult for me with my background to understand the detail.

I'll have to resort to analogy if I am to respond at all. Let's say that you can take Microsoft XP and tear it apart, put it back together, and splice it in random ways and retry the operating system until you get something that isn't so crippled, that atleast it comes up and runs. In the older days of Fortran etc, this would probably be less probable than with object oriented programming ... reason being there is more robustness to the OOP method. By definition, you get new information... the question is whether or not you get a new program that helps in its function (in the context of it's use) relative to it's previous function. I think this is vanishingly small and do not even hope to be able to calculate a quantity of probability. But those Microsoft dudes would be super clever if they programmed so that the likelihood was better than vanishingly small.

Someone presented to me the example of nylonase as evidence of "new information" produced by a frame shift mutation. Without going into the details of what is "frame shift" and the nylonase argument, assuming anyone can look it up, I'll sequey to my response...

Again with analogy... think of Sagan's story "Contact". Through SETI, we receive a message that turns out to be a blueprint of a special machine that seemingly allows you to travel through a wormhole or something like that. What if you did a right-shift on all the Ones and Zeros of this information received via SETI and find that you get another blueprint? The second blueprint is a frame shift of the first, yet it is a design of something else. Let's say, a fusion energy machine.

First of all, none would doubt that the SETI message was not from a pulsar but rather from an intelligence, because of the highly organized complexity of the message particularly that it is of a machine that has useful function. That would be Paley's argument for intelligent design. But nylonase goes further than that. It shows that the blueprint of one enzyme can be frameshifted to get the blueprint for yet another useful design. If this had come from SETI we'd say, "SHeeeeeeez! How incredibly intelligent are these aliens!" But since we assume biological systems are created from chance, and from non-teleological machinations, when we see a frame-shift giving another useful solution that allows the bacteria to survive, we go, "Sheeeeez! Look: proof that random mutation can EASILY produce new design, new information."

That's what I still see in this - to the extent that I can understand it.

This is where the issue of teleology enters. It is natural to see design, since that is the way that our brains work most naturally. We have to constantly remind ourselves that design may not be there. We all think magically as well. I know I do or I wouldn't have bought that lottery ticket an hour ago.

As to Contact -- that was a very special message. It was clearly designed or I should say almost definitely designed. We don't typically see repeating patterns of prime numbers. The fact that we see information in the world, however, does not necessarily imply an intelligent designer. Natural selection does design organisms, only not intelligently. It designs by producing numerous self-replicating varieties and killing off the ones that don't work. So everything we see seems to fit its environment like a glove. It fits because it is "designed" to fit that niche -- not by an intelligent designer, but by the weeding process of NS.

SETI searches for particular types of messages -- the type of messages that we think only an intelligent designer could produce. So far it has found only the typical simple repeats of pulsars. The simple repeats of pulsars are more analogous to what we see even in the blindingly beautiful complexity of life surrounding us -- not because life is simple like a repeated blip from a rapidly rotating pulsar, but because we have experience with natural processes producing all this bounty and we have a theory that accounts for how natural processes do it.

The "frameshift" in Contact is not similar to a frameshift mutation in DNA coding. A shift in thinking about a problem is quite different. As mentioned in my previous post, as with all mutations, frameshifts produce useful information only in certain situations. With nylonase, again, if nylon didn't exist that mutation would be useless and potentially harmful if the organism lost some necessary function in the process. There may have been two thousand previous nylonase mutations over the long course of "history" and none of them could ever do anything with it. If nylon didn't exist we might call it a deleterious mutation.

That folding produces multiple useful functions out of ONE protein, is incredible - very cool. Again my argument is from incredulity: it would be hard enough for a very clever human to write a program that did the tantamount thing to "folding" such that different forms made the program do different things. We do this very directly with "calling parameters" to a program function. I can't even think, off hand, of an analogy between this and protein folding. I'd have to believe that randomness is so clever that it must have already been thinking about this when the physical forces of the universe were frozen - because all the mechanism of protein folding would depend, in a reductionist way, all the way back to the fundamental objects, such as physical laws and components.

So I see this folding ambiguity thing as similar to the frame-shift ambiguity thing. Looks too damn clever. Way too damn clever. Why do design doubters always say evolution is dumb. Cripe! Evolution is clever as hell! It thinks way ahead! (Okay..... 'seemingly' ???)

Well, different protein folding will not produce numerous different functions in a single protein. That, however, does occur with alternate splicing of RNA to produce numerous gene products from a single gene -- always subject to feedback circuits. The differences in protein folding are more likely to produce problems and have produced disease. In the right situation, as with nylonase, with an environment which the new protein conformation can exploit, then you might see new useful function. But I hope it is clear that this does not imply design. It implies change which can sometimes help and sometimes hurt depending on the environment. If it helps, then it is selcted for.

...over my head. My son used to play that... but otherwise I dunno whadaya mean.

OK, sorry. Both bone morphogenic protein and sonic hedgehog are proteins that are very important in the early development of the nervous system. Sonic hedgehog (I think they recently renamed it) got its name from the way the mice looked when the protein was knocked-out. They looked vaguely like the cartoon character.

Einstein said "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
I think random mutation and natural selection is "simpler than possible."

I must disagree. I don't think it is simpler than possible. I admit fully that I do not have full information, nor can I supply an unimpeachable story to account for everything in nature. But I do think the theory makes perfect sense of the data I have seen, the theory provides numerous possible predictions, and to date none of these predictions have been refuted. So, I'm sticking with it until something better comes along.

Being able to convince others or lack of being able to, is irrelevant. Most everyone believed the earth was flat at one time, etc etc. Besides, I like to provoke and like to stay in contrarian territory. It's fun.

I agree that it can be fun. My comment was not an argument, though, but only an observation.

Yes, you are correct. But it seems like a Goedelian question how an incompetent super-complex mechanism can spontaneously bring about an intelligent much-lesser-complex brain. Seems backwards. Seems out of sequence. Evolution may be over-bloated with complexity, and may even have it's own seizures , but how does it make something that is intelligent and yet it, itself, is not? You assume evolution is a zombie. I could assume all other human beings were zombies and I'm the only one who is self-aware - everyone else is a robot who merely has appearance of intent and "will". Yet, I'm sure I'd be wrong. To assume evolution is a zombie is a prejudice, not a fact.

Only if you have design in mind from the outset -- in other words, teleological thinking. There is no way to disprove teleology. But if it isn't necessary, then we're back to parsimony.

But... our brains constantly re-wire synaptical connections. Learning in the brain seems somewhat parallel to evolution "learning" how to adapt the whole biosphere to changing conditions.

Yes, but this is a very local process. You cannot replace neurons that travel far distances. We can rewire spinal cords in rodents to some extent because they are much smaller than we are. I don't think a simplistic approach like adding nerve growth factors or stem cells in human spinal cord tissue is going to help paralysis much. Neurons must link together within their respective systems -- this requires exquisite specificity and is the reason that we have nerve growth factors in the first place (to tell neurons where to go). Thought depends critically on entire long-distance systems that are linked together in fine detail.

To be clear, I don't try to sell a self-aware universe here. I brought up a non-self-aware universe, at least the evolution part of the universe, as ironic. The prevailing theory is that it's not self-aware but it can make self-awareness in little isolated places, and those little isolated self-awarenesses argue about whether any self-awareness exists in the universe besides in ourselves.

OK, that's cool.

 

[articulett]

It is like a widget factory, as complex as it is with all the human design engineers, production engineers, workers, accounting, administration ... and the widget they produce has a property that exceeds that of the whole factory. How can RM/NS produce a self-aware machine after billions of years of "work", a self-aware machine that has only been around for a fraction of the existence of RM/NS, yet RM/NS has not yet, itself, achieved self-awareness. The self-aware machine, the human, possesses "will" and "intent" and yet RM/NS lacks these properties.

The same way technology evolves...the same way the complexity of the internet evolves....the same way animals make babies without knowing they are making babies...rm/ns is a process that builds complexity. Systems either evolve or die out. Math...evolved. One piece on top of another...just by humans quantifying things--it's useful...easy to spread and each bit of correct knowledge takes the knowledge further. Just as the cells in a body don't need to know anything to make a body work--and water doesn't need to know anything to turn to the complex and beautiful structure of ice--DNA doesn't need to know anything to advance. Nobody has to know how the internet started or much of anything about it to be a part of this complexity--but the internet itself is not conscious nor does it have a complex designer more complex than itself. Landscapes evolve and become beautiful or barren or forestfilled or whatever--without any consciousnes or at least no consicousness of the whole. The same with cities....roads...things that work are built upon--things that don't die out.

Consciousness evolved in entities for whom a degre of consciousness enhanced survival and reproductive fitness over the competitors. The will to live is life enhancing property. So is feeling pain and pleasure and engaging in social relationships and communication. If speciating creatures that had the inklings of consciousness and that allowed them to survive preferentially, then consciousness would evolve. Much of consciousness appears to be a part of the language centers of our brain, the memory system, and the frontal lobes. We can affect or alter or render a person unconscious by changing those areas--the electrical activity--the alteration of neurotransmitters--learning--

And the brain, complex as it is--evolves. And when it doesn't or it's destroyed or damaged in some terrible way, there is NOTHING ELSE stepping in to do the job of the brain--if a person is blinded--there is no complex other thing to see for them.

An ant can dig quite a complex maze without a floorplan. You don't need "directions"--just energy applied to a system and a selection mechanism where one tendency has preferential survival and/or reproductive value (and/or "staying power) over another.

The same is true of ideas. Some spread because they're catch or play on some human foible and some spread because they are useful and some spread because they have side benefits and some spread because they get stuck in the head, etc. Anything that changes through time can evolve become increasing complex or die out. And that goes for genomes, brains, and consciousness as well as cities, ecosystems, and galaxies.

Yes, I wonder about consciousness--but presuming I couldn't understand it didn't help me learn anything about it. Evolution has. So has neurology, and cognitive neuroscience, and psychology.
It's complex, but not beyond human understanding...and not supernatural. And even when we don't know the answers, the answers have never been found by mystics or gurus or faith...just slow and steady scientific accumulation of knowledge that is useful and true.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the correction of my use of a priori. I meant prima facie; I meant "obvious". Just a corrupt address bit in my lexicon vector, but I've fixed that.

We agree that human minds write stuff. You diverge when you bring up some minds do not write stuff. Note I did not say ALL minds, just "minds". The word "mind" brings about a concept that is necessary but not sufficient - that's what I'm saying.

Then again, I noted I cannot define "mind". When I said I know mind exists from the inside, I was speaking of my own mind. I presume other human minds are similar. So this is pretty trivial and I don't expect an argument on this point. I spring off of this by saying that "the only creative power I know of, have evidence of, and can identify the general source, emanates from the human mind."

Someone else (maybe most people here), have no trouble with adding that they believe another creative power exists that they have evidence of. That other creative power is a mechanism of random-mutation/natural-selection (RM/NS).

However it is a constrained system dependant upon large numbers of interactions over long periods of time. It is a theory that seems to fit observed data fairly well.

Please understand that I think it would be super-cool if RM/NS had this power.

potential power through contingent history. You seem to be straying into deterministic thinking, which is a form of the anthropic principle in this case. we can't know directly what events led to human consiousness. And the fact that life is a wonder does not mean that it is a miracle. Just a theory is natural selection, when a theory comes along that matches the data as well, it will stand out.

I've believed it much of my life but now I dissent. It is too damn simple.

Millions and millions of molecules acting over billions of years is simple? I would hate to see complex!

(argument from incredulity - there: I beat you to it ). But my incredulity lies in having played with the arithmetic enough know that the required "credulity" that I lack must come from wishful thinking. So call it an argument from lack-of-wishful-thinking.

Or just an argument from doubt and that is scepticism, however what alternative is there? one that you like that matches the geologic data.

Now. Since I am skeptical that RM/NS is sufficient to explain a mechanism that has creative power

That seems to be a semantic argumenet, did you play with a nueral network of the capacity of the brain? Did you play with millions of molecules for billions of years? recently in this tghread people have been using the magic words of 'non-physical' and neumena(something like that) and you might be entering the magic word zone, what is so different about the word creative?

(I believe RM/NS has a very limited ability to readjust parametrics that are already present in the genome in order to adapt organisms), I try to come up with some idea of what might be missing.

How does the human mind create. I don't know, but whatever it does and how ever it does it, that is where, I believe, we need to look. I don't expect the answer is going to drop in to SciAm's June issue.

No but you can find thousands of citations on various subjects if you care, perception is currently intensly studied.

I've long made my "incredulous" comments about creation of new information by RM/NS and have long been dismissed as a bible-thumper for saying it.

that is not exactly an argument, explain to me why , perhaps, the random system that involves reproduction isn't capable of transformation? I would like to understand why it couldn't happen.

What's so intolerable with my dissent? Isn't this a "skeptic's" forum? Skeptic? Can't I be a skeptic here?

i have no problems as long as you deliniate your evidence and arguments. i really don't like magic word arguments.

The attacks I receive are from those who consider themselves the true skeptics.

I get a similar response quite frequently. it helps me clarify my thoughts.

I see them as heavily saturated in dogma so thick they can't think for themselves anymore. ...or at least, they will not reveal their own diminuative doubts for fear of condemnation for thinking outside the dogmatic box.

So, to me: minds create. Therefore, RM/NS, a hugely complex network far beyond a single human neural network in complexity, must have properties of "mind". Why can't it?

That depends on the qualities of mind you wish to attribute to it. Axscribe them and we can debate.

Aren't most organisms more complex than a single human neuron?

Why would that be relevant a computer is not made from a single transistor. Perhaps expand why that should matter, please?

...or at least of the same order of complexity? In the competitive landscape, aren't the interconnections more complex than all the synaptic connections of the human brain?

if they were a unified organism.

Funny that this super complex mechanism of RM/NS, many of orders of magnitude more complex than the human brain, evolved (created) the human brain, yet the complex RM/NS itself lacks the ability to be self-aware.

Not at all, why should it be, when wolves over predate thier prey source there is not a communication from the prey that tells the wolves to reduce reproduction, instead pups and others starve to death and are more prone to fatal illness.
That is not exactly like the way the neural network is modeled as working.

It is like a widget factory, as complex as it is with all the human design engineers, production engineers, workers, accounting, administration ... and the widget they produce has a property that exceeds that of the whole factory.

i don't see why millions of molecules for billions of year is less complex than a very limited set of the millions of molecules.

How can RM/NS produce a self-aware

smacks of a semantic argument, i doubt that is your intention at all.

machine after billions of years of "work", a self-aware machine that has only been around for a fraction of the existence of RM/NS

i believe other critters to be self aware to cetain extents, where do you want to draw the line?

, yet RM/NS has not yet, itself, achieved self-awareness. The self-aware machine, the human, possesses "will" and "intent" and yet RM/NS lacks these properties.

I believe in will and intent, but they may be illusory. What about other critters, where does the line fall?

Addressing generally, any and all: Is any of this stuff interesting to you, or do you dismiss it easily? Do you never dissent? Isn't science tentative by definition? Shouldn't you be thinking about these things?

Very interesting lets continue please.

 

[Dancing David]

Of course I must be presumptuous... the conclusion I am countering is presumptuous. Where there exists a gap, for instance between a few naturally forming amino acids and the structure of DNA, it is presumptuous to presume the gap can be crossed by intermediate steps. I'm not saying it can't be done - I say that there needs to be a means for this to happen, because the arithmetic to show the leap is too large is simple to do. The conclusion is that you need near infinite time for something like DNA to pop into existence. So we try to find something intermediate like autocatylitic sets of molecules a la Kauffman. Still: gaps. So it is because we DON'T KNOW any mechanism that bridges the gap, going on that amount of structure change, just about any model you use results in vanishingly small probability of spontaneous appearance in the 14BY space presumed.

Just wait please , if you have a system that may have billions of molecules and billions of years, why is that impossible? Why would it require infinite time. You have asserted your conclusion, and i may not be able to show your math but it seems you have just asserted your conclusion.

Simple math can apply to this as well, say we have two thing (thingamabobs) and that the have a chance to interact every million years and there is a one in a million chance they will interact to make a dohickey. What is the probality of the dohickey being created over one billion years? Something like one in a thousand? What then is the probality for larger sets and longer time periods and higher rates of interaction?

Now I know the DNA argument is a very good one, but the statictical probabilities aren't really figured out yet.

So what leads you to believe that it would require an infinite time?

 

[articulett]

Again http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479&chanId=sa027

How can you dismiss this Von...you act like we are making up facts out of air. What evidence does your alternate theory for abiogenesis have? Or is your failure to comprehend or understand that it is life is likely to have sprung from non-life your main argument regarding evolution coupled with your incredulity over "consciousness" evolving from unconsciousness? And how are we supposed to take your claims seriously when you never even seem interested in what we NOW know. You don't want science to find the answers and so you presume it has not. But you offer nothing similarly explanatory or useful to the argument. You complain about the creationist moniker, but who else finds evolution faulty without offering a better explanation for the observed phenomena. Creationists are the only ones I know of. And maybe they are offering competing theories, but I can't make heads nor tails of it--look how much attention Paul gave to Kleinman....if the people on this forum can't figure out what other solutions are--how do these supposed competing hypothesis ever get tested? And why have none ammassed any evidence despite the millions thrown into the Discovery Institute and the tax free riches of every church. You know that if there was the slightest bit of scientific evidence that something was "intelligently designed" the creationists would be beating us over the head with it daily and milking it for all it's worth. Instead they are just pointing to gaps or conundrums to try and weaken peoples understanding of just how important this theory is while offering nothing else (except "magic" as an alternative.) And by magic I mean invisible and unmeasurable and untestable. A notion based on faith. If you can't believe consciousness can evolve, then what exactly is it you are able to believe and how is that evidence better? If you don't think scientists are on the right track in regards to abiogenesis, than what other explanation do you give your credence to? And where is the evidence. Where. The Discovery Institute will pay you lots of money if you can find it, you know. So far, all their prayers and money have yielded nothing. NOTHING.

And Von...suppose evolution and abiogenesis was a fact and there is no overseer--how would you expect to learn this information. What evidence do you think there would be that you would see. How would things be different? Or would you rather die believing that scientists didn't have the answers to some of life's deeper mysteries? If there were no plan--would you want to know?

 

[kjkent1]

Now I know the DNA argument is a very good one, but the statictical probabilities aren't really figured out yet.

I think the statistical argument proceeds from a false premise -- one which especially appeals to the "design" mindset.

If you go to the casino to play roulette and you put your money on 22, you know there's a definite and certain negative expectation over the long run. But the presumption that you and the casino make is that there will absolutely be a roulette table and wheel to accommodate the precise odds so that anyone may calculate them in advance.

However, when you ask what the odds of humanity rising from base chemicals as the result of the chaotic actions of the universe, you are making the same presumption as with the roulette game: base chemicals will form into complex molecules which will become self replicating DNA, which will evolve organisms and eventually produce homo sapiens.

The problem with the presumption is that it's not the only possible outcome. Without presuming a creator who intends humanity from this chain of events, there is no reason to expect that any particular self-replicating molecule will necessarily arise.

How do we know that some other configuration could not have occurred? Just because DNA is what we're made of doesn't mean that DNA is the only possible self-replicating molecule. There could be a limitless number of possible ways that a self-replicating and evolving organism could occur, and without knowing all of the possibilities, it is impossible to calculate the odds of our existence.

This is the point where the design advocate jumps in and asserts that anthropic principle suggests that our universe is fine tuned to produce "us." But, once again, that's imputing a designer into the mix.

Assuming, arguendo, that our universe is the only universe, the fact is that the probability of our existence remains incalculable, because we can't spin the universal roulette wheel,and see what would happen were we to restart the universe a few thousand times, thereby invoking the law of large numbers.

And, even if we were able to do this, would the fact that humanity appeared in only one independent trial of universal roulette be more likely to suggest a designer than were humanity to appear every time?

After all, if humanity only appeared once, then that would seemingly make us a rather amazing coincidence, but no less amazing than were we to appear every time.

At bottom, humanity is here, and that is the only known fact. How we got here, ultimately is not susceptible to absolute proof, unless the designer is a natural actor in our universe. And, if it is, then we should be able to locate it.

In the absence of finding that designer, the default position is that we are here as the result of random chance, no matter how unlikely that may appear, because the alternative possibility: that we are here as the result of magic, is infinitely less likely.

 

[VonNeumann]

...
Regarding the abiogenesis issue, we simply do not have enough information. I consider the jury still out on that one. I think it is very presumptuous to think that there is no way to bridge the gap. We have thought that so many times in the past and found such elegant solutions to ther problems that made the naysayers look foolish, that I think it wisest to suspend judgment.

Sure - no prob. But how many times do those here cry "give me the evidence...".

Who's being presumptuous? Obviously those who presume, without evidence, that there is a gradualistic path from abiotic molecules up through to RNA/DNA.

As long as there exists no theory, I'm the one who is NOT being presumptuous, when I say that we need some mechanism other than chance and bootstrapping to get from A to B. Hey, try this for elegant: quantum physics does not rule out wormholes in time, right? It is not wholey outlandish to posit that new information is catalyzed by time loops. That could explain abiogenesis and it could explain sudden appearance of phyla in the Cambrian. See? Billions of years of evolution produce some simple little Cambrian like organism in OUR FUTURE, then a time worm hole seeds the past with these structures that took Billions of years to evolve. You could get trillions of years (or more) of evolution if time could recirculate like this. Maybe creativity itself relies on some kind of transcending past the time limitations - maybe our brains have tiny little time-paradox loops in it. Okay, I'll come back to reality now...

I've never read anyone else propose this, but I'm sure it's just because I've never stumbled across it.

Cool idea, huh?

 

[VonNeumann]

Just wait please , if you have a system that may have billions of molecules and billions of years, why is that impossible? Why would it require infinite time. You have asserted your conclusion, and i may not be able to show your math but it seems you have just asserted your conclusion.

Simple math can apply to this as well, say we have two thing (thingamabobs) and that the have a chance to interact every million years and there is a one in a million chance they will interact to make a dohickey. What is the probality of the dohickey being created over one billion years? Something like one in a thousand? What then is the probality for larger sets and longer time periods and higher rates of interaction?

Now I know the DNA argument is a very good one, but the statictical probabilities aren't really figured out yet.

So what leads you to believe that it would require an infinite time?

I am not alone, of course. Stuart Kauffman in "Origins of Order" states Random mutation and natural selection are doubtfully helpful in explaining abiogenesis - my weak paraphrase. I'll have to look it up - I think it is in the Forward.

And... To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis

In the early 80s it was popular to presume RNA as precursor. I think that's been debunked. Most might say now that proteins are the precursors. Some assume a parallel development of peptides and neucleic acids. Even if you have a system of enzymes that have some semblence of reproduction and metabolism, how did the emergence of encoding their structure into neucleic acid code evolve? We don't have any theories with any sort of detail, so we can only calculate the probability of a very complex thing spontaneously appearing. Even if a strand of DNA popped into existence, it would need a host of proteins surrounding it, in order to translate the code into living machinery.

The reason I have trouble with billions of years and billions of molecules is that you can fantasize about having a supply of molecules greater than the number of atoms in the universe and add to that a universe that is much more complex than primordial soup. And still the numbers are against you.

Let's say there are 10^70 atoms in the universe. Okay, poof... for every atom let's fantasize there is a magic machine - 10^70 machines. Each machine assembles a DNA sequence each and every second. The machines are interconnected by some network of communications so that machines do not duplicate the work, they each work on a different part of the problem. The problem is to assemble every possible DNA sequence of a certain length. The supply of C A T G (call them "letters")is infinite and comes from another dimension - infinite primordial soup - see?

Now the question is what do we allow as the minimum sequence for a minimum protolife. If I say 1000 letters, someone will say it may take less than that. We say 900 letters, someone will say that there may be a huge amount of ways to code 900 letters that will still produce a machine that satisfies minimum conditions for being defined as proto-life. Okay, but I can keep making it smaller and smaller until it is too minimal to be proto-life. Somewhere between too minimal, and just minimal, is the threshold. We can pick a number. I'll say 400 letters even though I can't imagine how that could really be sufficient. I think that is generous - at least to me. And you asked me how can I believe a billion years and billion molecules doesn't work - I am using numbers that are generous in my opinion.

Let's go on. So we have 10^70 machines, each takes one second to assemble a 400 letter string, pocketa-pocketa all the machines produce a new sequence each second: 10^70 each second in the whole universe. No duplication or redundancy - no waste of time - no machine overlaps the work of another machine. There are 10^8 seconds per year. But given 400 letters, there are 4^400 combinations the machines have to go through to make all possible ones. That's 10^240 combinations. How long will it take 10^70 machines to go through 10^240 combinations?

How many times will 10^70 * 10^8 go into 10^240. That's easy.
10^240/10^78= 10^162 years!!!!

The universe is only 10^10 years old. The time 10^162 years is tantamount to infinite time. Oh, it doesn't have to go through ALL combinations - true. Then use the mean time. Half of it. In orders of magnitude base 10, one-half doesn't help you much does it? An engineer would say 10^162 years divided by two is 10^162 years .

I must have seen calculations like this over and over and for some reason never really paid attention to it. I rolled my eyes. One day, I tried to calculate such things myself and saw how unlikely gaps can be jumped by chance. The word "unlikely" takes on new meaning when you see numbers like 10^162 years for a mere 400 amino acids.

 

[articulett]

Sure - no prob. But how many times do those here cry "give me the evidence...".

Who's being presumptuous? Obviously those who presume, without evidence, that there is a gradualistic path from abiotic molecules up through to RNA/DNA.

Von: per the link above.

In Focus
March 28, 2007
Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment
Their results could change the way we imagine life arose on early Earth
By Douglas Fox

Amino acids--self assembled--in a mimic of the earth's early prebiotic environment.

As long as there exists no theory, I'm the one who is NOT being presumptuous, when I say that we need some mechanism other than chance and bootstrapping to get from A to B. Hey, try this for elegant: quantum physics does not rule out wormholes in time, right? It is not wholey outlandish to posit that new information is catalyzed by time loops. That could explain abiogenesis and it could explain sudden appearance of phyla in the Cambrian. See? Billions of years of evolution produce some simple little Cambrian like organism in OUR FUTURE, then a time worm hole seeds the past with these structures that took Billions of years to evolve. You could get trillions of years (or more) of evolution if time could recirculate like this. Maybe creativity itself relies on some kind of transcending past the time limitations - maybe our brains have tiny little time-paradox loops in it. Okay, I'll come back to reality now...

I've never read anyone else propose this, but I'm sure it's just because I've never stumbled across it.

Cool idea, huh?

Earth to von--we HAVE a mechanism other than chance and bootstrapping--it's called natural selection... look--like this http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2144.html Some things stick together better than other things...that's not bootstrapping or chance, VON. You are in such denial pointing to little conundrum that don't exist except in the heads of creationists. But even before we filled in the facts, we long suspected it was something "natural" and even "simple"--because everything complex so far had started just like that. Everything that was once attributed to god so far, has been explained by simpler and natural phenomena if it has been explained at all. And just because you haven't read about it doesn't mean it hasn't been explained to scientific satisfaction. But even if it wasn't explained--that doesn't mean that "intelligence" of some sort explains it. Certainly, there is no evidence of any kind of intelligence or consciousness outside of a brain...although there is a human phenomena where people see patterns where none were intended...and people are often fooled by randomness as well (Las Vegas was built upon the principal, in fact.)

Science will never be able to explain everything--certainly not to the satisfaction of one who believes that faith is the key to salvation. But refusing to believe or understand or make sense of evolution or pointing to gaps or what you feel are conundrums--doesn't add any knowledge to the equation--nor is it supportive of any alternative explanation. It's just a display of your incredulity. That's it. And creationist have extra credulity when it comes to things that scientists are not so impressed by (the appearance of design) but no amount of evidence is enough to convince them otherwise.

Should the creationist ever have evidence in their favor of any sort I'm sure they'll be bleating about it eternally. But your argument still boils down to this--"I can't understand, therefore, it must be magic." If it's magic--we sure aren't any close to knowing what kind of magic with that kind of evidence. Alien experimentation...the matrix...a dream-- someone's version of a supreme creator...insanity.. Sure, it's all fodder for fun, faith, and imagination, but it's useless for understanding anything. Compare that to the unfolding of information that has come about from evolution--including the links you refuse to comprehend.

And you are smart Von--so it's your loss. Would you rather know the truth--or believe that it can't be known? Would you rather believe a lie or just say, "I don't know"...? With your mind, you could readily find the answers to your questions and even add to the knowledge--and yet, like Kleinman...you have you anti-evolution lynchpin and are forever focused at keeping the controversy alive in your head. For you it's abiogenesis and consciousness. For most biologists we have unfolding information in these areas and there doesn't seem to be any "intelligence" or "pre planning" involved. Lots of knowledge has been gained in recent years, and none of it requires an invisible intelligence.

 

[VonNeumann]

I think the statistical argument proceeds from a false premise -- one which especially appeals to the "design" mindset.

If you go to the casino to play roulette and you put your money on 22, you know there's a definite and certain negative expectation over the long run. But the presumption that you and the casino make is that there will absolutely be a roulette table and wheel to accommodate the precise odds so that anyone may calculate them in advance.

However, when you ask what the odds of humanity rising from base chemicals as the result of the chaotic actions of the universe, you are making the same presumption as with the roulette game: base chemicals will form into complex molecules which will become self replicating DNA, which will evolve organisms and eventually produce homo sapiens.

The problem with the presumption is that it's not the only possible outcome. Without presuming a creator who intends humanity from this chain of events, there is no reason to expect that any particular self-replicating molecule will necessarily arise.

How do we know that some other configuration could not have occurred? Just because DNA is what we're made of doesn't mean that DNA is the only possible self-replicating molecule. There could be a limitless number of possible ways that a self-replicating and evolving organism could occur, and without knowing all of the possibilities, it is impossible to calculate the odds of our existence.

This is the point where the design advocate jumps in and asserts that anthropic principle suggests that our universe is fine tuned to produce "us." But, once again, that's imputing a designer into the mix.

Assuming, arguendo, that our universe is the only universe, the fact is that the probability of our existence remains incalculable, because we can't spin the universal roulette wheel,and see what would happen were we to restart the universe a few thousand times, thereby invoking the law of large numbers.

And, even if we were able to do this, would the fact that humanity appeared in only one independent trial of universal roulette be more likely to suggest a designer than were humanity to appear every time?

After all, if humanity only appeared once, then that would seemingly make us a rather amazing coincidence, but no less amazing than were we to appear every time.

At bottom, humanity is here, and that is the only known fact. How we got here, ultimately is not susceptible to absolute proof, unless the designer is a natural actor in our universe. And, if it is, then we should be able to locate it.

In the absence of finding that designer, the default position is that we are here as the result of random chance, no matter how unlikely that may appear, because the alternative possibility: that we are here as the result of magic, is infinitely less likely.

I understand. But...

Let's cast this in terms of a good 100 word story. I recently wrote a 99 word flash fiction story myself. It's difficult to tell a whole story in a mere 99 word limit.

We can't begin to answer, as you well pointed out, how many possible ways life could have formed - therefore we cannot predict probabilities. Okay, you've made that point. It's a useful thought. Since we can't even have a discussion about something with so little basis of what is true about it, let's go to this 100 word story analogy.

Let's say the average word length in English is 6 letters and there are 27 letters including "space". The simplest approximation to the amount of information in a 100 word story is 600 letters. That is 27^600 possibilities or in base 10 it is 10^859 possibilities.

What is the chance of finding my 100 word story in this haystack? If we had each atom in the universe reading these 100 word "stories", 10^78 stories would be read per year and 10^88 stories would be read in the life of the universe. The ratio of 10^88 / 10^859 is tantamount to zero. Or stated differently, it would take 10^771 times the life of the universe to read all 100 word stories if every atom in the universe read a different story each and every second!

Ah, you say. But how many different stories can be written in English? Huge amounts of 100 word stories can be written in English! How do you calculate that? Let's say there are 10^5 English words. Now all the combinations of English 100 word stories is only 10^5^100, as a limit. Just because it is a concatenation of English words makes it a "story" not. But let's use this number 10^5^100 = 10^500 different stories. Hell, that's a lot of stories!

But while 10^500 stories is HUGE, it is a tiny fraction of all possible 600 letter combinations. 10^500 / 10^859 is tantamount to ZERO! That is, 10^-359 is such a vanishingly small value it IS zero for all practical purposes in our physical universe.

Now, I know I only made an argument for 100 word stories, but it is a reasonable analogy relating possible life-forms to possible English stories.

At least I think I brought something of substance to compare with. You are correct we cannot venture to guess how many different forms of life there could be. How many different periodic charts are possible if you jack around with physical laws? How many other worlds are possible that would support life - much less intelligent life. Who knows?

But it may be surprising to you, until you calculate it as I have done, that the amount of 100 word stories in English that could possibly have a flying chance of being a story, out of all 100 word letter-combinations, is ZERO for all practical purposes. I am prejudiced to be bent toward thinking that it is reasonable to also expect that the amount of possible "living worlds" is tantamount to ZERO in ratio to all possible things.

That is all the point I can make. The rest is just arguing about each other's biases and prejudices. ...this is more philosophy than science.

 

[VonNeumann]

Von: per the link above.

In Focus
March 28, 2007
Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment
Their results could change the way we imagine life arose on early Earth
By Douglas Fox

Amino acids--self assembled--in a mimic of the earth's early prebiotic environment.



Earth to von--we HAVE a mechanism other than chance and bootstrapping--it's called natural selection... look--like this http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2144.html Some things stick together better than other things...that's not bootstrapping or chance, VON. You are in such denial pointing to little conundrum that don't exist except in the heads of creationists. But even before we filled in the facts, we long suspected it was something "natural" and even "simple"--because everything complex so far had started just like that. Everything that was once attributed to god so far, has been explained by simpler and natural phenomena if it has been explained at all. And just because you haven't read about it doesn't mean it hasn't been explained to scientific satisfaction. But even if it wasn't explained--that doesn't mean that "intelligence" of some sort explains it. Certainly, there is no evidence of any kind of intelligence or consciousness outside of a brain...although there is a human phenomena where people see patterns where none were intended...and people are often fooled by randomness as well (Las Vegas was built upon the principal, in fact.)

Science will never be able to explain everything--certainly not to the satisfaction of one who believes that faith is the key to salvation. But refusing to believe or understand or make sense of evolution or pointing to gaps or what you feel are conundrums--doesn't add any knowledge to the equation--nor is it supportive of any alternative explanation. It's just a display of your incredulity. That's it. And creationist have extra credulity when it comes to things that scientists are not so impressed by (the appearance of design) but no amount of evidence is enough to convince them otherwise.

Should the creationist ever have evidence in their favor of any sort I'm sure they'll be bleating about it eternally. But your argument still boils down to this--"I can't understand, therefore, it must be magic." If it's magic--we sure aren't any close to knowing what kind of magic with that kind of evidence. Alien experimentation...the matrix...a dream-- someone's version of a supreme creator...insanity.. Sure, it's all fodder for fun, faith, and imagination, but it's useless for understanding anything. Compare that to the unfolding of information that has come about from evolution--including the links you refuse to comprehend.

And you are smart Von--so it's your loss. Would you rather know the truth--or believe that it can't be known? Would you rather believe a lie or just say, "I don't know"...? With your mind, you could readily find the answers to your questions and even add to the knowledge--and yet, like Kleinman...you have you anti-evolution lynchpin and are forever focused at keeping the controversy alive in your head. For you it's abiogenesis and consciousness. For most biologists we have unfolding information in these areas and there doesn't seem to be any "intelligence" or "pre planning" involved. Lots of knowledge has been gained in recent years, and none of it requires an invisible intelligence.

Art'. You're incurable. I am often quite original, I think. Yet, you pigeon-hole me. Then you get on your pulpit and preach against whatever you think I represent. But all you know that I represent is someone who thinks the theory of evolution is incomplete. I might as well have said I think Adam sat on a rock and named all the animals in 1902. Quit spouting religion to me Art'. Stop stop stop. Tune in, please.

If you didn't have my name in your post, I'd think you were talking about someone else, nearly each and every time.

What'd you think of the time loop paradox idea? You don't know what to think about that, do you dear.

 

[articulett]

Art'. You're incurable. I am often quite original, I think. Yet, you pigeon-hole me. Then you get on your pulpit and preach against whatever you think I represent. But all you know that I represent is someone who thinks the theory of evolution is incomplete. I might as well have said I think Adam sat on a rock and named all the animals in 1902. Quit spouting religion to me Art'. Stop stop stop. Tune in, please.

If you didn't have my name in your post, I'd think you were talking about someone else, nearly each and every time.

What'd you think of the time loop paradox idea? You don't know what to think about that, do you dear.

no, dear--I can't keep up. I don't know what the time loop thing is...I was busy wondering why you don't quite seem to understand natural selection or probability--But that's just silly old me. I'm sure you're busy amassing data for your loop paradox hypothesis which will be a much better explanation of the observed phenomena, I'm sure. Do remember, arti, when you get that nobel prize, will you? And I'm spouting religion because of your "gee willikers how could consciousness evolve" argument--not because of something I made up about you. It's a refrain of yours I've heard repeated in several of your arguments. The Cambrian phylum thing is new, but I have no doubt that if it's been answered it's been ignored just like everything else that contradicts or negates or answers the questions posed at you and by you. I shan't be dashing off looking for answers for you to ignore--rather I'll hang out and wait until someone somewhere brings up better evidence for something else.

But, at least answer this question... if it wasn't "intelligently designed" (however you define that), would you want to know?

 

[VonNeumann]

Again http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479&chanId=sa027

How can you dismiss this Von...you act like we are making up facts out of air. What evidence does your alternate theory for abiogenesis have? Or is your failure to comprehend or understand that it is life is likely to have sprung from non-life your main argument regarding evolution coupled with your incredulity over "consciousness" evolving from unconsciousness? And how are we supposed to take your claims seriously when you never even seem interested in what we NOW know. You don't want science to find the answers and so you presume it has not. But you offer nothing similarly explanatory or useful to the argument. You complain about the creationist moniker, but who else finds evolution faulty without offering a better explanation for the observed phenomena. Creationists are the only ones I know of. And maybe they are offering competing theories, but I can't make heads nor tails of it--look how much attention Paul gave to Kleinman....if the people on this forum can't figure out what other solutions are--how do these supposed competing hypothesis ever get tested? And why have none ammassed any evidence despite the millions thrown into the Discovery Institute and the tax free riches of every church. You know that if there was the slightest bit of scientific evidence that something was "intelligently designed" the creationists would be beating us over the head with it daily and milking it for all it's worth. Instead they are just pointing to gaps or conundrums to try and weaken peoples understanding of just how important this theory is while offering nothing else (except "magic" as an alternative.) And by magic I mean invisible and unmeasurable and untestable. A notion based on faith. If you can't believe consciousness can evolve, then what exactly is it you are able to believe and how is that evidence better? If you don't think scientists are on the right track in regards to abiogenesis, than what other explanation do you give your credence to? And where is the evidence. Where. The Discovery Institute will pay you lots of money if you can find it, you know. So far, all their prayers and money have yielded nothing. NOTHING.

And Von...suppose evolution and abiogenesis was a fact and there is no overseer--how would you expect to learn this information. What evidence do you think there would be that you would see. How would things be different? Or would you rather die believing that scientists didn't have the answers to some of life's deeper mysteries? If there were no plan--would you want to know?

Art': science is much more tentative than it appears to me that you imagine that it is . It is good to question science. Always question it. That's the way science works.

The Urey Miller experiment is one of Jonathan Well's examples of an "Icon" of evolution. Why? Because it is known to have been based on wrong assumptions of Earths primeval conditions. When Science produced new information, as you read in the article yourself, in 1983, the Urey Miller experiment was debunked. All this time, the invalidity of the experiment was never put in your biology books.

So it is a good and wonderful thing, if you want to believe it, that they recently did this experiment using iron and carbonates. Finally, there is a new amino acide genesis experiment that might be based on realism. As the NASA guy said: "This is a move toward more realism in terms of what the conditions were on early Earth."

A move toward realism. Yeah. Cuz the stuff you've been teaching all these years Art' has been unreal if you've been teaching Urey Miller.

While this is a sigh of relief for evolutionists (for those who've been aware of and concerned about UreyMiller being "unreal"), it may be a set back for evolution-dissenters. Time will tell. THis is new! After all, Urey Miller enjoyed 10 years of fame before they knew already in the 60s the initial conditions were very wrong.

But, all that aside. Amino acids "self-assemble"? Who can give a scenario for that? How do you get from amino acids to protolife? Other than auto-catalytic sets of enzymes, are there any other theories? I thought you needed "evidence" Art'.

Also, Urey Miller did not produce all the amino acids needed. This article did not say which ones were produced in this recent experiment. It also did not say anything about the chirality of the molecules. That will be interesting to know.