Reproduction is an attribute of living things - it's not what causes something to be living. I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living - what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes. Again thanks to all of you for your patience and answers.
Smart Kid
- Thread starter Dunstan
- Start date
Why would atheists have a different idea of what a living thing is? What is it about atheists that you think would make them so different that they would have a different definition of "alive"? As far as I can tell, atheists are just like any other human. Do you think they are different somehow?
And I sure hope you don't think M&Ms are alive!
You were just saying that for an example, right?
And I sure hope you don't think M&Ms are alive!
You were just saying that for an example, right?I've tried to explain it. Wolfman's tried. Supercorgi's tried. Yet you seem to be disregarding all of our explanations and seizing on one line from Amapola's post (which I think was a bit of an oversimplification on his/her part).
Natural selection requires:
1) some "thing" that reproduces
2) some "imperfections" or "errors" in the copying process
3) differential reproduction/survival rates, i.e. an environment in which not all of the "things" have an equal chance of surviving long enough to successfully reproduce.
"Living" vs. "non-living" doesn't really enter into it, except to the extent that reproducing, dying, etc. are often characteristics of "living" things, but that's really beside the point.
M&M's and computers don't reproduce. Interestingly, computer viruses can "reproduce," but as far as I know they do so without errors or imperfections in the copying process, so computer viruses can't "evolve." (But I may be way behind the times on that one.)
If you want an example of a "non-living" thing that undergoes an evolutionary process, you can read up on memetics, but that may be a distraction at this point in the discussion.
As Amapola just said, the same way(s) everyone else does. I don't know that there's any one single definition of what is a living thing (hence the debate about whether computers could ever be "alive"). But for purposes of evolutionary biology, it's irrelevant. The Theory of Evolution doesn't say "living things evolve because they're alive; non-living things can't because they're not living." You seem to be trying to force that kind of circular definition into the discussion.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
That was quite beautiful. I find myself rather awed by your ability to explain all that so succinctly and clearly. Thanks for that, because I learned a lot from it.
Nominated.
I don't think there's a fundamental difference between living and nonliving things.
Free will is a tricky subject---I think there's probably no such thing---but in any case, plants are generally considered to be alive but not to have free will, so ... now what?
Regarding computers (and likewise M&M's): I already know that people exist and that some of them create computers. So if I come across a particular computer whose origin I have no direct knowledge of, the reasonable conclusion is that a person made it. I am not deducing from the computer the very existence of people, merely the fact that it was made by one. But when I come across a living organism, I don't already know that God exists and that he sometimes creates life---that's the whole question! So, the two situations are quite different.
It's really hard to imagine not knowing that people exist, when trying to decide how a computer in front of me probably got there, because, at the very least, I know that I'm a person and that I exist.
There isn't a clear, fundamental difference between living and non-living.
Some things are clearly alive.
For example, animals are clearly alive.
Some things are clearly not alive.
For example, a lump of metal is clearly not alive.
In between, there are things that are not clearly alive or not alive.
For example, a virus is not clearly alive or not alive.
(or, if you don't like that example, a prion is not clearly alive or not alive)
Because it can be such a small step from non-living to living, it may be possible to actually go from non-living to living, However, to date, this has not yet been demonstrated.
This is abiogenesis, though, not evolution.
A thing does not need to be able to move around to be alive.
For example a plant doesn't move around - certainly not of it's own free will.
In any case, the question of free will is an interesting one, but let's not detrail the thread.
gypsey
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 222
may i ask how old you are? you do know the diference between something made and something reproduced? i guess i am asking if you are old enough to have had the "talk" with a parent or other caring adult?
does common sense not tell you that 2 computers(or m&ms) can't on their own get together and make babies
on second thought the m&ms reproducing in their packs might be a good thing if they could be as quick as bunnys
Sir Robin Goodfellow
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,804
Non-living things do evolve, in a way. Do you think the first car was a supercharged Z06 Corvette with a six-speed transmission, air bags and anti-lock brakes?
treble_head
Cupcake Loser Moron
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,907
does common sense not tell you that 2 computers(or m&ms) can't on their own get together and make babies
[/quote]
oh yeah? where do mini m&ms come from, then? Huh?
[/quote]
oh yeah? where do mini m&ms come from, then? Huh?
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
To be fair, there are two kinds of belief: trust-based (belief due to corroborating evidence) and faith-based (belief without, or despite, evidence).
Atheism is trust-based. Atheists believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning because the sun has come up every morning before. Atheists believe that there are no unanswerable questions in science because really difficult questions have been answered before. Just because a question has no answer today doesn't mean that we will never come up with an answer.
Religions, on the other hand, are faith-based.
Oftentimes when religious folks say that atheism is a "belief system", they are ignoring the fact that there are these two separate types of belief systems, and are thinking that all belief is faith-based. Which it is not.
Geek Goddess
Hot enough to melt 4" rebar
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,940
"A" human cannot evolve.
SopranoHarmony
Imperatrix Carminis
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,419
But that's a different type of evolution. Cars are "evolving" simply because we are changing them; if we were not intelligent, we would make the same cars over and over again and not change the models.
Why the atheist explanation?
As opposed to (say) the sports fan explanation or the vegetarian explanation?
What does atheism have to do with this issue?
The objective and scientific explanation is that we are not yet in a position to fully answer the question, but we do know it's essentially a question about chemistry.
We can also be pretty sure that whether a chemist is an atheist, a Bokononist or a chartered accountant does not affect the facts.
Mongrel
Begging for Scraps
Side point - it seems in rare occasions evolution can stop.
The Worlds oldest plant discovered cloning.
If there are no changes in the environment there is nothing to drive evolution. Put another way, evolution occurs because of changes in the environment.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
Well, yeah, that's where the analogy falls down of course, because cars cannot breed so they are reliant on external forces to produce new cars. But nevertheless the hugely complicated and highly effective Bugatti Veyrons did not spring straight into existence as creationists would have us believe; they are at the end of a long line of development stretching back well before the introduction of the Model T. Same could be said for the computer that we found in the OP.
Yes, I know that M&M's aren't "alive". 
In theism, living things have spirits that are at the source of thought, reason, movement, order, etc. I'm asking what's the source of life for atheism? What was the first "living" thing and what changed it from non-living to living?
Dunstan brought up computer viruses and I am a software engineer. Let's set up an evolution experiment. Let's say that there's a program that runs and modifies another program at random - or it might even copy and paste parts of the original program (where did this original program come from?). If you change one byte of a computer program, it may do nothing, it may handicap it, or it may break it completely. If the program crashes or runs slower, for example, the program is terminated and we start from the original copy.
It would be extremely rare for a one character change to add a new feature or even modify a feature to make it better. Doing those types of operations takes planning, design, and implementing many changes at once. If I were to treat a gene sequence as a computer program, and I altered portions of it at random, it would destroy the gene just as it destroys a program.
Let's pretend that modifying a character made something useful happen. The "code" would be chaotic and not elegantly planned out at all - it certainly wouldn't look like the mirror image human body with it's form, functions, and purpose behind each part of its design.
I just can't see that happening at all based on my years of seeing code and how I only see planned organized purposeful information being created by intelligence while it is destroyed by random flaws.
Do we have any example of sigificanly new genetic code being created out of random mutations?
P.S. Faith is a belief based on evidence that moves a person to action. Religion has evidence, just as evolution does. Religion has witnesses, evolution doesn't. They both have unanswered questions too. Looking through other atheist and evolution threads on this site, I think we're all better just walking away now agreeing to disagree as nothing good seems to come of these discussions.
In theism, living things have spirits that are at the source of thought, reason, movement, order, etc. I'm asking what's the source of life for atheism? What was the first "living" thing and what changed it from non-living to living?Dunstan brought up computer viruses and I am a software engineer. Let's set up an evolution experiment. Let's say that there's a program that runs and modifies another program at random - or it might even copy and paste parts of the original program (where did this original program come from?). If you change one byte of a computer program, it may do nothing, it may handicap it, or it may break it completely. If the program crashes or runs slower, for example, the program is terminated and we start from the original copy.
It would be extremely rare for a one character change to add a new feature or even modify a feature to make it better. Doing those types of operations takes planning, design, and implementing many changes at once. If I were to treat a gene sequence as a computer program, and I altered portions of it at random, it would destroy the gene just as it destroys a program.
Let's pretend that modifying a character made something useful happen. The "code" would be chaotic and not elegantly planned out at all - it certainly wouldn't look like the mirror image human body with it's form, functions, and purpose behind each part of its design.
I just can't see that happening at all based on my years of seeing code and how I only see planned organized purposeful information being created by intelligence while it is destroyed by random flaws.
Do we have any example of sigificanly new genetic code being created out of random mutations?
P.S. Faith is a belief based on evidence that moves a person to action. Religion has evidence, just as evolution does. Religion has witnesses, evolution doesn't. They both have unanswered questions too. Looking through other atheist and evolution threads on this site, I think we're all better just walking away now agreeing to disagree as nothing good seems to come of these discussions.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,166