We can all see the various pieces it takes to build something and know the odds against it falling into place, how many various possible other ways it could have failed. That gives an astronomically large number against life happening, but it is far worse than that if you look at it from the perspective of a bottom-up problem for chance and necessity to do the work. As blind chance doesn’t know what is required for step one, two, three, and so on. That would be like finding a needle in a haystack, without knowing what a needle is or what a haystack is. And through chance and necessity, still getting it right while overcoming those odds when we know what is required without knowing what was needed, or even what a need was.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidOnly about 20 elements go into the combination we call life. They are not particularly rare elements either. Not at all like the elements which exist only for a few seconds when uranium decays, ultimately, into lead. No, the elements which make up what we call "life" are quite literally as common as dirt: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and so on.
We can all see the various pieces it takes to build something and know the odds against it falling into place, how many various possible other ways it could have failed. That gives an astronomically large number against life happening, but it is far worse than that if you look at it from the perspective of a bottom-up problem for chance and necessity to do the work. As bli ...[text shortened]... g those odds when we know what is required without knowing what was needed, or even what a need was.
Given:
a) there are billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of galaxies, and
b) that in each one of them there are more billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of stars, and
c) that around a great many of them there are more billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of planets, and
d) that the Webb telescope has detected organic molecules in interstellar space, on comets and on asteroids (not only on planetary bodies), and
e) the universe has been churning the elements for about 14 billion years
the odds are 100% certain that every possible combination of 20 elements will occur, at least once, SOMEWHERE in this vast universe. Life got started here, at least once, by random churning of 20 or so elements; no intelligence required. Of course, the first life forms here did not have big brains and opposable thumbs--those evolved later. The first life forms were self-replicating molecules.
As Pondy will no doubt point out, life as we now know it is more complicated than 20 molecules--but there are self-replicating molecules consisting of no more than 20 elements.
The really interesting question is not how the first self-replicating molecules came together. Bio-chemistry has already moved on to the more interesting question, how life got complicated, how self-replicating molecules moved on to more than clumps of more than a few molecules.
@KellyJay
You can't prove creation.
You can't disporve creation.
You can't prove spontaneous existence of live.
You can't disprove spontaneous existence of life.
So what is to discuss?
@Ponderable saidIf you can give me something other than a binary choice, by design or not, when looking at everything material and immaterial. We can take the “we can not know” stance due to the wealth of choices. When it’s a binary choice, which one fits the evidence, it makes it easier. When we see only one cause able to do some of the things we see, it gets even simpler.
@KellyJay
You can't prove creation.
You can't disporve creation.
You can't prove spontaneous existence of live.
You can't disprove spontaneous existence of life.
So what is to discuss?
Proving is not the goal; a singular event, or even an ongoing process, someone can always bring to the table, maybe this or that. We can examine the evidence surrounding it and identify possible causes, none of which will prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
For that matter, even when we have witnesses to an event, you can dismiss them as not credible or accept them; that, too, wouldn’t give us PROOF beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So what are the likely causes? Are they reasonable given what we know?
@KellyJay saidWell the "binary" dissolves into a multiplicity if we consider "creator" as in the diverse religious views on it. So looking not only into the bible but also in other creation myth and by looking at a yet unkonw mulitiplicity of "random" occurences.
If you can give me something other than a binary choice, by design or not, when looking at everything material and immaterial. We can take the “we can not know” stance due to the wealth of choices. When it’s a binary choice, which one fits the evidence, it makes it easier. When we see only one cause able to do some of the things we see, it gets even simpler.
Proving is ...[text shortened]... eyond a shadow of a doubt.
So what are the likely causes? Are they reasonable given what we know?
So we have yet to come up with a very good definition of "living system". That this is not trivial is shown by viri. Does a virus live?
We have yet to come up with "the simplest" live-form, that could be a predecessor of all living beings. (Or at least of some, a lot will depend on the way the "being" is transferring information into the next generation).
@Ponderable saidI should like to add some comments to this post, because the two positions, creationism or natural processes, are not reciprocal explanations.
@KellyJay
You can't prove creation.
You can't disporve creation.
You can't prove spontaneous existence of live.
You can't disprove spontaneous existence of life.
So what is to discuss?
First, disproving that life came about through natural processes does NOT PROVE creationism. Moreover, creationists have not disproven that life could have come about through natural processes; they merely have an alternative hypothesis, not a dis-proof of the natural process hypothesis.
Second, creationism has two gigantic hurdles to cross:
1. creationists must prove the existence of some intelligence external to the universe, AND
2. that this intelligence (whatever it is) is actually moving molecules around and the real causative factor in chromosomes dividing,
otherwise, they haven't proven anything at all.
To all creationists: let us know when you have functional transcendental causality detector.
@Ponderable saidWe are served a false-binary by creationists: either God-did-it, or random chance. There are multiple other options, including: the repeated operation of natural processes, which operate with law-like regularity. This is neither God-did-it nor random chance.
Well the "binary" dissolves into a multiplicity if we consider "creator" as in the diverse religious views on it. So looking not only into the bible but also in other creation myth and by looking at a yet unkonw mulitiplicity of "random" occurences.
So we have yet to come up with a very good definition of "living system". That this is not trivial is shown by viri. Does ...[text shortened]... ome, a lot will depend on the way the "being" is transferring information into the next generation).
If anyone should ask "where did natural processes come from?" I reject the question. They did not 'come from' anywhere; they are simply given, that is part of what it means for there to be a universe and not a schizoverse.
"Where did natural processes come from?" is a nonsense question, like "what is north of the North Pole." There is no 'north of the north pole.' There is no 'where' whence natural processes came form.
Regarding viruses and the definition of "life": a frequent 'argument' of creationists is that life cannot come from not-life. This yet another false dichotomy. There are multiple in-between states of matter, which are neither full-blown life as we know it but not yet wholly inanimate, like rocks. Viruses are only one example of a state of matter which is in-between life and not-life: it exhibits some, but not all, of the properties we associate with life. There are many other in-between states, and this is exactly the point where evolution theory gets its explanitory power. Evolution is gradual, incremental, step-by-step, moving from not-life, through many in-between stages of not-quite-life, to life, over long periods of time.
@Ponderable saidIf there is a creator, it doesn’t matter who or even how many; it still promotes a design with intent, rather than everything being by chance, with nothing pushing it forward.
Well the "binary" dissolves into a multiplicity if we consider "creator" as in the diverse religious views on it. So looking not only into the bible but also in other creation myth and by looking at a yet unkonw mulitiplicity of "random" occurences.
So we have yet to come up with a very good definition of "living system". That this is not trivial is shown by viri. Does ...[text shortened]... ome, a lot will depend on the way the "being" is transferring information into the next generation).
@moonbus saidAn unfounded assertion that could only make sense to a metaphysical materialist.
There is no 'where' whence natural processes came form.
All we know is what our senses tell us. Physics, in essence, is the study of perceptual forms. As such, it is not entirely inaccurate to say that physics is a branch of psychology, or even sociology!
Of course, physicists are asking all the time why certain fundamental constants are valued the way they are. Why is gravity so much "weaker" than the other forces? (Never mind that gravity is perhaps not really a force but a spacetime distortion thing.) Oh, but why ask? Personally, I don't think it's a worthwhile avenue of investigation, because questions about fundamental constants do not go deep enough.
Science doesn't really answer "whys," but rather "hows." There's physics, and then there's metaphysics.
What I cannot any longer understand is how anyone who gives serious thought to the matter can come to believe that taking mindless quantum particles and putting them together in certain combinations can create consciousness. Self-awareness! Think about it honestly. How could that be? One can ask of emergence only so much magic.
@Ponderable saidThis takes us back to the needle-in-the-haystack; it’s difficult to talk about building with a needle if you don’t know what “it” is, let alone the needle. Quite difficult to say “it” got here this way, not that one, if you cannot even define what “it” is.
Well the "binary" dissolves into a multiplicity if we consider "creator" as in the diverse religious views on it. So looking not only into the bible but also in other creation myth and by looking at a yet unkonw mulitiplicity of "random" occurences.
So we have yet to come up with a very good definition of "living system". That this is not trivial is shown by viri. Does ...[text shortened]... ome, a lot will depend on the way the "being" is transferring information into the next generation).
Yet people feel qualified to dispel the origin of something, which we cannot define.
@Soothfast saidBig brains may turn out to be an evolutionary 'experiment' which fails. Just look at what we have wrought with our consciousness: religions (belief in magic, false causality, gigantic Tooth Fairies), atomic waste which will pollute the planet for tens of thousands of years, tens of millions of people who still believe Trump won the 2020 election ... Pfui.
An unfounded assertion that could only make sense to a metaphysical materialist.
All we know is what our senses tell us. Physics, in essence, is the study of perceptual forms. As such, it is not entirely inaccurate to say that physics is a branch of psychology, or even sociology!
Of course, physicists are asking all the time why certain fundamental constants are value ...[text shortened]... -awareness! Think about it honestly. How could that be? One can ask of emergence only so much magic.
Cockroaches are not conscious--they were here before we came, they'll be here when we're gone.
@moonbus saidHuman consciousness did alright by Mother Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Hunter-gatherers were in balance with their environment, revered nature, and seldom inflicted lasting harm. Things went off the rails around 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture and the notion of land ownership. The two are not in perfect tandem, however. Native Americans, for example, had agriculture but largely remained in harmony with the land. Who's to say what sort of "advanced" civilization Native Americans might have developed, had not the Europeans invaded and destroyed their culture and environment? Maybe they would have done better.
Big brains may turn out to be an evolutionary 'experiment' which fails. Just look at what we have wrought with our consciousness: religions (belief in magic, false causality, gigantic Tooth Fairies), atomic waste which will pollute the planet for tens of thousands of years, tens of millions of people who still believe Trump won the 2020 election ... Pfui.
Cockroaches are not conscious--they were here before we came, they'll be here when we're gone.
So it's entirely open whether the human variety of consciousness is a failed "experiment" or not. What, at any rate, should be suppose constitutes success? All things come to an end, sooner or later—including humans and their fragile nation-states.
I believe cockroaches are conscious. In fact, as far as I'm concerned in the material realm to be alive is synonymous with being conscious, though not necessarily capable of metacognition or self-reflection.
2 edits
@moonbus saidThe answer to the question "What is north of the North Pole?" is simple: nothing. And we know that precisely because the North Pole is by definition the northernmost point on the planet.
If anyone should ask "where did natural processes come from?" I reject the question. They did not 'come from' anywhere; they are simply given, that is part of what it means for there to be a universe and not a schizoverse.
"Where did natural processes come from?" is a nonsense question, like "what is north of the North Pole." There is no 'north of the north pole.' There is no 'where' whence natural processes came form.
The question "Where did natural processes come from?" is a reasonable one, if by "natural processes" is meant processes unfolding in the nature, and by "nature" is meant (more expansively than the vernacular understanding) the entire physical realm—that is, the realm of matter and energy called the universe. The question is unreasonable if one denies any possibility of anything existing outside the universe, which is to say everything is matter and energy, and nothing else. Since we do not know that for certain, it is an article of faith based on the fact that our senses detect only that which consists of matter and energy. Plato's Allegory of the Cave shows up the shortcomings of taking perceptual forms too literally.
Frankly, I see too many physicists who interpret forms of perception with the same fundamentalist, literal mindset that Christian Fundamentalists employ in their interpretations of Scripture. The Bible's myths, like all religious myths, point to transcendent truths that cannot be expressed in any language system. I believe the universe, which encompasses every human's field of perception, is also something far deeper than it appears to our senses.
If we adopt a metaphysical idealist hermeneutic in our reading of perceptual forms, then the universe becomes a stage whose actors—from quantum particles to galaxies—represent truths about a deeper reality. Now we may ask "Where did natural processes come from?" The answer is they arise from some deeper reality comprised neither of matter nor energy, but of mind itself. A universal consciousness, if you will. Basic and instinctual in its most undifferentiated state, such a field of consciousness is nevertheless dynamic. It has volition, and its thought-forms and feelings are the primer movers of all that we call physical, with matter and energy being representations of particular mental activities of the universal consciousness.
Though basic and instinctual, such a universal, unitary field of consciousness will behave in patterned ways in accordance with its thoughts and feelings, and at least some of these behaviors we can glimpse with our senses and call a "universe." This is how it is that natural processes—that is, processes governed by the laws of nature—appear to us as being so ordered, and so amenable to being expressed with simple equations. Chains of cognitive associations are the stuff of conscious experience, and such associations (as well as dissociations) are not wholly random precisely because a sense of volition is baked into consciousness as the ultimate ontological primitive. The bottommost turtle. All there is.
The only thing we each know for certain is that we are conscious. That's the hardest, most absolute, most empirical, and most scientific fact there is. Consciousness is the only certainty! Everything else is a dance of shadows on a cave wall. Matter is a model for explaining perceptual forms, and therefore is an abstraction at one remove from the absolute certainty of mind. The reification of matter has no explanatory power, but comes at a high epistemic cost. We all know mind can conjure hallucinations of material things, but there is no recorded instance of a material thing definitively conjuring mind. Is making a baby such an instance? The problem is that the steps in the baby-making process are a narrative consisting of perceptual forms that are only experienced in consciousness, like matter itself.
Metaphysical materialists have much explaining to do, yet across 400 years of strutting through the halls of academia they've done nothing but tie themselves in knots with abstractions ever further removed from the only truths we know of for sure.
1 edit
@moonbus saidThe question if viri live or not is not an argument for either side.
We are served a false-binary by creationists: either God-did-it, or random chance. There are multiple other options, including: the repeated operation of natural processes, which operate with law-like regularity. This is neither God-did-it nor random chance.
If anyone should ask "where did natural processes come from?" I reject the question. They did not 'come from' anywhe ...[text shortened]... from not-life, through many in-between stages of not-quite-life, to life, over long periods of time.
The point here is that they can't reproduce without a living cell. So viri are quite simple in their setup, but can't be the first living things.
That viri would be candidated for simplest "life-form is a speculation i have heard numerous times even by scientist who should know better.
@Ponderable saidI agree completely--viri are already much too complex to have been THE origin of life. My point is merely that viri are ONE example of a state of matter between life and not-life. Photosynthesis is another; this is usually associated with plant life, but it exists also as a simple non-living chemical process, which plants happen to have incorporated as an energy-transformation mechanism.
The question if viri live or not is not an argument for either side.
The point here is that they can't reproduce without a living cell. So viri are quite simple in their setup, but can't be the first living things.
That viri would be candidated fpor simplest "life-form) is a speculation i have heard numerous times even by scientist who should nknow better
Many others could be cited.