Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf the cells and molecules are just responding to automatic impulses, where do these automatic impulses come from and why do these automatic impulses exist in a way that causes the cells and molecules to always choose survival over non survival.
“....Once again....how does a bunch of cells KNOW what a favourable environment looks like. ...” (my emphasis)
I have already pointed out cells don't “ KNOW” anything!
If a cell just happens to be in a favourable environment, it usually survives, else, it usually doesn't.
In fact, that could be used as a definition of a “favourable envir ...[text shortened]... n. ...”
no, and who said it does? Not me! Science has scientific method as its foundation.
I would say that automatic impulses are a definite sign of intelligence being at its core.
These impulses could have easily been seen to have the cells lending themselves to non survival over survival, because how would these impulses know what "survival" looks like, or what "non suvival" looks like.
Remember...... there was nothing, and out of this nothing automatic impulses popped on to the scene.
What caused automatic impulse to pop on to the scene.
When science continually denies intelligence at the foundation of life, it becomes increasingly difficult to put forward acceptable theories of existence.
Originally posted by DasaJumping in here...
If the cells and molecules are just responding to automatic impulses, where do these automatic impulses come from and why do these automatic impulses exist in a way that causes the cells and molecules to always choose survival over non survival.
I would say that automatic impulses are a definite sign of intelligence being at its core.
These impulses cou ...[text shortened]... of life, it becomes increasingly difficult to put forward acceptable theories of existence.
The automatic impulses don't always cause the cells and molecules to 'choose' survival. But given one organism with a set of impulses that help it to to survive and reproduce, and another with some that hinder its chances of survival, which set of impulses is more likely to get passed on?
These impulses could have easily been seen to have the cells lending themselves to non survival over survival, because how would these impulses know what "survival" looks like, or what "non suvival" looks like.
If you follow my paragraph above, you'll see that they don't need to 'know'. The antelope that has no impulse to run from the lion is unlikely to live long enough to pass on that tendency.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinYes well put....but lets look at the over view.
Jumping in here...
The automatic impulses don't always cause the cells and molecules to 'choose' survival. But given one organism with a set of impulses that help it to to survive and reproduce, and another with some that hinder its chances of survival, which set of impulses is more likely to get passed on?
[b]These impulses could have easily been seen ...[text shortened]... om the lion is unlikely to live long enough to pass on that tendency.
--- Penguin
There was infinite space ands there was nothing, or was there something, anyway this something decided to explode and now we have conscious life and the laws of physics and all the forces therein.
So was there within this something, or contained in this something, all the forces of physics and consciousness that just needed to be released.....or did all the forces of physics and consciousness come about later by self volition
Originally posted by DasaAh, well this now has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution by natural selection, which is what I was talking about.
Yes well put....but lets look at the over view.
There was infinite space ands there was nothing, or was there something, anyway this something decided to explode and now we have conscious life and the laws of physics and all the forces therein.
So was there within this something, or contained in this something, all the forces of physics and consciousness ...[text shortened]... eleased.....or did all the forces of physics and consciousness come about later by self volition
Evolution by Natural Selection requires a number of things:
1. Self replicating structures
2. Random variation in the replication
3. A limited supply of the resources required for the replication
Once you have those three pre-requisites, evolution is a logical certainty. How they came about though is a whole different subject and they had to come about before evolution by natural selection could even start. The field is called Abiogenesis and 'all' it has to produce is a self replicating molecule. That might require divine intervention or it might be explainable through natural, mindless processes. The scientific consensus at the moment is that given enough time and the right environment, abiogenesis is quite likely to occur naturally.
Your question is now about how the universe as a whole came about. Again, this might require divine intervention or it might be explainable through natural, mindless processes.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinExcuse me, but I just fell of my chair...why?
Ah, well this now has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution by natural selection, which is what I was talking about.
Evolution by Natural Selection requires a number of things:
1. Self replicating structures
2. Random variation in the replication
3. A limited supply of the resources required for the replication
Once you have those three pre-requis ...[text shortened]... ne intervention or it might be explainable through natural, mindless processes.
--- Penguin
Because you are the first scientific brainy person in this forum that has given a clear and common sense answer....wow!
What I did appreciate was the fact that you gave clearly two options of the way it could come about, and that's what I mean about being fair and unbiased in the approach of this subject...well done.
Originally posted by Dasa“....If the cells and molecules are just RESPONDING to automatic impulses,...” (my emphasis)
If the cells and molecules are just responding to automatic impulses, where do these automatic impulses come from and why do these automatic impulses exist in a way that causes the cells and molecules to always choose survival over non survival.
I would say that automatic impulses are a definite sign of intelligence being at its core.
These impulses cou ...[text shortened]... of life, it becomes increasingly difficult to put forward acceptable theories of existence.
? You are totally confusing me here.
Firstly, I think it is safer for you you use the words “ automatic responses” and not “ automatic impulses” because “impulse” in English can mean “A sudden wish or urge that prompts an unpremeditated act or feeling” although the word has other meanings that don't quite imply that.
But IF that IS what you mean by “impulse” in the above (is it?) , then I would say cells don't have “ automatic impulses” because they don't have “impulses” (with THAT meaning of the word) .
But, secondly, ASSUMING you don't mean that and you just mean “responses” by the word “impulses” (do you?) , I honestly still don't understand what you could mean by “just RESPONDING to automatic impulses” -what is it with this “ RESPONDING” ?
Surely that should be “HAVING automatic responses”? -I mean, FIRST there is a stimulus from the environment and THEN and only THEN does the cell “RESPOND” to it and not the other way around. So cells don't “respond TO automatic responses” but “respond to stimuli WITH automatic responses”.
Please clarify what you mean.
“...where do these automatic impulses come from ...”
they obviously come from the molecular machinery of the cell that can detect and respond to those stimuli -not sure what you are trying to get at here.
“...and why do these automatic impulses exist in a way that causes the cells and molecules to always CHOOSE survival over non survival. ...” (my emphasis)
they don't; at least not if you mean “consciously choose” by “CHOOSE “ . I am not sure if you are giving the standard meaning to the word “ CHOOSE” in the above that implies “consciously choose” or a non-standard meaning that implies no consciousness nor intelligence -which meaning are you giving it?
“...I would say that automatic impulses are a definite sign of intelligence being at its core. ...”
how can something being “ automatic” necessarily imply “ intelligence”? One does not logically imply the other.
“...These impulses could have easily been seen to have the cells lending themselves to non survival over survival, because how would these impulses know what "survival" looks like, or what "non suvival" looks like. ...”
as I already said, cells don't “know” anything.
“...Remember...... there was nothing, and out of this nothing automatic impulses popped on to the scene.
What caused automatic impulse to pop on to the scene. ...”
I don't know exactly what you mean by “ popped on to the scene” (it “popped”?) . The capacity for automatic responses evolved.
“....When science continually denies intelligence at the foundation of life, it becomes increasingly difficult to put forward acceptable theories of existence. ...”
What is so “unacceptable” about a theory that assumes nothing supernatural?
Originally posted by DasaSo you now don't reject evolution and abiogenesis as valid hypotheses?
Excuse me, but I just fell of my chair...why?
Because you are the first scientific brainy person in this forum that has given a clear and common sense answer....wow!
What I did appreciate was the fact that you gave clearly two options of the way it could come about, and that's what I mean about being fair and unbiased in the approach of this subject...well done.
If so, then why do you often call anyone that accepts evolution and abiogenesis as valid hypotheses as being “dishonest”?
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaI am really not all that scientific or brainy but thanks for the compliment.
Excuse me, but I just fell of my chair...why?
Because you are the first scientific brainy person in this forum that has given a clear and common sense answer....wow!
What I did appreciate was the fact that you gave clearly two options of the way it could come about, and that's what I mean about being fair and unbiased in the approach of this subject...well done.
I may have given two possibilities but I did not specify how probable each was. God is a infinitesimal possibility, so improbable as to not be worth bothering with.
I am 'allowing' a supernatural input as a possibility in abiogenesis and the start of the universe since the mechanisms behind these are not well (to my limited knowledge) understood. We have some pretty good ideas of how abiogenesis may have occurred naturally but without a second example of it (I.e. finding life in another solar system or a completely different form of life in our own or our own success in replicating it, we really have no concrete evidence to support any particular theory.
A similar situation is the case with the start of the universe: we have hypotheses but I don't think any of them have enough supporting evidence to be promoted to a full blown scientific theory (you know what the word 'theory' means in science don't you)?
If you really want to believe in a God, these are pretty much the only two areas you could shoe-horn him in and plenty of otherwise sensible people do just that. Trouble is that in scientific terms, invoking God answers no questions at all and encourages you to stop even asking them. In religious terms it gives you a God that set things in motion and then stepped back and did nothing but watch from then on. Its a very unsatisfying 'god of the gaps'. The personal God that many people like to believe in can't realistically be reconciled.
There are many other reasons not to believe in a God but you don't have to consider the theory of evolution as totally removing the possibility.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI am not supporting evolution and abiogenesis, and my comments where arranged in such a way as to resemble a student enquiring with their inquisitive nature.
So you now don't reject evolution and abiogenesis as valid hypotheses?
If so, then why do you often call anyone that accepts evolution and abiogenesis as valid hypotheses as being “dishonest”?
Vedanta presents that life comes from life, and not from dead matter.
Doing a experiment and creating conditions in the lab for life to appear , relies on the already existing life in the experiment.
You get a container and add water and dirt and keep the temperature stable, and life appears........but their are living organisms already in the water and dirt to start with.
Its almost impossible to not contaminate the experiment with the presence of life.
Weavals seem to appear in grain from nowhere, but there was minute eggs in the grain not seen ......for this to happen.
3 edits
Originally posted by Dasa“...I am not supporting evolution and abiogenesis, ...”
I am not supporting evolution and abiogenesis, and my comments where arranged in such a way as to resemble a student enquiring with their inquisitive nature.
Vedanta presents that life comes from life, and not from dead matter.
Doing a experiment and creating conditions in the lab for life to appear , relies on the already existing life in the experiment. ...[text shortened]... in grain from nowhere, but there was minute eggs in the grain not seen ......for this to happen.
I didn't say you are “supporting” evolution and abiogenesis, I said you implied in that post that you don't reject evolution and abiogenesis as valid hypotheses.
If that WAS what you implied (which it appears to be) then I repeat my question; why do you often call anyone that accepts evolution and abiogenesis as valid hypotheses as being “dishonest”?
“...Doing a experiment and creating conditions in the lab for life to appear , relies on the already existing life in the experiment. ..”
no it doesn't. The conductions of early-Earth can be simulated in a lab-flask just fine without putting anything living in it.
“...You get a container and add water and dirt and keep the temperature stable, and life appears........but their are living organisms already in the water and dirt to start with....”
no experiment to date has made abiogenesis happen in a container (although that may change in the future) and modern science doesn't claim it has made it happen (so far) although it is getting closer.
“..Its almost impossible to not contaminate the experiment with the presence of life. ...”
actually it is routinely done these days -preventing contamination is not a significant problem these days as there are very good cleaning and sterilisation techniques in the lab.
“....Weavals seem to appear in grain from nowhere, but there was minute eggs in the grain not seen ......for this to happen. ….”
you have obviously lost touch with the modern world for you obviously massively underestimate modern science -do you really think a well-educated modern scientist would be fooled into concluding that weevils came spontaneously directly from the grain?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI dont believe modern science thinks weavals are spontaneously created in grain, but before modern science it appeared so.
“...I am not supporting evolution and abiogenesis, ...”
I didn't say you are “supporting” evolution and abiogenesis, I said you implied in that post that you don't reject evolution and abiogenesis as valid hypotheses.
If that WAS what you implied (which it appears to be) then I repeat my question; why do you often call anyone that accepts evoluti ...[text shortened]... ist would be fooled into concluding that weevils came spontaneously directly from the grain?
I dont use the D word any more for it upsets too many persons.
But science can never create life, because life is awareness , consciousness, free will, intelligent, creative and eternal, and science could never create these things.....so when they say they can or will it is fanciful.
I still say that it is very difficult to make an experiment and not contaminate it with life, for microscopic life is everywhere even in the air..........but even if a scientist could do it, when the conditions for life are provided, the soul from afar can still come and enter that situation.
The bottom line is......that life is spiritual and not material, and the spiritual cannot be created.
Science cannot create conscious awareness.
Originally posted by DasaThe bottom line is that you define the word 'life' differently from others and then accuse scientists of making claims about your definition of 'life' when in reality they do not such thing.
The bottom line is......that life is spiritual and not material, and the spiritual cannot be created.
No scientist has ever tried to create a spiritual eternal being, nor will ever try to.
As for the way scientists typically define life, you essentially admit that they may one day create it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen a body is exhibiting signs of life, what are those signs?
The bottom line is that you define the word 'life' differently from others and then accuse scientists of making claims about your definition of 'life' when in reality they do not such thing.
No scientist has ever tried to create a spiritual eternal being, nor will ever try to.
As for the way scientists typically define life, you essentially admit that they may one day create it.
For all life.....birth, growth, reproduction, dwindling and death.......and also for a greater percentage of life.... consciousness, self will, pleasure seeking and the avoidance of pain, seeking shelter, seeking sex, seeking food, defending, sleeping.
And for humans these additional functions....self awareness, cognition, love, knowledge seeking, approval seeking. adoration seeking, position seeking, ability to manipulate for gain, creativeness, shame, guilt, loathing, pretence, etc..
All of the above are what is constitutes living ....... for some if not all, and science cannot and will no create these functions.
For science to present that these functions are the product of evolution, and /or are chemical reactions.... is wildly fanciful and unscientific.
Originally posted by Dasa“...I dont believe modern science thinks weavals are spontaneously created in grain, ...”
I dont believe modern science thinks weavals are spontaneously created in grain, but before modern science it appeared so.
I dont use the D word any more for it upsets too many persons.
But science can never create life, because life is awareness , consciousness, free will, intelligent, creative and eternal, and science could never create these things.... ...[text shortened]... not material, and the spiritual cannot be created.
Science cannot create conscious awareness.
good.
“...but before modern science it appeared so. ...”
so?
“...But science can never create life, because life is awareness , consciousness, free will, intelligent, creative and eternal, and science could never create these things.....so when they say they can or will it is fanciful. ...”
isn't it fanciful to think a living cell can have “awareness , consciousness, free will, ” ? where/what is the evidence for such a thing?
“...I still say that it is very difficult to make an experiment and not contaminate it with life, for microscopic ...”
then you haven't been keeping up to date with the modern world:
http://bitesizebio.com/2008/10/28/5-laboratory-sterilisation-methods/
These days it is easy to sterilise air and surfaces and containers that are used in the lab -do you deny this? If so, give me evidence.