Questions Will Get You In Trouble

[Legion]

Just think crystals. They are ordered because of possibly electromagnetic fields, or something else, I'm not sure, but they are self-organizing. But I doubt there is some God somewhere spending his time organizing the molecular structure of each and every crystal to make it look that way, it must be some natural law that causes it to be just that way.

I agree with this Hans. In my estimation we don’t need gods to explain the order we see in our world. I believe entailment will do just fine.

[chefranden]

There is a new movement emerging in the sciences. It is so new that its name has not even been decided. Some call it relational biology. Others say it extends beyond biology and is applicable to many systems in addition to organisms and call it relational science and they contrast it with reductionism. I do not yet understand it. So let me quote a pioneer in this field...

 

Thanks Legion,

 

I haven't heard of this before, but it matches what I've been thinking lately. "Things aren't so much the sum of their parts as the organization of their parts."

 

What else is there to read?

 

so give an example Chef, I am cynical...

 

A car needs to be assembled in a certain way or it won't car even if all the parts are there. Certainly parts are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

[Guest end3]

There is a new movement emerging in the sciences. It is so new that its name has not even been decided. Some call it relational biology. Others say it extends beyond biology and is applicable to many systems in addition to organisms and call it relational science and they contrast it with reductionism. I do not yet understand it. So let me quote a pioneer in this field...

 

Thanks Legion,

 

I haven't heard of this before, but it matches what I've been thinking lately. "Things aren't so much the sum of their parts as the organization of their parts."

 

What else is there to read?

 

so give an example Chef, I am cynical...

 

A car needs to be assembled in a certain way or it won't car even if all the parts are there. Certainly parts are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

 

I should have said my attitude was cynical....I see your point, but you would have to say, "parts and arragement = X" cause you couldn't have X with parts or arragement.

 

But, as Florduh says, it seems self evident...

[Guest end3]

Just think crystals. They are ordered because of possibly electromagnetic fields, or something else, I'm not sure, but they are self-organizing. But I doubt there is some God somewhere spending his time organizing the molecular structure of each and every crystal to make it look that way, it must be some natural law that causes it to be just that way.

I agree with this Hans. In my estimation we don’t need gods to explain the order we see in our world. I believe entailment will do just fine.

 

 

If you had the answer given to you, would you accept it? "I told you God, It's entailment"!

 

Jesus H..

[Ouroboros]

If you had the answer given to you, would you accept it? "I told you God, It's entailment"!

Or you standing in front of Allah. "I thought it was on Sundays I shouldn't work!"

[Guest end3]

If you had the answer given to you, would you accept it? "I told you God, It's entailment"!

Or you standing in front of Allah. "I thought it was on Sundays I shouldn't work!"

 

So your search is in vain is what you are telling me

[Ouroboros]

So your search is in vain is what you are telling me

Maybe the search itself is the purpose and the goal, and not the end result? Why else would "Free Will" be a more important concept for us to have than good and happy lives?

[Legion]

End what you’ve almost screamed out here is…

 

“I told you God. It’s necessity!”

 

I kind of like the sound of it.

[Guest end3]

End what you’ve almost screamed out here is…

 

“I told you God. It’s necessity!”

 

I kind of like the sound of it.

 

you are going to have to explain.....a necessity for me?

[Legion]

I am somewhat surprised by you End. I think you are acting oddly. Are you okay?

[Guest end3]

I am somewhat surprised by you End. I think you are acting oddly. Are you okay?

 

 

I asked a simple question for you to explain your response. Yes, I am ok. Thanks

[Legion]

Glad you’re okay End. I’m tired. I’ve been digging ditches all day. And I can’t read minds (wish I could). Could you please tell me what you'd like for me to explain? I might be able to give it a shot if you could take the time to spell out your question.

[PandaPirate]

If most of what we are dealing with is interactions/reactions between "stuff", then why can we not argue that a rock lives?

 

A little thing called DNA.

[sheri butterfly]

e.g. evolutionary biology: you have to understand that allele frequencies change from generation to generation. That this causes 'descent with modification'.

Hey there Sheri Butterfly, welcome to ex-C. In thinking about what you said here I was reminded of something else Robert Rosen said and it will also tie in with what I was telling Florduh before. Here I quote again…

 

“I devised a class of relational cell models called (M,R)-systems (M for metabolism, R for repair). The idea behind these systems was to characterize the minimal organization a material system would have to manifest or realize to justify calling it a cell. It seemed natural to do this; the cell is important in biology, elevated into a basic reductionistic unit by the cell theory. Yet so many different kinds of things, from bacteria to neurons, are called cells that, if this terminology is to be meaningful at all, it cannot have an exclusively material basis.

 

It seemed to me (and it still does) that one would not call a material structure a cell unless its activities could be partitioned into two classes, reflecting the morphological partition between nucleus (genome) and cytoplasm (phenome), and the corresponding functional partition between what goes on in the cytoplasm (the M of the system) and what goes on in the nucleus (the R).” Essays on Life Itself, pg 261

 

I mention this here because I think many biologists make a mistake when they try to characterize evolution as a change in allele frequency alone. I think genotypes are undoubtedly an indispensible aspect of organisms, but so too are phenotypes. And some have said that natural selection primarily acts on phenotypes.

 

evolutionary theory is a pretty darn good scientific theory. Which not only 'explains' the diversity of life on earth. Of course we have added too it, as we understand more about life on earth, but we have found nothing which suggests evolution theory doesn't answer the questions about life on earth.

I agree that our theories of evolution have shown some predictive value. For instance, when we look at various geological layers our theory predicts that that as we progress backward in time the diversity of organisms should decrease. And this is exactly what we find.

 

However, I would say that most of our current evolutionary models give us little to no explanation of how or why organisms emerged to begin with. And I don’t believe they address why we anticipate radically different behavior from an organism than we do from a rock.

 

 

 

Indeed, we think of Natural Selection primarily acting upon phenotypes. However, selection can act on many levels, such as the gene or a cell or social group etc.

[Guest end3]

If most of what we are dealing with is interactions/reactions between "stuff", then why can we not argue that a rock lives?

 

A little thing called DNA.

 

I don't know PP, perhaps in the traditional sense, but IMO, bio-systems, I would presume, would be in a class or group by themselves. Equally, I would still think you could argue in a non-traditional sense, that objects have a life span, but are not as dependent on condition and interaction/reaction.

 

But that and 25 cents won't get you far....honestly, I have never thought to much about what defines life. I just don't like the semantics of it all.

[PandaPirate]

Scientists have thought about what defines life for a very long time. It's the ability to reproduce. Trust me.

[woodsmoke]

But that would classify viruses as alive, which certainly isn't the case.

 

ISTR there is a working scientific definition of "life," though I don't remember the exact details, but there's more to it than reproduction.

[Guest SteamTull]

I haven't read the whole thread, but responding to the first post:

 

Question evolution all you want, it's healthy and will hopefully improve the theory. Just don't get upset when I call you out when you raise a point that is not supported by evidence. You may feel pressured by the scientific community to accept evolution without question (I don't feel this pressure, but then again I don't really interact with the scientific community) but the fact is that science is built upon questioning things. There may be some deep primal human urge to demean someone who doesn't fully accept a widely-accepted idea, but we've come this far, a little criticism (as undeserving as it feels) shouldn't effect anyone with thick enough skin to have delved far enough into scientific questioning.

[Iden]

When I was a child I got in trouble for asking questions about religion. For questioning the legitimacy of religion. So now that I'm studying biology and evolution I get the same sort of vehement responses from atheists as I did from my family. It's unspoken law "you shall not question darwinism".

 

I think its because the question is quit infected. I think part of the problem is that a very large share of the questioning of evolution is done by biblical creationist, many of whom is mostly interested in promoting their own religiouse belief on account of science. That doesn't make it easy for people questioning evolution out of other reasons. But anyway, everything should be open for questioning.

[PandaPirate]

After reading more and more about evolution (currently reading Michael Shermer's book called WHY DARWIN MATTERS) I have come to see the theory more clearly.

 

It's obvious that yes, evolution happened.

 

I tend to take a "deistic evolutionary" view though. Which would be as follows:

 

Deistic Evolution

 

 

Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the

best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic

evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,

producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws

which its devel- opment has followed. Thus, he programmed the

process. Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world,

becoming, so to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created

order is free of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of

everything, but only the first living form was directly created. All

the rest of God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the

Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate

cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,

deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies

that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing

creative process.

[Skeptic]

I don't remember Dawkins ever saying that there is an illusion of order in evolution. He said there was an illusion of design in The Blind Watchmaker, but I'm reading The God Delusion now and, from what I've read, he does seem to think that there is some type of order in evolution. Did he really say this?

[Tabula Rasa]

But that would classify viruses as alive, which certainly isn't the case.

 

ISTR there is a working scientific definition of "life," though I don't remember the exact details, but there's more to it than reproduction.

 

 

Here's something I've pondered in regard to what defines life. Now so far as I know, a living thing eats and excretes and reproduces.

 

Now this is going to sound waaaaaaaaaaaay out there, but minus the reproductive part, I know of something that might fit the bill.

 

Stars. They're sort of like food that digests itself. They are fueled by hydrogen and the digestive process is nuclear fusion which produces heat , light and radiation. In an odd sense, they excrete, because the nuclear fusion present in stars creates heavier elements and compounds such as iron, etc which the star ejects in eruptions. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

 

Sounds weird I know, but I thought I'd throw that out there for consideration.

[PitterPatter]

Deistic evolution...I find it absurd. Evolution needs no "hands" to guide it...life emerged here because it was suitable for life to emerge here...not the other way around. Evolution is a fact...it's just not accepted by everyone. The Earth being spherical and the Earth rotating the sun went through this process too. Religion will always try to find some way to work it into their lie when the pile of evidence gets too high.

[Neon Genesis]

I typically don't mind people who can reconcile their faith with science. The one question I still have though is since evolution shows that it's possible for simplicity to evolve into complexity without divine intervention, doesn't this disprove the whole teleological argument by showing that complex things don't always have to be designed?

[Legion]

Look at all the order in the world around us! Everything is necessitated. Of course there’s a God. And I want to believe that the universe is benevolent. So there!