|
My theory of life
|
View this Thread in Original format
| OurManFlint |
I was doing some thinking the other day, and this thought came to me. Also, that philosophy thread got me thinking about this too, so I decided to make my own thread. I thought about this without any reading in either evolution theory or intelligent design, so all of this is coming from no experience with either of these two. If I pretty much sum up one theory, then so be it. Ok here goes....
Science goes a long way in defining the attributes of life's characteristics, from the way we are built, to the laws which dictate our actions, ie physics. When looking at evolution theory, one must assume that in order for beings of today to become, there must have been a building block to which all the elements of science came together.
For example, take something like the ear. Biology spawned the ear, but for biology to spawn the ear, there must have been knowledge of physics either innate or apprehended to allow biology to spawn such a creation. This would require an exact knowledge of sound physics. The ear wasn't just created by nature as simply a tool of evolution, the knowledge needed for this engineering had to be exact.
Which brings me to my next point. How is this knowledge attained? In order for biology to engineer such complex things such as the ear and the eye, there would have needed to be a binding of both physics and biology, because one cannot be a building block without the other. So biology had to have a knowledge base, either a priori or a posteriori.
If biology had a base to collect the knowledge that would allow it to engineer the things it has, what would this knowledge base be? And how would this knowledge base dictate this knowledge to all of the little elements that make up biology (there's a bunch). Is there a base of knowledge per say, and does this base have the ability to learn? Let's take the ear again. Let's say nature learned of the physical laws and has decided to engineer a tool for hearing. Does it learn throughout time and construct a better and better instrument for such an ability? This knowledge base, as well as a learning base, would have to exist out of time and space. It could not exist in this world, for it is an entity that controls the cosmos. It gives it its knowledge and its apprehension to spawn such great achievements only capable through the combination of physics and biology.
If the knowledge of physics and biology was a priori, meaning it is innate, that would mean that there was a plan, and end result, given by a prime mover. Imagine that the building blocks of biology all had the innate knowledge to construct the things it has. The process of which would be evolution, for evolution simply wasn't an aimless voyage of biology, but rather a process to attain its goal given by an a priori knowledge of exact physics. Taking the ear again, the process of evolution to engineer the ear was innate in all of the building blocks in biology, who already had the exact knowledge of sound physics. This knowledge of physics was given to the building blocks in biology, but by who or what.
There had to be a prime mover, something behind the innate knowledge which spawned the building blocks, and allowed the building blocks to spawn the things today throughout the process of evolution. This would make out evolution to be simply a process of aim from a prime mover.
There's no possible way that biology could have engineered the things it has without an exact knowledge of physics. It either had to learn the laws, which would give way to an external force outside of time and space, or biology already had this knowledge, and the process of evolution up to this point was already planned. |
|
|
| kr00t0n |
Sounds like standard ID spoutings.
I don't know, no-one knows, and I doubt anyone will ever know for sure, so I'm happy to live my life not caring how everything came into being, but I lean towards it all being one great big fluke to begin with. |
|
|
| kadomony |
what? it all comes down to darwinism.
small mutations in dna caused changes in the physiological stucture of creatures. the ones that had a mutation that better enabled them to exist in their environment survived.
take your example of the ear.
there must have been a point where there was a creature with no ear. a mutation happened in a creature's DNA. it formed small hairs that coincidentaly enabled it to detect vibrations. it survived because it had a small advantage over predators. mutations in this new creature caused innumerable other changes, of which a mutation that enhanced the detection of sound waves cause that line of evolution to survive. and so on. |
|
|
| OurManFlint |
| quote: | Originally posted by kadomony
there must have been a point where there was a creature with no ear. a mutation happened in a creature's DNA. it formed small hairs that coincidentaly enabled it to detect vibrations. it survived because it had a small advantage over predators. |
It "coincidentaly" created hairs that detected vibrations. So, according to darwinism, Random mutations in DNA spawned certain elements, and becuase of the advantage these elements gave to the thing that aquired these elements, they survived and new elements spawned in the surviving creature. Is that the proper assesment? Again, I have done no reading on this subject, so these theories are new to me as is the scientific elements behind them, ie DNA(nevermind 7th grade biology). I'll read up on this ish... |
|
|
| astroboy |
The above post entails a complete lack of understanding of evolution. The beauty of the theory of evolution is that it allows for complex biological mechanisms such as the eye or the ear to evolve from nothing without there being any knowledge, intelligence or consciousness behind it via natural selection.
Evolution as Darwin postulated it works because in any given species over a long tim random mutationswill occur. We see these with humans al the time. "Freaks of nature" babies born with two heads, or one eye etc... most of these genetic mutations are to the offspring's detriment (in te wild most will die at birth). But a very small minority will, by sheer chance and without necessarily involving any "knowledge", actually make the animal better adapted to life. Such an animal will survive longer and pass on it's genes producing more offspring with the same mutation. In the competitive environment of wild nature these mutants will be better at survival than those without the mutation. Multiply this process over millions of years and mutations are "compounded" making it possible for complex biological mechanism and organs to evolve, and even entirely new species to emerge.
Having said that, if you thought of all that by yourself with zero knowledge of evolution and natural selection you're a pretty smart kid. If you actually read up about science and educate yourself you could go a long way. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Your premise that ordered complexity requires large amounts of knowledge to "create" is, to be blunt, false. In mathematics, simulations of cellular automata sometimes yield highly complex results even when the cellular automaton is, itself, very simple.
For example, among the 256 simplest possible cellular automata, each of which can be represented by a single byte, there exists a definition for a pseudorandom number generator which meets all the criteria for randomness typically used in computer science. Most algorithms created for this purpose have required rigorous design and re-design by highly trained engineers. This cellular automaton, most commonly referred to as the rule 30 cellular automaton, is nothing more than a pattern defined by the sequence of binary digits 00011110. Creating a pseudorandom number generator which meets such high standards for randomness would appear to be a very complex task. However, we can see that it doesn't require any prior knowledge at all, and that it can arise essentially spontaneously without anything improbable having happened.
Still don't think that a human ear could arise from a very simple pattern that could easily be arrived at accidentally? Think again, we're already beginning to understand some biological processes in terms of cellular automata. As our ability to collect sufficiently exhaustive data regarding various biological phenomena increases, we will only find more examples of apparent complexity arising from what is, in reality, astounding simplicity. It has already begun:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/918
In light of these provable mathematical propositions, it seems to me that the Intelligent Design argument offers nothing to those seeking to justify their misguided beliefs. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| short version plz |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| look at the way in which diseases & viruses mutate and grow and become stronger and more effective. youre watching evolution before your eyes. |
|
|
| washout |
| we need a thing that summarizes any posts longer than 2 sentences. |
|
|
| trewqy |
there is really nothing left for me to add.
Whats been said here about darwinism is true. The survival of the fittest in nature holds true here as the one with the significant advantage in mutation will survive and thrive. |
|
|
| BroNxFiNesT |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
look at the way in which diseases & viruses mutate and grow and become stronger and more effective. youre watching evolution before your eyes. |
Great ing point. That sums it up better than those long ass paragraphs posted by the thread creator. |
|
|
|
|
