The Bible: the word of God?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:24 pm

Trust me you will find the evolutionary mechanism is something we can not explain. It will be a great day for naturalism if they discover how to describe rationalism and evolution in terms on nonrationalism.
Maybe you are right and I can't explain it, I was certainly hoping to find more information on the internet, but most of the stuff i want is in journals where you've got to pay 25$ a day to have access to just one article in them :? . Or maybe I was looking at the wrong pages. Anyway, I'm the sort of person who likes to find out what is possible myself, that's why I've got to try see. Like I don't understand why it would not be possible to explain it. Thermodynamics as interesting as it is cannot be applied to many things. Normal molecules don't seem to fit that either. The entropy of a system is lower when the number of particles increases for example, but when atoms for molecules the number is reduced.
But the entropy also increases when differences in temperature, concentration or pressure are levelled. So if you have high temperatures or pressures the entropy could increase if certain bonds form, that includes the bonds of the molecules of life. Humans build pyramids, and a pyramid is well ordered, has much less entropy than rocks scattered around the landscape for example. That does not mean that the rule of thermodynamics is wrong, just that it is not applicable to pyramids, i.e. not applicable to humans who have a life. After the first molecules of life formed they were life and so maybe that law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to them after that just like it cannot be applied to humans building pyramids. Eh... maybe.
phpbb

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:29 pm

EmptyMan wrote:No doubt certain molecules from certain substances under the right conditions, but what mechanism caused this new randomly replicating thing of chemicals to adapt and think? I think this question goes far beyond the reaches of biological chemistry. We know that the stick bug looks like a sitck, right? It looks like a stick because it adapted to its environment. It's purpose is to blend in. How can we explain this in terms of fair conditions? Or even better how can the stickbugs purpose, which is to be hid, in a nonpurposive substratum? Quite difficult methinks. As for the rest of this post I realize that certian amino acids and membranes could be formed in the physical world under the "right conditions" but what you did not explain was how this newly formed membrane mechanisticly evolves into, say, a butterfly, which is thousands of times more complex than any of the mechanics of the universe. That's what naturalists can not explain.
What caused them to adapt is that while replicating some errors occur and while most of those ones with errors would have no longer been functional a few were functional. After a billion copies on copy had an error in it, one that allowed it to replicate better, by allowing it to use more nutrients, have a stronger membrane and so on.
Thinking comes in way way later, when you already have the complex organisms.
I can talk about this process of the evolution of a bird from gue much better than of the gue itself. Be sure to check back later, I'll certainly make sure to reply more in length on this, but right now I'm hungry.
phpbb

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:31 pm

Or even better how can the stickbugs purpose, which is to be hid, in a nonpurposive substratum?
"Stickbugs" do not have a purpose as you call it. If you believe in evolution you hold that there is no divinely ordained plan, each part of which is assigned a goal. Bugs that were able to blend in generally survived, those that didn't generally didn't.
phpbb

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:35 pm

Emma_85 wrote:
Trust me you will find the evolutionary mechanism is something we can not explain. It will be a great day for naturalism if they discover how to describe rationalism and evolution in terms on nonrationalism.
Maybe you are right and I can't explain it, I was certainly hoping to find more information on the internet, but most of the stuff i want is in journals where you've got to pay 25$ a day to have access to just one article in them :? . Or maybe I was looking at the wrong pages. Anyway, I'm the sort of person who likes to find out what is possible myself, that's why I've got to try see. Like I don't understand why it would not be possible to explain it. Thermodynamics as interesting as it is cannot be applied to many things. Normal molecules don't seem to fit that either. The entropy of a system is lower when the number of particles increases for example, but when atoms for molecules the number is reduced.
But the entropy also increases when differences in temperature, concentration or pressure are levelled. So if you have high temperatures or pressures the entropy could increase if certain bonds form, that includes the bonds of the molecules of life. Humans build pyramids, and a pyramid is well ordered, has much less entropy than rocks scattered around the landscape for example. That does not mean that the rule of thermodynamics is wrong, just that it is not applicable to pyramids, i.e. not applicable to humans who have a life. After the first molecules of life formed they were life and so maybe that law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to them after that just like it cannot be applied to humans building pyramids. Eh... maybe.
That is interesting, you know much more about the Law of thermodynamics than I do. But evolution does not contend that the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to biological material, they beleive it has been temporarily reversed for the advantage of biological matrial. But from what I understand the Law of thermodynamics applies to everything and it basically means the universe is dying, I think.

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Emma_85 wrote:
EmptyMan wrote:No doubt certain molecules from certain substances under the right conditions, but what mechanism caused this new randomly replicating thing of chemicals to adapt and think? I think this question goes far beyond the reaches of biological chemistry. We know that the stick bug looks like a sitck, right? It looks like a stick because it adapted to its environment. It's purpose is to blend in. How can we explain this in terms of fair conditions? Or even better how can the stickbugs purpose, which is to be hid, in a nonpurposive substratum? Quite difficult methinks. As for the rest of this post I realize that certian amino acids and membranes could be formed in the physical world under the "right conditions" but what you did not explain was how this newly formed membrane mechanisticly evolves into, say, a butterfly, which is thousands of times more complex than any of the mechanics of the universe. That's what naturalists can not explain.
What caused them to adapt is that while replicating some errors occur and while most of those ones with errors would have no longer been functional a few were functional. After a billion copies on copy had an error in it, one that allowed it to replicate better, by allowing it to use more nutrients, have a stronger membrane and so on.
Thinking comes in way way later, when you already have the complex organisms.
I can talk about this process of the evolution of a bird from gue much better than of the gue itself. Be sure to check back later, I'll certainly make sure to reply more in length on this, but right now I'm hungry.
So by errors they look like a stick? Probablisticly how many errors does it take for somthing to look like a stick?

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:45 pm

Turpissimus wrote:
Or even better how can the stickbugs purpose, which is to be hid, in a nonpurposive substratum?
"Stickbugs" do not have a purpose as you call it. If you believe in evolution you hold that there is no divinely ordained plan, each part of which is assigned a goal. Bugs that were able to blend in generally survived, those that didn't generally didn't.
But I beleive stickbugs do have a purpose. Just like you had a purpose in making that post. Again how can your purpose for writing that post be explained in a nonpurposive substratum. You say it was assigned a goal. How do goals exist in a materialistic worldview in the first place?

I think what you and Emma are saying is that bugs began to randomly form, and the ones who randomly formed in a way that proviedes means for survival will survive. So I ask another question, "how many bugs randomly formed untill one looked like a sitck? and "What are the probablilites of a random process forming self-replicating enteties that look like sticks and also happen to be surrounded by similar looking sticks?" I don't know statistics or probability very well but my logic is telling me that it's extremely low.

User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by Pete » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:57 pm

What are the probablilites of a random process forming self-replicating enteties that look like sticks and also happen to be surrounded by similar looking sticks
Actually, pretty good when millions of bugs are born every day around the world, and they had billions of years to evolve.

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:02 pm

Pete wrote:
What are the probablilites of a random process forming self-replicating enteties that look like sticks and also happen to be surrounded by similar looking sticks
Actually, pretty good when millions of bugs are born every day around the world, and they had billions of years to evolve.
Maybe so with just bugs. But on earth we have millions perhaps billions of species of animals that are adapted to this world. I find it difficult to imagine that millions or billions of animals just randomly fit their environment perfectly.

User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by Pete » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:07 pm

If animals didn't fit the environment perfectly, then they died out. If they did fit, then they lived. The perfect fit is a logical result, not a random coincidence.

Nobody ever claims that evolution is random. I think you are trying very hard to misinterpret Evolution so that it is easier to deny.

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:54 pm

Once in philosophy we read a text by an american philosopher, I cannot remember his name, but he said something along the lines of 'evolution is crap because look at wings, how could they evolve? What would a bird with half a wing do?'
So by errors they look like a stick? Probablisticly how many errors does it take for somthing to look like a stick?
Many, but each mutation that brought them closer to stick brought them further away from the birds' plate.
These insects started to look stick like. At first they might have been bright green (only in my example not really), but then the climate changed and so they slowly moved south, as the winters further north were too cold. In their new wood though all the birds would easily see the bright green insects and ate them. One day an insect with a mutation was born. He was not quite as green as the rest, a bit dirty green, and the brids didn't eat him and he had many kids. Another had a mutation that made him very bright green - he eaten straight way. The chances that the brownish ones would be eaten by birds were reduced. Some day on of these now dirty green insects had another mutation with made him even more brown and a bit longer too. And hundred generations later these now brown, long insects had more mutations. Some of them started to grow fat and thin, the others long. The ones that were flat started mating only flat ones that looked like leaves and the other ones only ones that looked like sticks.
:wink:
As for birds' feathers, each stage in the evolution of the feather, from no more than a bit of fluff to keep some cold dinos warm to something to keep out the rain, to something that helped them glide from tree to tree, to something that allowed them to fly a bit to at last a proper bird, each step had an advantage (or at the very very least not be harmful. It is imaginable that something with out an advantage was passed on, because a trait genetically linked to it did offer an advantage. E.g. the little stick insect that had a colour mutation actually had a mutation that affected his skin and made it wrinkly. Being wrinkly might not have helped him at first, but the browner colour the skin mutation brought with it, did. And later on as another mutation happened and his skin was even wrinklier so that it now really looked like bark, that was an advantage.)

But evolution does not contend that the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to biological material, they believe it has been temporarily reversed for the advantage of biological martial. But from what I understand the Law of thermodynamics applies to everything and it basically means the universe is dying, I think.
I don't think they say it has reversed, maybe they don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, but only know that 'everything wants to be more chaotic', which is only sort of correct (a children's lie), but really the law is that when a spontaneous physical process or chemical reaction happens then at the same time the entropy of the whole system increases.
That is why I am saying the law is not reverse, it is likely just not applicable. Pyramid building is not a spontaneous chemical reaction, nor is evolution. What is spontaneous about evolution is probably the copying and the errors that occur when copying the DNA, which allow such mutations as browner and longer insects to occur. And that as I said, does not have to mean that the system has had to counteract thermodynamics, as the chemical process which caused an extra oxygen atom to be added to that molecule instead of a sulphur atom followed the laws of thermodynamics. So when a life form starts to replicate, we are not talking about a spontaneous reaction anymore. Those who say that thermodynamics is just that everything wants to by untidy, know as much about thermodynamics as that philosopher who moaned about wings knows about evolution.

I've not done much on thermodynamics I'm afraid :( , we only learned a bit on it during a few chemistry lessons at the beginning of my Abitur to understand why some atoms bind together to form molecules, because with out thermodynamics they wouldn't. And also to understand why some _don't_ form molecules, or only form them if the temperature is high, or pressure there and so on.
Last edited by Emma_85 on Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phpbb

Post Reply