Why does the evolutionary process exist?

[superluminal]

does it make sense to you that things become alive? i'm being serious here.
what is it ANYWHERE that leads you to that conclusion?

Seriously, we've detailed this before, haven't we?

1) I don't believe in god(s).

2) The earth was a dead rock.

3) The earth is now not a dead rock.

4) Rocks are made of elements.

5) Life is made of elements.

6) Elements can be seen to form highly complex, but non-selfreplicating structures.

7) (Now here's the HUGE leap) Conclusion: Some elements formed a different kind of structure. One that by simple complementary substitution, could replicate.

8) Here we are.

There are reams of biomolecular research papers on this that explain in detail the possible mechanisms involved.

You could cut and paste this onto your PC desktop, because my argument here is the same as before.

 

[Pete]

Unless you demonstrate the possibility, what is the difference between believing that something happened with no particular cause and believing that something divine was the cause, whatever you happen to want "divine" to mean?

They're both beliefs are they not?

There's a lot of room for interpretation in demonstrate the possibility.
For example, if someone designs a machine, is it necessary to actually construct said machine in order to demonstrate its possibility?

Also, I'm not sure about no particular cause. To me, there's a difference between no particular cause and an unknown cause.
For example - if you see a rock on the ground, is it reasonable to believe it was placed in that precise position by something divine?

 

[leopold]

6) Elements can be seen to form highly complex, but non-selfreplicating structures.

7) (Now here's the HUGE leap) Conclusion: Some elements formed a different kind of structure. One that by simple complementary substitution, could replicate.

by 6 you say that life has not been observed forming from the elements
so how do you reason 7?

 

[swivel]

by 6 you say that life has not been observed forming from the elements
so how do you reason 7?

He admits that there is a huge leap. Give him some credit.

All he is saying is that one of the structures that was created happened to have the property of being able to replicate itself. From that starting point, you are almost certainly going to get lifeforms.

And crystals aren't alive, and they have this property. Some abiogenesis theories conjecture that crystals or clays could have been used as a chemical substrate on which the process in (7) took place.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

As I understand it the intention is rather to pose the question:

Unless you demonstrate the possibility, what is the difference between believing that something happened with no particular cause and believing that something divine was the cause, whatever you happen to want "divine" to mean?

They're both beliefs are they not?

--- Ron.

There is one difference. The scientific approach demands that its 'belief' can be subdivided into small steps that are feasible and reasonable.

With abiogenesis it is true that we do not know exactly how it happened. But we can speculate. We can divide the process of abiogenesis up into small steps that are all reasonable and interlinked. One does not have to believe in these little steps. They merely show it is possible without resorting to a 'skyhook' (see Darwin's Dangerous Idea).

We do have evidence that evolution is merely a process. It's not unreasonable to extrapolate this to include abiogenesis.

It is unreasable to see divine intervention when there is no evidence suggesting divine intervention anywhere.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin...ed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&ItemId=0975991477


"Editorial Review:

Book Description:
The Biology of Belief is a groundbreaking work in the field of New Biology. Author Dr. Bruce Lipton is a former medical school professor and research scientist. His experiments, and those of other leading-edge scientists, have examined in great detail the processes by which cells receive information. The implications of this research radically change our understanding of life. It shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our positive and negative thoughts. Dr. Lipton's profoundly hopeful synthesis of the latest and best research in cell biology and quantum physics is being hailed as a major breakthrough showing that our bodies can be changed as we retrain our thinking."

It says here that "DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell"

This is what I was trying to express in this thread and evolution threads (paraphrasing) 'genetic variation being driven by our environment' rather than the genes changing randomly by themselves and happenning to be successful or not.

If the scientists above consider that thoughts can change DNA then my question regarding why an organism 'wants' to live are now valid are they not? The fact that DNA is controlled not by biology but from signals outside the cell demonstrates that afterall genetic variation is about 'progress' and not merely a random process.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

http://www.brucelipton.com/article/mind-over-genes-the-new-biology

"This new perspective of human biology does not view the body as just a mechanical device, but rather incorporates the role of a mind and spirit. This breakthrough in biology is fundamental in all healing for it recognizes that when we change our perception or beliefs we send totally different messages to our cells and reprogram their expression. The new-biology reveals why people can have spontaneous remissions or recover from injuries deemed to be permanent disabilities.

The functional units of life are the individual cells that comprise our bodies. Though every cell is innately intelligent and can survive on its own when removed from the body, in the body, each cell foregoes its individuality and becomes a member of a multicellular community. The body really represents the cooperative effort of a community of perhaps fifty trillion single cells. By definition, a community is an organization of individuals committed to supporting a shared vision. Consequently, while every cell is a free-living entity, the body’s community accommodates the wishes and intents of its ‘central voice,’ a character we perceive as the mind and spirit.

When the mind perceives that the environment is safe and supportive, the cells are preoccupied with the growth and maintenance of the body. In stressful situations, cells forego their normal growth functions and adopt a defensive ‘protection’ posture. The body’s energy resources normally used to sustain growth are diverted to systems that provide protection during periods of stress. Simply, growth processes are restricted or suspended in a stressed system. While our systems can accommodate periods of acute (brief) stress, prolonged or chronic stress is debilitating for its energy demands interfere with the required maintenance of the body, and as a consequence, leads to dysfunction and disease. "

 

[perplexity]

that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our positive and negative thoughts.

They're reinventing Buddhism: you are what you do.

Meditation found to increase brain size

http://www.physorg.com/news10312.html

Given that mental activity directly affects the physical structure of the brain, it is not so much of a leap to suppose that the rest of the body is controllable, if not all else beyond.

--- Ron.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

from web:

"Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
The Biology of Consciousness

About Bruce Lipton
Scientist, author, university professor and lecturer, Bruce Lipton, compares the evolution of the cell to that of humankind; clearly demonstrates that much of our technology is in direct imitation of Nature’s designs for cell structures. The myths of genes vs. the magic of membranes. Case made that it is not our genes, but our environment, and our perception of the environment, that ultimately regulates our health and behavior. Based upon his research at Stanford University, Dr. Lipton's most recent research publications on the regulation of cell behavior have yielded insight into the molecular basis of consciousness and the future of human evolution. What is most exciting is that there are patterns in evolution, and the development of community is part of one of these patterns. Bruce is on the cutting edge of the New Biology, which, like the New Physics, is changing the way we see things. In this we find that much of Neo-Darwinian biology is gravely in error and that the bleak picture it paints of our future is, at most, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The vision of the New Biology is far more hopeful."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you that advised I read a book on evolution, I think I'll read his. It is after all in agreement with much of what I already think in this regard. But I can say I was not indoctrinated with this view it was my own, can you say the same?

meanwhile:

ALSO

"Epigenetics is the study of epigenetic inheritance, a set of reversible heritable changes in gene function or other cell phenotype that occur without a change in DNA sequence (genotype). These changes may be induced spontaneously, in response to environmental factors, or in response to the presence of a particular allele, even if it is absent from subsequent generations."


semantics

 

[Pete]

For those of you that advised I read a book on evolution, I think I'll read his. It is after all in agreement with much of what I already think in this regard. But I can say I was not indoctrinated with this view it was my own, can you say the same?

Avoiding indoctrination means reading that with which you don't agree.
I regularly read the pages of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Institute, for example, to ensure that my disagreement with their position is not due to being misinformed about it.

 

[Pete]

Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
The Biology of Consciousness

The review of the book at Amazon are interesting reading. Both the positive and negative reviews.

Amazone reviews, most helpful first

 

[invert_nexus]

Meditation found to increase brain size

It's a real shame that brain size doesn't corelate with intelligence though.
If anything, increased brain size without a likewise increase in skull size might just lead to problems...

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The review of the book at Amazon are interesting reading. Both the positive and negative reviews.

Amazone reviews, most helpful first

he he... that was entertaining.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Avoiding indoctrination means reading that with which you don't agree.
I regularly read the pages of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Institute, for example, to ensure that my disagreement with their position is not due to being misinformed about it.

We are influenced by everything that crosses our path on a subconscious level so you can NEVER be sure that your belief or non belief has been affected by what you have been exposed to. Some scientists reluctance to let go of old theories when newer ones are presented and demosntrated is a clear example fo indoctrination of ideas, or a personality trait that dislikes and mistrusts change, though I would think that a personality trait like that is incompatible with being a scientist, so what then is the reason for holiding onto old ideas, forget the ones we are discussing now, general through out science and it's initial ridicule of radical new theories which later come to be accepted.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

It's a real shame that brain size doesn't corelate with intelligence though.
If anything, increased brain size without a likewise increase in skull size might just lead to problems...

well we have to assume there is space enough already in there for it to grow

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

The review of the book at Amazon are interesting reading. Both the positive and negative reviews.

Amazone reviews, most helpful first

indeed

Jerald tennant

"Dr. Lipton has clearly challenged what we thought we knew and opened Pandora's box. Scientists have long stated, "If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist." That means that we relegate our belief system to the quality of our measuring devices. Since we couldn't measure things at biological speeds until we got Pentium class computers, we haven't been able to measure biological electronic function for very many years. Lipton has helped refocus us away from the false belief that the body is Newtonian and reductionistic to the reality that the body works at the atomic level where Newton's laws fail and electromagnetic energy rules. "

for those that disagree ie, the research biologist, perhaps that same individual also has issues with the 'placebo' effect.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Indeed:

As a scientist engaged in biophysical research, I feel the strong need to redress the many dangerous, erroneous, sophistic claims and attacks on science that Dr. Lipton is pandering to the public. It would seem that Dr. Lipton is a well-meaning man, but I am afraid his departure from objective rationality is the equivalent of a man that has found religion and given his reasonings over to mere faith. He states that environment has a profound influence over gene expression and that genes in and of themselves do not dictate biology. He uses the word "epigenetic," meaning above or beyond the genetic level. Neither this term nor the idea that environment plays a role in biology however is new--and moreover there is nothing mystical about it.

Furthermore, Dr. Lipton claims that illness can be cured by mere belief. This isn't only nonsense; it is incredibly unprofessional and irresponsible. This is the equivalent of a TV Evangelist banging his palm against the foreheads of cancer patients, pushing them back down in their seats and proclaiming them cured, only to then say later to an investigating reporter who mentions that the patients later died that the Lord's magic stopped working because doubt entered into the hearts of the disbelieving patients. What an incredibly cruel sentiment. Yet this is in essence what Dr. Lipton is pandering to the public. If conscious belief worked this way, bringing about the realities we wanted, then we'd all be six-feet tall, rich, and have the looks of professional models and possess super human strength and ability. But where's the reproducible proof? Alas, reality does not work this way.

Lastly, I cannot commend Dr. Lipton for trying to merge science and spirituality together, for his attempt is based not on science-but anecdotal evidence and highly questionable research with no direct evidence or scientific proof. What Dr. Lipton offers, then, is not a new science-but another new-age religion. What is more, Dr. Lipton espouses quite frankly a ludicrous ideology. The title of his book is "The Biology of Belief." Biology is a science, and as such it is built on a system of facts-not beliefs. The Road Runner might levitate above a cliff and Luke Skywalker might levitate objects with his Jedi mind, but each respectively has Warner Brothers physics and Industrial Lights and Magic on their side. For the rest of us, trying to walk on air by stepping off the balcony will prove a comical, if not outright fatal, flaw in reasoning. I'm afraid gravity is not interested in what you believe of its consequential effects. And all the deep, faithful believing of otherwise will not change the outcome.

 

[Pete]

indeed

Jerald tennant

He's a very interesting guy... worth looking up.

What did you think of the negative reviews? Did you take them seriously?

I agree that we can't avoid being conditioned to some degre by our environment. However, we can actively seek to be unbiased - by seeking to understand that with which we don't agree.

Aristotle - It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

 

[c7ityi_]

the evolutionary process exists because we want to live. we want to live because... it's not fun to be dead.
well... there are lots of reasons...

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

the evolutionary process exists because we want to live. we want to live because... it's not fun to be dead.
well... there are lots of reasons...

my point, but why? why do we want to live (being dead is not the answer as first life did not know of death or the concept of dead/dying.


(before anyone jumps in with the natural selection thing again, I have made it clear IMO while this is some of the story it is not the whole story (epigenetics) )