Hello there GC'ers Ive got a couple questions on evolution and science in general that I figured would best be asked here. First off I'm not trying to deny evolution or cause conflict or debate, it would be much nicer just having a civilized discussion. Accepted answers will be either personal knowledge or links to videos/studies ect.. 1. Where did the 'code' that dna performs on come from? Like why does it seem that the dna must be put into a certain pre-written formula to operate? Could someone also explain HOW dna works as code? How can dna make such a wide variety of things with just four puzzle pieces? 2. How does the known universe operate off intangible mathematical laws? Where would these laws reside and how could you alter them, theoretically speaking? 3. If most scientists only believe in a material world and materialistic science, how would they expect to use a materialistic science to define an un-materialistic being? The 4th dimension is unreachable and unobservable to us, yet no one really has an issue with the existence of that. How is not being able to use science to explain the supernatural proof it doesn't exist? 4. What is science's viewpoint on the soul? I've seen many scientists say that the soul is indisputable, while others claim of no such thing. 5. I hear this time and time again, people say Abiogenisis and Evolution are not related and each to their own they don't matter to the other. If people use evolution as a means for 'proof' of no intelligent design, then how? Wouldn't abiogenisis be more 'proof' of no god than evolution, for evolution is simply a process, not an origin? Without abiogenisis, evolution would seem impossible without intelligence. And from what I've read alot that abiogenisis has many many holes in it. Which brings me to my next question, 6. How would abiogenisis be evidence against intelligent design? If you get a loaf of bread (I know its not actually alive, just work with me), you could break it down to it's molecular level and explain the formula of which it makes the bread, but using human intelligence we put these things together to make up the bread, it's like atoms are legos and without intelligence the legos would just be a pile of plastic blocks, until you introduce intelligence which give these blocks purpose and can use these to create whatever he desires. 7. If scientists performing experiments showing that no intelligence is needed for abiogenisis, wouldn't the scientists creating the ideal environment be the introduction of intelligence, therefore showing that intelligence is needed in atleast some form for life to come about? If there's even a pre-requisite formula for life, then where did that code/formula originate? 8. What are your views of the Pythagorean theorem and findings of this equation in nature and in music? Do you view this as possible evidence of design or rather by mere chance? I suppose this is all for now, all positive answers and comments to be appreciated
DNA is a chain of molecules that is responsible for protein synthesis. Strands of your DNA are replicated and used to make certain proteins in your body. What proteins are made and in what quantities cause you to be slightly, yet vastly different from every other person on the planet. Amazing to think about, isn't it? I used to wonder this as well. But you need to stop thinking of math as laws that man created. Math was not created by man, but by nature. Man has just learned to interpret it. It's not proof that they don't exist. But until you can prove they DO exist... no one's going to believe it. Science is not a unified entity. Different people have different views. It's as simple as that. Evolution is a fact. It can be observed. To this day, nobody has ever observed life created by nonliving material. An argument using abiogenesis would easily be shot down because no one has ever witnessed it. I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but by definition, abiogenesis rules out any kind of intelligent design. Abiogenesis translates to "creation without life." If a living god created life, it wouldn't be ABIOgenesis, but rather just BIOgenesis. Unless of course you argue that said god is not actually alive.... But that's more philosophical than scientific. No intelligence is needed for abiogenesis. By definition, abiogenesis means the creation of life from nonliving materials. Nonliving materials aren't very intelligent.... Trigonometry is full of neat little coincidences. But I personally believe that they're JUST coincidences....
Thanks I appreciate the replies so far. Well that's just the thing, man didn't invent math, it was already here. Where did this math come from? It's like very simple equations are what our whole universe runs off of, its so simple yet so elegant. But where and how did these things originate? E=mc2 is an intangible equation yet a pre-written law which all matters acts according to. So it exists in the sense that everything runs off it, yet it doesn't exists cause you can't see it written across the sky, for a blatant example. Similar to how software programs use a hunk of 0's and 1's to build virtual universes in video games. How does a material science explain that of which is the soul of a person? For if all matter at it most basic level is over 99% open space, the actual physical human body would fit to be the size of a grain of salt. And as for the less that 1% of actual physical matter, it is nothing more than just condensed energy correct? So how is our memories, our thoughts, our beliefs, likes/dislikes, our perceptions ect held inside of this energy? How am I able to relive a memory from the past inside my head as if I were there again? And I know what the word Abiogenisis means, just could it be possible that they just simply cannot see that this could be a process used by an intelligent being to bring forth the life we have since science is the tool that a god would've used to create the things to be, and you cannot use a tool on itself? Such as if you have a knife, you cannot use that knife to cut itself, same with a hammer and ect, so how can you use a tool used to create to desribe that which has created the tool? You can use it to help understand certain qualities of the creator, but not the creator itself. And has evolution truly been proven to be fact, or is there a misconception somewhere inbetween? Could it not be possible that the information has simply been misinterpreted? For example there is undeniable proof that species adapt to their current environment, but from what we've been able to observe they are still the same 'type' of animal if you will. I myself have trouble with the word type because it's hard to define species. I believe type may refer to birds, fish, land animals, yet there are some inbetweens as amphibians and such so it is really tough to say. Also could it be a possibility that pre-humans were merely other species of monkeys that have simply died off? Also what is the explanation behind finding numerous animals which have been found to have existed millions of years ago and have remained completely unchanged? If mutations are a constant process, why would one species just decide it's good where its at and doesnt need to mutate anymore? How would that even be possible if it is an unintelligent force that is constantly happening? And also how would lifeforms be capable of evolving simultaneously in completely different environments around the globe? Why do they find same species that adapted at the same rate as another in a completely different part of the world? And finally how does mutations explain complex systems such as the lungs? Did one chance mutation somehow change to form gills to lungs? What are the actual chances of this happening and how is it able to even function without some sort of intelligence enabling that form to function in the first place? If you get a clock and remove just one gear, the whole clock would be pointless, even if built from the bottom up the parts of a clock wouldn't serve a purpose until all parts are into place. Now I understand clock aren't living and dont reproduce and mutate which Im sure many will say but it still applies. Again appreciate any and all intelligent replies. And this isn't a debate, pretty much just asking questions straight up to further my knowledge of the world around me.
Actually Abiogenesis was partially proven after the Miller - Urey experiments. In these experiments Miller and Urey set up conditions in the lab that were like the early earth with non - biological molecules and provided an electric current which would simulate the violent thunderstorms from the early earth. They found that amino acids did form from these non-biological parts
The problem with these answers is the order. Math was invented by man in order for us to know the "rules" the universe goes by, not the other way around. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4]YouTube - Feynman :: Rules of Chess[/ame] If you watch that video, keep in mind that we use math in order to be able to describe the rules of the game. There's another one of his where he talks about gravity which explains it much better but I couldn't find it. Basically the idea is that from the very beginning of math it was used as a set of something that we could use to represent a physical object without needing that object. This is also why they (math and numbers) can be used to describe larger and larger things and events. In the video I couldn't find he talks about how a planet doesn't need to work out the path it must take while orbiting around our sun, it just knows it. We have to use math in order to describe it because we don't have that same knowledge that the planet has without it. The math is for us to better understand the world around us, not because the universe follows it, the universe already knows the rules in the same way you know how to breath (but we have mathematical models that show how the lungs and body works to make a breath happen) Also the reason computers can use a 1 and a 0 to do all those things is because we have the knowledge of math. At the very basic level of math is 0-9, for computers it's True (1) and False(0). Ok really for computers it's much more complex but that's the very basic level of it unless you want to get into gate logic, which is basically a version of math based off 0 and 1 rather than 0-9. You could say it's energy in a different form. But then again you could also say that everything is really just a series of electromagnetic waves. It all just depends on the scale that you are looking at things. As for that last question, the short answer is we don't know. We know where the different parts are and how they are connected (well sort of) but we still don't know the driving force behind it. We know that the brain is a giant prediction machine but past that I think we still have a ways to go. But then again I am far from any sort of expert in this area and my knowledge extends to the TED video's I've watched.
I was reading about how the Miller Urey experiment brought about amino acids, but there are two types of amino acids, organic and non organic, and the experiment only produced the non organic amino acids which have yet to be found in any living thing to date. And also the amount of toxic chemicals used were enough to kill any living thing in the first place.. so I'm sort of confused on that part. But the thing thats been on my mind is how is it, that if evolution is a constant force at work on all living things, then why can you pick any of the 7billion people anywhere on earth and they can still breed? Even if its one person from say L.A. and the other person from some tribe in the most remote places that has never had contact with the outside world? If animals change all the time and make it so they can't interbreed anymore, why don't we? If you just look at how much animals have changed since the rise of homosapiens, it's strange how we've just stayed the same. And even from two different people that have lived in completely different environments for many years, one that should adapt to nature and one who would adapt to technology and create two seperate species, but we don't.
There's a far out theory that says we are from an alien species that has mixed their dna with a mammal from earth(an ape). If you really sit back and look at evidence and look at every scientific possibility, it can creep you out lol. To my knowledge there are 18 different species monitoring earth. Some good,some bad, some neutral. They abduct people all the time to conduct studies and experiments on their intelligent creations. They mutilate our sexual organs peice by peice and keep note of our fast repoduction rates. But what aliens really want to know about us is how we all have souls. That is the goal of their abductions, to find where we house our souls. They don't even know where our souls come from.no one can ever know for sure and nothing can explaIn it.I kinda see it as magic.
I was reading about how the Miller Urey experiment brought about amino acids, but there are two types of amino acids, organic and non organic, and the experiment only produced the non organic amino acids which have yet to be found in any living thing to date. And also the amount of toxic chemicals used were enough to kill any living thing in the first place.. so I'm sort of confused on that part.... We're no longer restricted to this one experiment or methodology. We know now that complex chains of organic molecules can appear - some which will lead directly to the creation of a cell's outer membrane - simply by passing chemicals through streaming water. At a range of speeds, the chemicals begin to form structures. Light, chemical interaction, electromagnetic interaction can easily make simple lego brick organic structures like this change and form larger structures. Viruses too; in some ways they're at the very line between living and non-living as they can't really be classified as either. They're active chains of chemicals. Not really life. They act and react according to what they meet and where they are. Going up the ladder towards more structured organisms after millions of years of evolution isn't that much of a stretch. But the thing thats been on my mind is how is it, that if evolution is a constant force at work on all living things, then why can you pick any of the 7billion people anywhere on earth and they can still breed? Even if its one person from say L.A. and the other person from some tribe in the most remote places that has never had contact with the outside world? There are billions of people, tens of races and kinds, but they're all from the same species. If you'd glance trouser-ward, you'll see that your kit is pretty much the same as everyone else's. Why shouldn't you be able to breed with another of your kind elsewhere in the planet? We all came from the same common ancestors, the same species. If you just look at how much animals have changed since the rise of homosapiens, it's strange how we've just stayed the same. But we haven't. man continues to evolve, the same as all creatures do. We can show regional evolution in action, racial - it's never stopped. In the 1500's in Europe, people's faces (without necessarily having genetic contact) began to get rounder, stockier. The trend continued for a couple of hundred years and then regressed. Finger length, toe length, height, average weight, heart effciency...lot's of things have changed, some of it quite quickly. And even from two different people that have lived in completely different environments for many years, one that should adapt to nature and one who would adapt to technology and create two seperate species, but we don't. But we do - although we aren't exactly creating two new species. Simply put, modern man has a tendency to be fat and lazy, with some basic deficiencies in their metabolism that they are passing on to their children. Eventually these changes may be so widespread as to lead to western humans being different in many ways from those living in isolation on a desert island as long as there were no contact between the two. But it would take a long, long (write many 'long's here, or big ones) time before we were incompatible with them as a species. And finally how does mutations explain complex systems such as the lungs? Did one chance mutation somehow change to form gills to lungs? No, many did. What are the actual chances of this happening and how is it able to even function without some sort of intelligence enabling that form to function in the first place? The chances exclude the need for a creator god to have done it. Different forms of respiration have appeared and evolved independently in a number of creatures, leading us to believe that it's a quite logical, common process. If you get a clock and remove just one gear, the whole clock would be pointless, even if built from the bottom up the parts of a clock wouldn't serve a purpose until all parts are into place. Now I understand clock aren't living and dont reproduce and mutate which Im sure many will say but it still applies. This is a creationist myth, that irreducibly systems can't come about by themselves. It's easy to refute. Do a google on 'irreducible complexity' 3. If most scientists only believe in a material world and materialistic science, how would they expect to use a materialistic science to define an un-materialistic being? The 4th dimension is unreachable and unobservable to us, yet no one really has an issue with the existence of that. How is not being able to use science to explain the supernatural proof it doesn't exist? We can easily describe things in great detail, and even build simulations for them which are so close to the real thing as to be remarkable, without ever having seen them directly. It happens in science all the time. 4. What is science's viewpoint on the soul? 'Science' doesn't have a communal viewpoint, as science is filled with ordinary men and women, some of whom believe in god and some who don't. If you were to ask the average scientist whether there were any proof for the soul, believer or not, he would say no. I see all of your questions are linked to creationism. Are you a creationist yourself? MelT
4. What is science's viewpoint on the soul? I've seen many scientists say that the soul is indisputable, while others claim of no such thing. What is the human view on the soul?
First of all, great questions. A lot of them are on subjects that there is no consensus on in the scientific community, which means you're going to get mixed answers, probably stated as fact, when they're really just theories. I'll try to point out the things that are not set in stone. And so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a medical student who studied biology (concentrating on ecology and evolution), and I have a good, not great background in other sciences. 1. Where did the 'code' that dna performs on come from? Like why does it seem that the dna must be put into a certain pre-written formula to operate? Could someone also explain HOW dna works as code? How can dna make such a wide variety of things with just four puzzle pieces? We don't know where it came from per se. Most scientists believe in abiogenesis. Most of these people believe that after the first organic molecules formed (organic molecules can be formed from inorganic molecules in a pre-organic environment) RNA or something like it was likely one of the first complex organic compounds. RNA is more or less the same as DNA, and is the likely precursor. Its all highly speculative, but it seems to make sense, and without a time machine, it making sense and it being physically possible may be the best science can ever do to "prove" this. Simply stated the way DNA works is that it is read in groups of 3, and each unique group of three codes one amino acid (protein building block). At first glance it looks like there's not a lot of varience, HOWEVA, there is a shit ton. For a given code, it can be read in several different ways ex. A B C D C B A B D can be read: A B C | D C B | A B D or A B C D | C B A | B D or A B | C D C | B A B D ect. Given a long code, you can imagine there'd be a lot of possibilities. That's not it though, DNA can be "methylated," that is an "ignore" molecule can be attached to parts of the DNA to block the reading of some parts at some times and others at other times. It does seem counterintuitive, but from those 4 bases, millions of proteins can be coded. 2. How does the known universe operate off intangible mathematical laws? Where would these laws reside and how could you alter them, theoretically speaking? I'm no physicist, this is probably a question for a theoretical physicist, and something that can't be answered completely. 3. If most scientists only believe in a material world and materialistic science, how would they expect to use a materialistic science to define an un-materialistic being? The 4th dimension is unreachable and unobservable to us, yet no one really has an issue with the existence of that. How is not being able to use science to explain the supernatural proof it doesn't exist? Same as #3 4. What is science's viewpoint on the soul? I've seen many scientists say that the soul is indisputable, while others claim of no such thing. Science does not deal with the soul. Some scientists may believe in it, but from a scientific standpoint, its nothing. There is zero proof one way or the other for a soul, and all of it is based in literature, not fact. Science will never prove the existence or non-exastance of the soul simply because it is not defined in any physical way. 5. I hear this time and time again, people say Abiogenisis and Evolution are not related and each to their own they don't matter to the other. If people use evolution as a means for 'proof' of no intelligent design, then how? Wouldn't abiogenisis be more 'proof' of no god than evolution, for evolution is simply a process, not an origin? Without abiogenisis, evolution would seem impossible without intelligence. And from what I've read alot that abiogenisis has many many holes in it. Abiogenesis does have holes in it, namely because we can't look in the past and see what happened. There is research that suggests it is possible, but this is all very recent. We didn't have the tools to test its possibility until quite recently. Give it 50 years and we'll see how far we've gotten with it, my guess is the possibility of abiogenesis will be confirmed in our lifetime. Evolution is not proof of intelligent design. Like I said with the soul, there isn't and will never be scientific proof for or against god. Its not something that can be tested one way or the other. Don't look to science for an answer for metaphysical things. And abiogenesis and evolution aren't inherently related, but they do kind of go hand in hand. You could believe that god created the first organic molecules, which evolved. Or you could believe that abiogenesis occurred --> evolution. Which brings me to my next question, 6. How would abiogenisis be evidence against intelligent design? If you get a loaf of bread (I know its not actually alive, just work with me), you could break it down to it's molecular level and explain the formula of which it makes the bread, but using human intelligence we put these things together to make up the bread, it's like atoms are legos and without intelligence the legos would just be a pile of plastic blocks, until you introduce intelligence which give these blocks purpose and can use these to create whatever he desires. Don't really understand your example, but I think that intelligent design (as I understand it) and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive. Intelligent design conjectures that an intelligent being (god or something similar) created life and either guided its evolution into diversity or just created it as it is now. They key idea being that the intelligent being created life. Abiogenesis conjectures that life was created randomly from inorganic molecules without any creator responsible. 7. If scientists performing experiments showing that no intelligence is needed for abiogenisis, wouldn't the scientists creating the ideal environment be the introduction of intelligence, therefore showing that intelligence is needed in atleast some form for life to come about? If there's even a pre-requisite formula for life, then where did that code/formula originate? This is why its very difficult to prove abiogenesis, or rather impossible. So you created life in a lab? You're an intelligent being! Yeah well, I just created an environment in which it could be related. There will always be a certain amount of circular logic here, and that is why we'll never really know. Our best bet is to prove that given the right circumstances, that life could form. We won't know that it happened as such, just that it may have been possible. Its frustrating, but science rarely proves things, rather it disproves things and the non-disproven stand as theories. 8. What are your views of the Pythagorean theorem and findings of this equation in nature and in music? Do you view this as possible evidence of design or rather by mere chance? Don't know anything about this. The Pythagorean theorem describes a very simple and common physical relationship. Its not surprising that triangles would be found in nature and music, because they physical phenomena. Hope I cleared some things up, and keep the questions coming. I suppose this is all for now, all positive answers and comments to be appreciated
[quote name='Thunderstruck']The problem with these answers is the order. Math was invented by man in order for us to know the "rules" the universe goes by, not the other way around. Man I hope you don't mind me asking further question about your post. I have a interest in maths, my grandfather , was great with numbers. I went to a shitty school, the idea of going to University was never really discussed, the teachers didn't care enough to inspire the students and vice versa. The reason why I got on this tangent of useless information is that as a student, understanding basics maths was considered necessary to get a job, function in the community etc. Math was invented by man in order for us to know the "rules" the universe goes by, not the other way around. To hear that maths has evolved to what it is due to mans need to understand the universe would of made learning the x table a lot more fun. I couldn't find he talks about how a planet doesn't need to work out the path it must take while orbiting around our sun, it just knows it. We have to use math in order to describe it because we don't have that same knowledge that the planet has without it. Its good to know that planets keep their mind on the job rather than being bossed around by the universe.
[quote name='grandmastersmit']Thanks I appreciate the replies so far. Well that's just the thing, man didn't invent math, it was already here. Where did this math come from? It's like very simple equations are what our whole universe runs off of, its so simple yet so elegant. But where and how did these things originate? E=mc2 is an intangible equation yet a pre-written law which all matters acts according to. So it exists in the sense that everything runs off it, yet it doesn't exists cause you can't see it written across the sky, for a blatant example. Similar to how software programs use a hunk of 0's and 1's to build virtual universes in video games. Hope you dont mind, Maybe Im not getting the drift of this quote. E=mc2 A pre written law, a descriptrive word a magical term that provides access to the mysteries of the universe.