Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

Funnily enough science programmes did exist in the 60's so did Patrick Moore.

 

But I was a child in the roaring 20s. 

[Leonard James]

Natural selection has a random element, but it is not a random process. Genetic variations that actually aid survival and/or reproduction are much more likely to become entrenched within a population than those that actively act against the above. This is basic stuff, Alan, and, furthermore, we have a great deal of evidence to show this is so.

Whether your God had anything to do with this process is open to argument, but as the process has been shown to work with no recourse to any god then I do not see any reason to bring Him into this discussion, unless it's simply a matter of your personal faith based solely upon your assertions, which you are entirely welcome to, but which I do not find at all convincing.

I look around me and have a sense of wonder and awe at the sheer diversity of life on this planet. At no time have I seen this in terms of miracles or a god, and that also includes my own capacity for self awareness and apparent free will which I suggest are products of the complexity of my brain, and both of which I see mirrored in a range of other animal species(albeit at a simpler level).

I agree entirely, mate, but it seems that once the "God" idea is implanted in the human brain, barriers go up to exclude the acceptance of any ideas that don't need him/it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice post, Enki.  I was thinking about the growing immunity of bugs to antibiotics, I suppose for AB, this shows the wonderful power of God in creating new forms of life, even if they may condemn us to death.  It's all good.

Or scientism lulled us into a complacency because we believed that ''science promised to come up with solutions''. As maybe as that might be what was definitely lacking was investment in research............so it could be that money is the root of all evil.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree entirely, mate, but it seems that once the "God" idea is implanted in the human brain, barriers go up to exclude the acceptance of any ideas that don't need him/it.

No the shutters go up in you guys. You are allowed ideas that don't involve God but you are after automatic, intellectually totalitarian and uncritical acceptance thus blowing your folksy image for the umpteenth time.

[Leonard James]

Nice post, Enki.  I was thinking about the growing immunity of bugs to antibiotics, I suppose for AB, this shows the wonderful power of God in creating new forms of life, even if they may condemn us to death.  It's all good.

Especially for the bugs! 

This is what shows perfectly that 'good' and 'bad' are terms to describe OUR view of things, but are totally reversed when considered from other forms of life.

The only possible conclusion is that they mean nothing as far as the entire universe is concerned ... good and bad don't exist.

[Shaker]

No the shutters go up in you guys. You are allowed ideas that don't involve God but you are after automatic, intellectually totalitarian and uncritical acceptance thus blowing your folksy image for the umpteenth time.

You missed out "intellectually Stalinist methodological naturalists gussied up into philosophical materialists," Vlad.

[Leonard James]

No the shutters go up in you guys. You are allowed ideas that don't involve God but you are after automatic, intellectually totalitarian and uncritical acceptance thus blowing your folksy image for the umpteenth time.

Oh my, you do love writing inscrutable diatribes, don't you, my friend!

[Shaker]

Oh my, you do love writing inscrutable diatribes, don't you, my friend!

It's fluent Vladese, Len - classic example a little bit up-thread:

As maybe as that might be what was ...

[Leonard James]

You missed out "intellectually Stalinist methodological naturalists gussied up into philosophical materialists," Vlad.

Oh shit ... don't encourage him Shakes. He'll disappear up his own orifice in a whirl of bull.

[Leonard James]

It's fluent Vladese, Len - classic example a little bit up-thread:

English certainly appears not to be his first language, at times.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh shit ... don't encourage him Shakes. He'll disappear up his own orifice in a whirl of bull.

Only to find you up yours not only having been there a long time but having already opened a savings account and drawing dividends.

[Leonard James]

Only to find you up yours not only having been there a long time but having already opened a savings account and drawing dividends.

Good grief! A union of orifices! What a revolting idea!

[torridon]

I am certain that it will only exist if God wants it to exist

Like the Devil, then ?

[torridon]

I read and understood the arguments put forward, but I have to say that I remain unconvinced by them.  You must see that beneficial mutations have a very slim chance of surviving past numerous detrimental mutations that will inevitably occur in future generations.  Any survival advantage can easily be wiped out, and most people will appreciate that random unguided forces will produce many magnitudes more detrimental mutations than beneficial ones. 

No, it doesn't work like that Alan. its not like a small band of good mutations are fighting the overwhelmingly larger army of bad mutations and winning against all odds, therefore God.  Deleterious mutations write themselves out of the genome, it doesn't need any magic, it is just logic.  Extant species are effectively defined by the surviving beneficial mutations of their ancestry. Deleterious mutations harm reproductive fitness at the level of an individual organism; I will have suffered several dozen point mutations whilst writing this post, mostly deleterious, but most will not have a lasting effect on me, but in the worst case, I get cancer for example, then I die early and don't get to pass on the bad mutation. Thus at the level of populations over long time spans you get species defined by the 'good guys'; the deleterious ones tend to deselect themselves quite happily without any supernatural intervention, simply because they are deleterious.  This is quite well understood from mathematical modelling apart from whatever insights we have gained from fieldword and lab.

[Leonard James]

This is quite well understood from mathematical modelling apart from whatever insights we have gained from fieldwork and lab.

As far as I can see, it is quite obvious without any maths model or fieldwork, simply by understanding the process of evolution. I am astonished that anybody is unable to see it.

[torridon]

I think it is the jump from the raw lifeless materials to the very first life form that is difficult to explain, not once it got going.

Once you have algae or whatever came first, the rest isn't an issue IMO.

It's inanimate matter to something else that puzzles me.

Scientists won't know for sure life's  a fore gone conclusion that given the right conditions life will form until they find some somewhere else.

They don't yet know it exists elsewhere yet, not for sure 100%

Although I reckon it's pretty certain it does.

There is a parallel with when Victorians first came to see that humans were part of the animal kingdom.  They struggled to grasp this, as it seemed so obvious that humans were radically different from all other animals.  Noone had seen chimps building steam engines or gorillas debating the rights and wrongs of slavery. There was such an apparent gulf between us and other apes.  Now of course we are filling in those gaps, hardly a year goes by without some paleoanthropologist digging up yet another ancient human ancestor and we come to understand the apparent gulf as a result of the extinction or amalgamation of all the intermediate species. 

Maybe we are at a similar point in history now with regard to our understanding of life; we tend to see a huge conceptual gulf between animate and inanimate matter, but that is likely just down to the happenstance of where we are at.  The common distinction between life and non-life is really a superficiality, in reality there are degrees of life-likeness, and if there is an apparent void between organic chemistry and simple biology, it is because many intermediate forms are no longer present on this planet for us to observe; it is down to the rampant promiscuity of carbon, that compounds of intermediate complexity have all now been swallowed up into the more easily recognisable forms that now today constitute me and you and every living thing. We can't dig ancient carbon compounds out of the ground though, we have to use other methods to infer what pathways might have led to life on this planet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is a parallel with when Victorians first came to see that humans were part of the animal kingdom.  They struggled to grasp this, as it seemed so obvious that humans were radically different from all other animals.  Noone had seen chimps building steam engines or gorillas debating the rights and wrongs of slavery....................  Now of course............................

They do.

[Leonard James]

They do.

Twit!

[Shaker]

Another exceptional post from torridon. I'm going to put my hat on solely for the pleasure of taking it off, sir.

[Alan Burns]

I will have suffered several dozen point mutations whilst writing this post

I understood that genetic mutations occur when the DNA molecule gets copied imperfectly.  Whatever point mutations your body suffers will not be passed on through DNA.

But the general point I am making is that it is quite miraculous that any substantial beneficial mutations are capable of surviving in the hostile nature of of our universe whose natural forces are generally destructive.  I think this logic is particularly valid during the formation of the earliest life forms whose vulnerability would neccessitate careful nurturing into viable reproductive species.  Current life forms will have become robust due to millions of years of God's careful nurturing, but the early single cell life forms could have easily been wiped out by naturally hostile forces.

[Bubbles]

There is a parallel with when Victorians first came to see that humans were part of the animal kingdom.  They struggled to grasp this, as it seemed so obvious that humans were radically different from all other animals.  Noone had seen chimps building steam engines or gorillas debating the rights and wrongs of slavery. There was such an apparent gulf between us and other apes.  Now of course we are filling in those gaps, hardly a year goes by without some paleoanthropologist digging up yet another ancient human ancestor and we come to understand the apparent gulf as a result of the extinction or amalgamation of all the intermediate species. 

Maybe we are at a similar point in history now with regard to our understanding of life; we tend to see a huge conceptual gulf between animate and inanimate matter, but that is likely just down to the happenstance of where we are at.  The common distinction between life and non-life is really a superficiality, in reality there are degrees of life-likeness, and if there is an apparent void between organic chemistry and simple biology, it is because many intermediate forms are no longer present on this planet for us to observe; it is down to the rampant promiscuity of carbon, that compounds of intermediate complexity have all now been swallowed up into the more easily recognisable forms that now today constitute me and you and every living thing. We can't dig ancient carbon compounds out of the ground though, we have to use other methods to infer what pathways might have led to life on this planet.

I'm not sure it is comparable with the Victorians because I think they were biased in favour of religion and found it hard to accept man was like the other animals.

Whereas now I don't think people are so biased about drawing a line between rocks and trees for example.

I just don't think we see the evidence yet, not because of our preconceived notions, but just that what we are looking for is hard to find.

It bothered the Victorians, man being an animal.

I don't think this bothers in the same way

[Bubbles]

They do.

Actually it's surprising just how bright they are, and they can outdo humans in some ways.

http://www.ibtimes.com/chimpanzee-intelligence-mans-closest-relative-outwits-humans-game-theory-test-1675682

I think they should have certain rights, along with dolphins and some whales.

I think we should be more respectful of their space and environment.

But then I suppose we don't even respect other humans space at times.

[Shaker]

Current life forms will have become robust due to millions of years of God's careful nurturing, but the early single cell life forms could have easily been wiped out by naturally hostile forces.

Always interesting (albeit intensely depressing) to see you flip-flop back and forth, back and forth between at the very best badly misunderstood science and completely baseless religious maunderings, Alan.

[Leonard James]

  Current life forms will have become robust due to millions of years of God's careful nurturing, but the early single cell life forms could have easily been wiped out by naturally hostile forces.

The whole of life on earth can be/could have been wiped out by a large enough asteroid hitting the globe and breaking it into pieces, but luckily for us it hasn't.

Which is not to say that it won't happen. It's all a matter of chance, Alan.

[Gordon]

Current life forms will have become robust due to millions of years of God's careful nurturing, but the early single cell life forms could have easily been wiped out by naturally hostile forces.

You must be so pleased that your God has managed through 'careful nurturing' to create and preserve all those lovable little things (Ebola, HIV etc etc) that have threatened our survival, both individually and as a species - while at the same time your God, no doubt, is behind the skills and expertise of those who seek to find solutions to these problems: you must be especially thrilled to read about, say, new strains of drug-resistant bacteria!