Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[EricPH]

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

If climate changes can effect bear species to evolve, does it also have the power to create features like eye lens and a skeletal system? Single cell life existed happily for two or more billion years. Something happened that changed the bio-chemical needs of single cell life, into creating a complex mechanical skeletal system. How? What tools did nature have other than climate change?

As with most Christians, you disregard deep time. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? That may explain why you think the eye could not have evolved. If the Sun and the Earth are 6,000 years old, then sure, eyes could not have evolved.

You are making assumptions about me? The shortest time scale I have mentioned is 364,000 years for the evolution of a single eye lens, taken from a link you left.

Note that eyes have actually evolved many times, not just once. There are a range of eye types. Why? Because seeing is very useful to survival for many species.

There are a variety of species and eyes today, so I wouldn't expect any different. Whether the eye evolved in a single or a thousand species, it would need to evolve with a fairly linear progression. How did blind nature do this without a guiding hand?

[EricPH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64Y8sVYfFY

The video is very short and explains natural selection in pictures.

Beaks and claws already existed, Darwin's finches were just a mix and match of existing features. I have no problems accepting that life has to compete for survival, and natural selection is a wonderful explanation. What I find hard to accept is when you take this theory and extrapolate back billions of years, and say there is a clear path back to single cell life.

3.7 billion years ago, single cell life had the ability to divide every few hours, meaning it would only take a year or two to populate the Earth. I can accept that evolution would have time and an almost infinite number of single cell life to work with. But single cell life had no features to mix and match, no beaks or claws. Life changes from being a single cell bio chemical entity, to designing a mechanical skeletal structure that is more complex than a moon rocket.

What tools did nature have to do this? Climate change has been mentioned, what other forces are there for change to happen?

[Sy Borg]

Okay Eric, I appreciate that you are determined to undermine your faith by pointlessly trying to justify it with silly pseudoscience. You do realise that the creation passages in Genesis were metaphorical, and the writer was clearly trying to explain evolution using poetic, rather than scientific, language.

You have at no stage acknowledged deep time, which suggests that you are a Young Earth creationist. Do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4.6 billion years old?

[EricPH]

Okay Eric, I appreciate that you are determined to undermine your faith by pointlessly trying to justify it with silly pseudoscience. You do realise that the creation passages in Genesis were metaphorical, and the writer was clearly trying to explain evolution using poetic, rather than scientific, language.

I take the first sentence in the Bible to be an absolute truth, 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. The rest of the bible is open to interpretation. God created everything according to its kind, then left it to evolve, that would be my interpretation?

You have at no stage acknowledged deep time, which suggests that you are a Young Earth creationist. Do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4.6 billi

The age of the Earth holds no real meaning for me, there are other reasons seven days are mentioned. As you say, the language in places is poetic rather than scientific.

Do you have evidence how design can happen over billions of years without a designer? In order to renounce my faith, I would need more evidence, rather than arguments and opposing beliefs. I have asked many times, how does the eye lens and skeletal system evolve from single cell life over billions of years. Bears mating and mixing and matching existing features is not an explanation.

You did mention climate change, is that responsible for the design of the eye lens and the skeletal system?

[Sy Borg]

There is so much concrete evidence for evolution, if you are asking for it, nothing I say and no link I can provide will make any difference.

The age of the Earth should hold meaning for you. After all, you are part of the Earth, and you were created by this extraordinary planet. If you want a creator, look at the Sun and the Earth, working in tandem. With each orbit, the world changes by varying degrees and in different ways. Things are never the same after a trip around the Sun, variably warming and cooling different places.

Humans live for decades. Our minds have not evolved to comprehend exponentials, including deep time. Comprehending the changes that can happen in millions of years is a real struggle for us technological apes. However, fossil and DNA evidence paints a compelling, and extraordinary, picture of evolutionary changes.

I suggest that you stop pretending to understand science (unless you decide you take an actual interest) and stick with your faith. Faith and evidence don't mix well. If you have evidence then faith is not necessary. Remember, despite the relative truths revealed by science, you can always find whatever deity you seek in your head, because that is a god's true domain. The architecture for belief is in your brain, inherited from many ancestors who saw agency in natural phenomena, so the capacity for useful beliefs is always there, if you want it.

[Belindi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64Y8sVYfFY

The video is very short and explains natural selection in pictures.

Beaks and claws already existed, Darwin's finches were just a mix and match of existing features. I have no problems accepting that life has to compete for survival, and natural selection is a wonderful explanation. What I find hard to accept is when you take this theory and extrapolate back billions of years, and say there is a clear path back to single cell life.

3.7 billion years ago, single cell life had the ability to divide every few hours, meaning it would only take a year or two to populate the Earth. I can accept that evolution would have time and an almost infinite number of single cell life to work with. But single cell life had no features to mix and match, no beaks or claws. Life changes from being a single cell bio chemical entity, to designing a mechanical skeletal structure that is more complex than a moon rocket.

What tools did nature have to do this? Climate change has been mentioned, what other forces are there for change to happen?

I think I may have the same difficulty as Eric. My problem too is about how natural selection affects "single cell life" .

Many eukaryotic organisms including plants, animals, and fungi can also reproduce asexually. In vertebrates, the most common form of asexual reproduction is parthenogenesis, which is typically used as an alternative to sexual reproduction in times when reproductive opportunities are limited.

I do understand that parthenogenesis may cause evolution by natural selection but much much slower than sexual reproduction. It's mainly thinks like viruses that puzzle me. How can viruses adapt to circumstances when a virus reproduces itself in an alien cell? Bacteria I can understand as I've seen a colony of bacteria in a petrie dish. One knows how bacteria may and may not be overcome. But viruses seem more like inanimate cancers.

[Sy Borg]

Belinda, single cells have numerous features, although one would expect today's microbes to be far more complex than LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Since there is no fossil evidence, LUCA is inferred by the DNA that is common to all of biology.

There is no special issue with natural selection of simple things. Those that persist longer or reproduce faster will be able to dominate their peers.

Viruses are based on RNA or DNA, noting that RNA is a less accurate replicator than DNA, with a higher rate of mutations. I think the best way to think of viruses is to include them in the circle of life. If not for bacteriophages, we large entities would be far more subject to bacterial infections, and retroviruses are considered an agent of genetic mutation.

Viruses - as in the inert packets that float aimlessly around - are like spores. They remain dormant until they arrive at a suitable habitat, where they spring to life. A virus's infectious stage can be thought of as its actual life. The patterns of their reproduction and consumption are not like ours.

[Belindi]

Belinda, single cells have numerous features, although one would expect today's microbes to be far more complex than LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Since there is no fossil evidence, LUCA is inferred by the DNA that is common to all of biology.

There is no special issue with natural selection of simple things. Those that persist longer or reproduce faster will be able to dominate their peers.

Viruses are based on RNA or DNA, noting that RNA is a less accurate replicator than DNA, with a higher rate of mutations. I think the best way to think of viruses is to include them in the circle of life. If not for bacteriophages, we large entities would be far more subject to bacterial infections, and retroviruses are considered an agent of genetic mutation.

Viruses - as in the inert packets that float aimlessly around - are like spores. They remain dormant until they arrive at a suitable habitat, where they spring to life. A virus's infectious stage can be thought of as its actual life. The patterns of their reproduction and consumption are not like ours.

Thanks Cy Borg. That helped. Especially the bit about viruses during their spore stages, as I remembered once learning there were "spore-bearing viruses". I remember anthrax is a spore-bearing bacterium.

Also, as you say, the cycle of life is a useful idea.

[Sy Borg]

Belinda, single cells have numerous features, although one would expect today's microbes to be far more complex than LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Since there is no fossil evidence, LUCA is inferred by the DNA that is common to all of biology.

There is no special issue with natural selection of simple things. Those that persist longer or reproduce faster will be able to dominate their peers.

Viruses are based on RNA or DNA, noting that RNA is a less accurate replicator than DNA, with a higher rate of mutations. I think the best way to think of viruses is to include them in the circle of life. If not for bacteriophages, we large entities would be far more subject to bacterial infections, and retroviruses are considered an agent of genetic mutation.

Viruses - as in the inert packets that float aimlessly around - are like spores. They remain dormant until they arrive at a suitable habitat, where they spring to life. A virus's infectious stage can be thought of as its actual life. The patterns of their reproduction and consumption are not like ours.

Thanks Cy Borg. That helped. Especially the bit about viruses during their spore stages, as I remembered once learning there were "spore-bearing viruses". I remember anthrax is a spore-bearing bacterium.

Also, as you say, the cycle of life is a useful idea.

Cheers Belinda. I only encountered that alternative way of viewing viruses in the last year or so, with what we usually think of as viruses being just their the dormant phase, and the viroplasm that repurposes cell reproductive functions is the actual living entity. So viruses spend most of their time asleep and only awaken to briefly reproduce and die. Reproduction is fatal business for the very small. Each bacterium that splits dies, giving its body to the two daughter cells. In terms of parental sacrifice, it's like female spiders eating the male, and then donating her own body to the spiderlings.

Some human parents probably feel that way at times :)

[EricPH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64Y8sVYfFY

The video is very short and explains natural selection in pictures.

Beaks and claws already existed, Darwin's finches were just a mix and match of existing features. I have no problems accepting that life has to compete for survival, and natural selection is a wonderful explanation. What I find hard to accept is when you take this theory and extrapolate back billions of years, and say there is a clear path back to single cell life.

3.7 billion years ago, single cell life had the ability to divide every few hours, meaning it would only take a year or two to populate the Earth. I can accept that evolution would have time and an almost infinite number of single cell life to work with. But single cell life had no features to mix and match, no beaks or claws. Life changes from being a single cell bio chemical entity, to designing a mechanical skeletal structure that is more complex than a moon rocket.

What tools did nature have to do this? Climate change has been mentioned, what other forces are there for change to happen?

I think I may have the same difficulty as Eric. My problem too is about how natural selection affects "single cell life" .

My problem understanding evolution, is that for billions of years, single cell life existed happily with little reason to change. Single cell life serves a mainly bio chemical purpose. Then features like vertebrae, jaws, limbs, eyes etc appeared. These features are mechanical and designed for movement.

The skeletal system evolved in the oceans. Nature had tools like climate change, tides, sunlight, lightning that could contribute towards change? These tools seem very crude when you look at the complexity of design. I can't see any way that blind nature could produce these complex mechanical features without help from God.

If you look at this link you can appreciate the complexity of Bluebots the first robots to perform complex swarm behaviours underwater.
https://www.freethink.com/science/robotic-fish

[Belindi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64Y8sVYfFY

The video is very short and explains natural selection in pictures.

Beaks and claws already existed, Darwin's finches were just a mix and match of existing features. I have no problems accepting that life has to compete for survival, and natural selection is a wonderful explanation. What I find hard to accept is when you take this theory and extrapolate back billions of years, and say there is a clear path back to single cell life.

3.7 billion years ago, single cell life had the ability to divide every few hours, meaning it would only take a year or two to populate the Earth. I can accept that evolution would have time and an almost infinite number of single cell life to work with. But single cell life had no features to mix and match, no beaks or claws. Life changes from being a single cell bio chemical entity, to designing a mechanical skeletal structure that is more complex than a moon rocket.

What tools did nature have to do this? Climate change has been mentioned, what other forces are there for change to happen?

I think I may have the same difficulty as Eric. My problem too is about how natural selection affects "single cell life" .

My problem understanding evolution, is that for billions of years, single cell life existed happily with little reason to change. Single cell life serves a mainly bio chemical purpose. Then features like vertebrae, jaws, limbs, eyes etc appeared. These features are mechanical and designed for movement.

The skeletal system evolved in the oceans. Nature had tools like climate change, tides, sunlight, lightning that could contribute towards change? These tools seem very crude when you look at the complexity of design. I can't see any way that blind nature could produce these complex mechanical features without help from God.

If you look at this link you can appreciate the complexity of Bluebots the first robots to perform complex swarm behaviours underwater.
https://www.freethink.com/science/robotic-fish

I enjoyed your link about adorable bluebots with their big round eyes. I guess nature takes millennia to evolve real shoaling fish and swarming insects!

Natural selection takes what are called geological durations of time to come up with adaptations like shoaling and swarming, unlike scientists who do it all with human creating imagination and computers.

Sy Borg explained

Belinda, single cells have numerous features, although one would expect today's microbes to be far more complex than LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Since there is no fossil evidence, LUCA is inferred by the DNA that is common to all of biology.

LUCA, Last Universal Common Ancestor, and DNA, is the link between life and not-life.
There is DNA that is common to all life forms.
I don't have your problem with complexity. My problem is what causes perfectly happy little life forms to want to become more complex. Why would these tiny happy virus things go to all the bother of becoming more complex than they are?

I am sure these primitive creatures would stay the same unless some climatic conditions, or geological changes killed off the individuals that lacked thicker membranes or whatever. Now I come to think of it there are some creatures that live for a very long time and keep on reproducing for about the same length of time. Californian giant redwood trees, yew trees, coelacanths, the coral reef community. Apparently each of these is plentifully adapted to its environment, thank you very much!

[3017Metaphysician]

It is clearly an abrogation of intellect to insert the God of the Gaps into issues still under investigation.

You say blind nature fills in the gaps, so how are we different?

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

Climate change can have an effect on bears mating behaviour, and that is understandable. Going back billions of years to single cell life, can climate change also be responsible for the evolution of the eye lens?

Blind nature would need some powerful tools

No, when did I say that "blind nature" filled the gaps? You know very well that I said these were mysteries. I would say it's un-Christian to lie but, in my experience, theists tend to be the least honest debaters. A matter of using any means to achieve the end, no doubt, ethics be damned.

Meanwhile, placing the deity of a particular mythology of antiquity into scientific gaps without considering the many alternatives is simply anti-philosophical.

Could not be further from truth. Nonsense! Remember, in philosophy, over 75% of all domains posit the God axiom. So like it or not, that's the criterion. "Anti-philosophy"? Hogwash!! Sorry SB, you're talking out of your you know what again! As such, I'm going to continue to call you out on the misinformation. You know, you're on a political witch hunt and I'm right behind you!

Your emotionality is noted. There is no witch-hunt. That is your paranoia. Best to keep your strong emotions in check or you will be liable to make grievous errors of logic, as evidenced is your very poor response above. You are so steamed up that you can't even wrap your brain about simple BB code formatting.

Of course, most philosophy has been performed in times when almost everyone believed in a supernatural deity, so it's no surprise that philosophers in intensely theistic times and places would use the God schema. It might have been worth mentioning that, no?

Still, positing a deity is naturally the end of all serious investigation, and is thus anti-philosophical. One can, of course, heap speculation upon speculation regarding the nature of this deity (or deities) and what it wants, but that's not philosophy, it's theistic brainstorming posing as solid reasoning.

Again, the God of the Gaps is anti-philosophical. Please try to remain calm in your response and focus on reasoning rather than your hatred.

SB!

Aren't emotions fun!!! Are we to conclude that everything you've said in this thread is based upon pure emotion, rather than logic, no? Please share any objective thoughts that you may have to support your assertions.

Just an observation, you must be advocating some kind of subjective idealism, or metaphysical Will of sorts. You know, basic Subjectivism emphasizes the primacy of sentient human behavior... . You know that thing called the Will that causes you to type words in a philosophy forum to prove intentionality. Is that what drives your wild assertions about stuff, or do you have some objective knowledge you'd like to share with us?

Is there a third alternative regarding your intentions? Any Darwinian advantages there?

[Sy Borg]

Metaphysician, your constant flow of ad hominem attacks are noted. That's your style, I guess.

I am not proposing anything. I have no intentions. No, there is no witch hunt. There is no agenda. However, when my harmless observations are run through the filter of your hyper-political American mindset, it becomes "wild speculation".

Do you agree that the structure of our ancestors brains would have been influenced by their belief in deities?

[3017Metaphysician]

Metaphysician, your constant flow of ad hominem attacks are noted. That's your style, I guess.

I am not proposing anything. I have no intentions. No, there is no witch hunt. There is no agenda. However, when my harmless observations are run through the filter of your hyper-political American mindset, it becomes "wild speculation".

Do you agree that the structure of our ancestors brains would have been influenced by their belief in deities?

Oh that's what I thought. I would suggest then not to troll threads just because it 'feels good' to you. However, emotions are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They cause stuff to happen!

With respect to your question, sure, our metaphysical Will influences our behavior (with the exception of the a priori things including instinct, etc.). Speaking of which, we have this innate sense of curiosity, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages but confers quality of life stuff called the synthetic a priori. And putting that in propositional form, 'all events must have a cause' is something we humans think about quite a bit, don't we? For instance, it has no survival value but is the basis of most physical theories in physics. Remember aside from imaginative leaps (which are worked backwards into an established axiom like writing music) all physical theories start with synthetic propositions, then they're tested.

In any of the above (cause and effect), I don't see Darwinism having any primary effects or any effects at all in those human motivational things, do you?

[Belindi]

Metaphysician wrote:

'all events must have a cause' is something we humans think about quite a bit, don't we? For instance, it has no survival value but is the basis of most physical theories in physics.

You need to learn more about determinism.
All events have a cause is true because the cause of the total of events is God or nature.

God and nature are uncaused causes.