Life and Thought

[questor]

Which is the true story of the existence of life on our planet, creationism or evolution?

the answer could be that it is a combination of both. if the earth started out as superheated gas, were all the elements of the periodic table present in that gas?

as the gas cooled and oceans and rocks formed, none of this mass was alive, so how did we get the original building blocks of living tissue? if all these elements were lying around or floating in the sea, did chance encounter make them brush against each other to start

the combinations needed to begin life? what is life itself ? is it a protein, solid, gas? does it have mass, particles or other observable constituents? can it be measured or weighed?

when you get down to the sub-atomic particles, what is the life force? if all matter is made of superstrings or energy packets, why do some collections of these packets have life while others are inert? how does thought occur? we know how thought is transmitted and where it is stored, but what is it at its inception? how can a human being in repose and with no overt stimulus conceive a thought? a dog or a bird can act in resonse to a specific stimulus, but they can't compose a symphony. if evolution is correct, why are there not more animals that have developed the ability to think and speak? they have had billions of years to do so. intelligent design answers these questions to me far better than evolution.

[Fishteacher73]

the combinations needed to begin life? what is life itself ? is it a protein, solid, gas? does it have mass, particles or other observable constituents? can it be measured or weighed?

We really don't know yet...But to pawn off our ignorance to a deity is just as naive as thinking chariots drag the sun accross the sky and volcanic eruptions occur because we did not throw in enough virgins. Life is not a measurable "substance". It is nothing more than a complex series of reactions. The concept of "aqua vita" (or the "essence" of life) has been toyed with since the victorian era. It is an archaic concept and one that has been dropped.

we know how thought is transmitted and where it is stored, but what is it at its inception? how can a human being in repose and with no overt stimulus conceive a thought?

Being a determinist, all past experience is the stimulus for thought. So there is no "lack" of stimulus.

 

a dog or a bird can act in resonse to a specific stimulus, but they can't compose a symphony

There are many birds that create unique songs, some so complecx that the human ear cannot discern them. They must be slowed and analyzed to be understood.

 

if evolution is correct, why are there not more animals that have developed the ability to think and speak? they have had billions of years to do so. intelligent design answers these questions to me far better than evolution.

It really depends on what you quallify as thinking. Many animals analyze and adpat to situations and use novel problem solving techniques. Animal comincation can range in varieties way beyond the perception of humans. Just because they don't speak english doesn't mean they don't communicate.

[UncleAl]

Which is the true story of the existence of life on our planet, creationism or evolution?

the answer could be that it is a combination of both.

Poison the well and every sip is poisoned. You had your chance, AD 476-1054. It was a disaster.

 

1) Reailty is empirical - neither more nor less.

2) Realty is exactly described by mathematical modeling given constraints of empirical falsification.

3) There are no metaphysicial inputs.

 

http://www.venganza.org/

The global warming graph is inarguable

[questor]

do you see the word Diety in my discussion? i'm not discussing a Diety, i'm discussing the possibility of itelligent design, and creation. perhaps you could define what you mean by Diety? it is easy to say life is a series of chemical reactions. if so, what are these reactions, and what energizes them? human beings are the only live animals capable of

sentient thought. animals may think in reaction to a stimulous, but they can't philosophize. they may communicate, but they have no language to transmit sentient thought. if the birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, they had over 90 million years head start on the humans. why didn't other animal evolutionary lines much older than humans develop more advanced capabilities than we johnny-come-latelys?

[Fishteacher73]

do you see the word Diety in my discussion? i'm not discussing a Diety, i'm discussing the possibility of itelligent design, and creation. perhaps you could define what you mean by Diety?

For creation or ID, by deffinition there must be some "higher power", a supernatural force. Call it G/god/s, Zeus, Gaia, Steve or Geroge. It is all the same pile of excuses and the desire of man to have some "purpose".

it is easy to say life is a series of chemical reactions. if so, what are these reactions, and what energizes them?

Just crack open a biology text, perhaps a biochem text too. Pick anything and there is a electro/chemical interaction that controls it. These are all fueld by the foods we eat...

 

human beings are the only live animals capable of sentient thought. animals may think in reaction to a stimulous, but they can't philosophize. they may communicate, but they have no language to transmit sentient thought

There are many examples of "sentient" activity in the animal kingdom. Those that we can understand involve Koko (uses sign language, creates unique combinations for concepts that she does not already know) and African Grey parots, which learn to use language on about a 2-3 year old human ability.

 

if the birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, they had over 90 million years head start on the humans. why didn't other animal evolutionary lines much older than humans develop more advanced capabilities than we johnny-come-latelys?

 

Humans are generalists. Just about anything a human can do, there are many animals that can do it MUCH better. Our range of senses are reasonably pathetic when compared to those of the rest of the animal kingdom (and probably most other kingdoms as well). Thought is not a prerequisite for life. The most successful organisms on the planet are bacteria.

[questor]

you are obviously correct that if something created the universe it is all powerful and

supernatural. it is much more reasonable to me, on the face of the evidence, to give

credence to this possibility rather than concluding it was fortuitous happenstance. i am well versed in chemistry, biology and biochemistry, and as you might know, most reactions

occur in the presence of proper conditions and substrates. we are agreed that life has a chemical basis. the question is..what is it? this is the reason for this thread. what is life at the sub-atomic level ? as far as Koko, can she do a crossword puzzle or can the parrot

sing La Tosca ? these animals have been evolving right along the same time scale as human beings. why have their abilities and brains not expanded like human beings? if evolution enhances, advances, and improves,why are they lagging?

[Buffy]

as far as Koko, can she do a crossword puzzle or can the parrot

sing La Tosca ? these animals have been evolving right along the same time scale as human beings. why have their abilities and brains not expanded like human beings? if evolution enhances, advances, and improves,why are they lagging?

You're making the common assumption that "intelligence" is the *goal* of evolution, and it is not. Evolution does not inevitably lead to intelligence. The dinosaurs lasted a much longer time than we have with walnut sized brains on sheer brawn. It took a giant meteorite to take them out. Our particular branch, Mammals have evolved larger brains and that has resulted in lots of interesting evolutionary advantages, only Homo has gone so far as to create technology, but you discount some very significant abilities in social complexity and communications evidenced by many other mammilian species.

 

In fact what the Homo experience shows is that technological intelligence and advancement is rather easy to evolve, its only taken us about 50,000 years! But there has to be a sequence of events that causes it to be selected by chance events in the environment and the change in genetic information. It really is luck and its not a *necessary* result, but its also easy...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, the very fact that human beings have had such a short history with such great physical and mental improvement shows that we are dealing with a very special animal. as far as social structure, almost all animals, insects and birds exhibit social structure, but only the last arrival..human beings have brought it to the highest level. i realize that all evolution does not begat higher intelligence, however, if higher intelligence enhances the animal wouldn't evolution tend in that direction? and haven't the animals had much longer to develop intelligence? why do you think that only human beings got the lucky breaks in evolution?

[Boerseun]

Homo sapiens aren't the first species to develop technology. A chimp using a stone to open a particularly pesky nut is a case in point. Homo sapiens is, however, the first species to use energy extrasomatically.

 

And that brings me back to my point raised ages and plenty threads ago that life is the result and agent of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And any form of Life that expedites the Second Law will be beneficial, and selected for...

 

Hence brains.

Hence technology.

 

Buffy's 110% spot on - brains aren't the goal of evolution. It's just a handy tool to have under the dictates of the Second Law. We have the most, so we rule. But nukes and such indicates that brains doesn't guarantee survival - it might be detrimental.

 

If there is such an animal as can be described as 'God', his name isn't 'Jahweh'. His name is numerical in nature. His name is "THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS".

 

All hail!

[questor]

Boerseun, why can't the name also be Gravity, dark matter, strong force,etc. i can't see anything in the second law that explains the force of life at its most basic level. are there some chemical formulae or mathmatical equations we can look at? as far as your example

of the monkey and the rock, it took him millions of years to learn this, while it only took Einstein a lifetime to generate the GTR.

[Buffy]

Buffy, the very fact that human beings have had such a short history with such great physical and mental improvement shows that we are dealing with a very special animal.

And its very natural for us to like to think we're special, but its not proof that we are. Physically, we really aren't much different from our simian forebearers, with the key development being able to walk upright which allowed us to move out of the trees and provided a distinct advantage in hunting meat at a time when natural vegetation was becoming scarce due to climate changes. Once there necessitated learning how to develop tools and shelter. This began to result in the necessity of division of labor which favored the development of communications and social skills. One right after the other, the sequence of events was unusual, but perfect for exploitation of a large brain. I personally don't see anything "special" about this development at all, and each step in sophistication has been built out of necessity. Its efficiency is well proved by how rapidly homo sapiens wiped out Neanderthal and other early branches once it left Africa.

as far as social structure, almost all animals, insects and birds exhibit social structure, but only the last arrival..human beings have brought it to the highest level.

I agree on the widespread existence of social structure, and it comes both from "mostly nature" sources (bees and ants) as well as "mostly nurture" (dophins, elephants, etc.). I see *very little* that distinguishes men on social development other than the complexity of the structures that is mostly driven through the more sophisticated usage of communcations and tools. Again, is this the ultimate? With the fact that we have so many people at each other's throats and so many instances where man has come close to self anihilation (November 1963 was 60 minutes away from Armageddon), this is the *best*? I beg to differ. I think there's a whole lot more development that could occur, and if we don't do it, the insects might in a few million years.

i realize that all evolution does not begat higher intelligence, however, if higher intelligence enhances the animal wouldn't evolution tend in that direction?

Nope, and that's why I point out dinosaurs. They were far more permanent and effective than we have been to date, and they'd be here still if it weren't for that meteorite 60 million years ago. In fact since they evolved into birds, you can argue that they are *still* one of the most efficent and effective life forms. Another example is sharks, who have *not had to evolve in 400 million years*!!! That's evolutionary perfection!

and haven't the animals had much longer to develop intelligence?

No they haven't, larger brains have evolved only in mammals and only in the last few tens of millions of years, and the only difference in the ape/human line is the opposable thumb! If elephants or dolphins had the hands and legs we do, they, with their brain cases that are as big or larger than ours, could easily develop the same level of intelligence. That opposable thumb is invaluable even if yours spends most of its time hitting the space key.

why do you think that only human beings got the lucky breaks in evolution?

I argue that its not "lucky": its just what happened. If you can get a way from trying to associate some "specialness" to the way that we just happen to be, then a lot of the development of our species and our intelligence no longer seems so "miraculous."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[damocles]

Buffy:

 

You bring up something very interesting when you suggest that tool using humans(at least 800,000 years of chipped and flaked stone hand axes and 500,000 years of manipulating fire) became the dominant hominid animal easily when they about fifty thousand years ago demonstrated transferable replicable symbol ability(painting) and did so easily.

 

I suggest a couple of thought experiments

 

1. Remove Homo Sapiens(Cro Magnon version) from the scene. Could Neanderthal man develope the social communication skills to build a complex(what I call the hominid insect hive model) social technology beyond the family clan level?

 

2. Remove all hominids from Earth BCE 3,000,000 years. Could a tool user arise from the remaining animals present that is not a primate? If so, which one, and would you speculate as to its ease of eventual development given that it faces the same challenges we faced?

[Buffy]

I love thought experiments!

1. Remove Homo Sapiens(Cro Magnon version) from the scene. Could Neanderthal man develope the social communication skills to build a complex(what I call the hominid insect hive model) social technology beyond the family clan level?

Sure why not? Neanderthal looks more and more sophisticated the more we learn about them. They were physically much more robust, and their brain cases were about the same size as H.Sapiens. They had *very* sophisticated social structures, tools and so forth, but H.Sapiens were not only smarter but seemed to have some technological advances. I think its virtually certain that they would have evolved down the same path, but may have taken a little longer to get there.

2. Remove all hominids from Earth BCE 3,000,000 years. Could a tool user arise from the remaining animals present that is not a primate? If so, which one, and would you speculate as to its ease of eventual development given that it faces the same challenges we faced?

Sure. I'm pretty strong on the relationship between opposable thumbs and developments of tools. You've left open some of the branches we're related to, but we might have ended up as intelligent lemurs or beavers or platypus'. Beavers are interesting: have you ever seen a beaver dam? They are really complicated structures that show an obvious understanding of hydrodynamics and landscape architecture....get them to develop their proto-thumb a little more and who knows what they could do.

 

I'm also convinced that insects will ultimately take our place, but I think their "intelligence" will be "Borg-like". Multiple limbs could adapt over time to be able to manipulate tools and of course group action comes into play: have you ever seen ants form bridges with their bodies? Its facinating!. It would be interesting to watch....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[damocles]

My money is on insects. I think that the unbounded communication and biological adaptive tool animal approach that you suggested to me awhile ago in another thread is eminently sensible as an approach to replace us when we go extinct. Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean individual animal size size does it?

 

Among mammals; if we were to exclude all monkeys and apes, I would start searching among the rodents for our replacement.

 

However my own personal favorites are these guys;

 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Procyon_lotor.html

 

Or these;

 

http://www.bear.org/

 

If I had to choose between these two origin points, I would pick the raccoon, as I think that furball is closer in model to what our own startpoint(scavenger omnivore) was than a bear is.

[UncleAl]

do you see the word Diety in my discussion? i'm not discussing a Diety, i'm discussing the possibility of itelligent design, and creation.

Liar. You are dripping god, standing in a pool of it immersed up to your nose, exuding flaming excrescencess of god like Tommy Aquinas doing his masters' bidding by voluminously writing about the obvious and true (and necessary). Go pray on a ligthtbulb. We'll wait.

 

what is the life force?

It is an advertising ploy for a discredited product. Try going without a shower for a month and see how much unlike other animals you are.

[questor]

Uncle Al, if i didn't like you, i would challenge your acidic temperament. i don't think you have any more answers than any of us, and your efforts at demeaning others are not conducive to good conversation.

[questor]

Damocles, good thought. let's say you did remove the human animal from the earth, what is left ? what would the earth look like now and 10,000 years from now? would it be jungle, desert, wasteland, wonderland? the human has the mental capacity to be a husband to the land if he so chooses. currently no other animal has this capacity. would they develop it? nothing so far indicates they would. perhaps they would just exist on the

land that the non-creator gave them. without sentient thought, without technology and with the wildness they were born with.