Re: Why does the dust come to life
baddog1 wrote:The origin of life has never been scientifically-proven. You know that! :wink:
And yet the implication of the evidence is quite clear. And that was the point of the question: IF there was no *poof* and nature is what it appears to be, and not what you wish it to be, then how does that knowledge make you feel?
baddog1 wrote:With no "proof' - it's gotta be 'poof' - right?
Throughout history, *poof* has been offered as the solution to every mystery. And yet, as the mysteries fall, *poof* has never been found. In every case there is a natural explanation. Mysteries will always exist, so the idea of *poof* will always exist, but it's hard to support it as an idea with its ongoing track record of abysmal failure and worthless value.
Re: Why does the dust come to life
rosborne979 wrote:baddog1 wrote:The origin of life has never been scientifically-proven. You know that! :wink:
And yet the implication of the evidence is quite clear. And that was the point of the question: IF there was no *poof* and nature is what it appears to be, and not what you wish it to be, then how does that knowledge make you feel?
baddog1 wrote:With no "proof' - it's gotta be 'poof' - right?
Throughout history, *poof* has been offered as the solution to every mystery. And yet, as the mysteries fall, *poof* has never been found. In every case there is a natural explanation. Mysteries will always exist, so the idea of *poof* will always exist, but it's hard to support it as an idea with its ongoing track record of abysmal failure and worthless value.
What does "implication of the evidence" mean to you?
Quote:IF there was no *poof* and nature is what it appears to be, and not what you wish it to be, then how does that knowledge make you feel?
Another leading & subjective question and you know it. "Nature is what it appears to be" - as viewed by who? Re-ask the question in an objective manner and I will gladly offer my thoughts.
Are we also interested in the origins of plant life forms?
And is there any possibility that the conditions for the conversion of inorganic to organic forms existed not on earth but elsewhere in the Cosmos and then, by means of transport via meteors or comets, came to earth when conditions were ready for their evolution?
JLNobody wrote:Are we also interested in the origins of plant life forms?
And is there any possibility that the conditions for the conversion of inorganic to organic forms existed not on earth but elsewhere in the Cosmos and then, by means of transport via meteors or comets, came to earth when conditions were ready for their evolution?
As I recall people used to dismiss this idea of micro organisms coming to earth via comets simply due to the fact that the amounts of radiation in space would destroy any life. Nowadays people aren't so sure, test have indicated that bacterias will survive a lot easier than first suggested.
As for only the inorganic material with the potential to turn into life. Maybe even more likely. *shrugs*
My high school text books said life originated in water. Don't we all know that certain elements like nitrogen, carbon and oxygen started reacting and gave rise to the protobionts or coacervates, which eventually started duplicating? I don't know if that makes sense to you, or answers the original question. Dust doesn't come in the picture actually.
spidergal wrote:My high school text books said life originated in water. Don't we all know that certain elements like nitrogen, carbon and oxygen started reacting and gave rise to the protobionts or coacervates, which eventually started duplicating? I don't know if that makes sense to you, or answers the original question. Dust doesn't come in the picture actually.
If life originated on earth, it would probably be in water, yes. But there are some elements that seem crucial to the creation of life. H2O is so vital to any life here earth that N.A.S.A. look for water when scanning other planets for life.
According to people who know more about this than me, life is so
inconceivable without water that we'd probably not recognize life forms that aren't based on water.
JLNobody wrote:Are we also interested in the origins of plant life forms?
And is there any possibility that the conditions for the conversion of inorganic to organic forms existed not on earth but elsewhere in the Cosmos and then, by means of transport via meteors or comets, came to earth when conditions were ready for their evolution?
JLN: I would enjoy learning about the origins of plant life as well.
And certainly there is a possibility that transportation from another area happened as are many other possibilities.
Re: Why does the dust come to life
baddog1 wrote:What does "implication of the evidence" mean to you?
The implication of the evidence is that there was no *poof*. Not one indication of *poof* can be found in nature anywhere. The only place *poof* exists is as a hypothesis to fill the cracks between scientific details. As those cracks are filled over the years, *poof* is nowhere to be seen.
baddog1 wrote:Quote:IF there was no *poof* and nature is what it appears to be, and not what you wish it to be, then how does that knowledge make you feel?
Another leading & subjective question and you know it. "Nature is what it appears to be" - as viewed by who? Re-ask the question in an objective manner and I will gladly offer my thoughts.
As viewed by science. Everything in this thread is from the perspective of science. I think I stated that back in the beginning somewhere.
Many other threads engaged the debate over whether *Poof* really fills the cracks or not. But that's not what this thread is about. For purposes of this thread, we are going to assume that the implications of what science is finding (that there is, was, and never will be, any *poof*) are correct.
JLNobody wrote:Are we also interested in the origins of plant life forms?
And is there any possibility that the conditions for the conversion of inorganic to organic forms existed not on earth but elsewhere in the Cosmos and then, by means of transport via meteors or comets, came to earth when conditions were ready for their evolution?
Whether life originated here or via space debris, it doesn't really change the fact that life originated naturally.
Do you feel that life originated naturally? If so, do you see the Universe as a 'living' thing as well because it generates life simply as a result of its own essence?
baddog1 wrote:JLN: I would enjoy learning about the origins of plant life as well.
If you google some of the terms in the quote below, you will find a lot of information on plant evolution.
Quote:The period of Earth's history that began 2.5 billion years ago and ended 543 million years ago is known as the Proterozoic. Many of the most exciting events in the history of the Earth and of life occurred during the Proterozoic - stable continents first appeared and began to accrete, a long process taking about a billion years. Also coming from this time are the first abundant fossils of living organisms, mostly bacteria and archaeans, but by about 1.8 billion years ago eukaryotic cells appear as fossils too.
The Eukaryota include the organisms that most people are most familiar with - all animals, plants, fungi, and protists. They also include the vast majority of the organisms that paleontologists work with. Although they show unbelievable diversity in form, they share fundamental characteristics of cellular organization, biochemistry, and molecular biology.
With the beginning of the Middle Proterozoic comes the first evidence of oxygen build-up in the atmosphere. This global catastrophe spelled doom for many bacterial groups, but made possible the explosion of eukaryotic forms. These include multicellular algae, and toward the end of the Proterozoic, the first animals.
baddog1 wrote:And certainly there is a possibility that transportation from another area happened as are many other possibilities.
Did you have Thermal Vents in mind when you said that?
What other possibilities (scientific ones for this thread only of course) did you have in mind?
Ros, I enjoy thinking that the universe is "alive", but not in any biological sense that we are familiar with. It's just that the dichotomy life and death (i.e., unalive) have no absolute meaning for me. What the universe "actually" is (?) probably has no correspondence to any of our thoughts.* We must think (with language) about its nature nevertheless.
And I certainly do not think that "life" emerged "unnaturally" (supernaturally). It just emerged.
*we cannot shrink the universe to the size of our brains/minds.
Re: Why does the dust come to life
rosborne979 wrote:
As viewed by science. Everything in this thread is from the perspective of science. I think I stated that back in the beginning somewhere.
Sorry - did not see the qualification earlier in the thread. I'm unclear though - on how you can specify this thread be totally viewed from the perspective of science - when science has no proof of how life began in the first place.
Re: Why does the dust come to life
baddog1 wrote:rosborne979 wrote:
As viewed by science. Everything in this thread is from the perspective of science. I think I stated that back in the beginning somewhere.
Sorry - did not see the qualification earlier in the thread. I'm unclear though - on how you can specify this thread be totally viewed from the perspective of science - when science has no proof of how life began in the first place.
Now that is a good question!
In my opinion this is actually not a good question it is either a complete misunderstanding of the epistemology of science or, more likely, a thinly veiled attempt to use this notion to discredit anything the reader doesn't want to accept as true.
The current epistemological view of science has been around since 1927 and is known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Briefly, it states that (in the scene that I believe the term proof is being used here), science can prove NOTHING. It can't and doesn't even attempt to discuss what is going on behind the scenes, as it were. The term proof in science merely means that there is no error in the math or logic being used NOTHING more.
In that case science not only cannot prove how life began, science cannot prove that there is such a thing as life. It can't prove how the universe came into being, yet it also cannot prove that there is a universe. It cannot prove that the electrons, protons, and neutrons that your computer uses exist. To go one further we KNOW there are no such things as electrons, protons, or neutrons as we talk about them in science. They are merely abstract concepts that are useful in correlating our experiences and making useful predictions.
So does that stop people who don't believe science can provide a proof for this or that from using their computers? No. But they are willing to use their computers and this ploy to rail against evolution or whatever they don't want to accept. It is sophistry at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst. It gains nothing and, in my opinion, adds nothing to these conversations.
Ros: I am always impressed with people who try to have interesting scientific discussions on sites such as this; in my experience it is virtually impossible.
But to respect your question, I would just add that using a basic definition for life I believe you could say non biological systems are alive as well. Stars for instance, are born, take in nutrients, give off waste, can reproduce (a supernova explosion into a nearby dust cloud creates other stars or can), etc. The GAIA theory says the Earth is in some sense self aware and self regulating. Taking that position it seems that biological life coming into being isn't such a great leap. By the way, are you aware of the current idea of convergence as creating order. It's a very interesting idea and has deep iplications in area such as the idea of consciousness and self awareness.
what do you mean convergence creating order?
sort of like dust compiling itself into planets and stars?
Re: Why does the dust come to life
baddog1 wrote:rosborne979 wrote:
As viewed by science. Everything in this thread is from the perspective of science. I think I stated that back in the beginning somewhere.
Sorry - did not see the qualification earlier in the thread. I'm unclear though - on how you can specify this thread be totally viewed from the perspective of science - when science has no proof of how life began in the first place.
If you go to bed at night and there's no snow on the ground, and you wake up the next morning and there's snow on the ground, then it's reasonable to assume that it snowed during the night. The implications of what science has discovered are clear.
It is a large and complicated category, which makes it difficult to do justice in this type of venue. It means that our usual idea that order is a top down process may be generally incorrect. As systems get complicated order arises spontaneously from the bottom up. Take for example a flock of birds. We have all seen a flock of birds moving with military precision even when confronted by an unexpected event, a gust of wind, a sudden obstacle, a hawk. They all move rather flawlessly, reacting, keeping together, yet there is no one bird in charge that the others are following. No one is giving orders. They are concerned only with those directly around them, yet they continue to move as a flock, don't bump heads, etc.
Convergence says the reason for this is that as the system becomes more complex it provides less degrees of freedom, this is what we interpret as coordinated movement, order, consciousness, etc. depending upon the system involved. Therefore consciousness may be a result of convergence as a systems becomes more complex, i.e. consciousness will appear as soon a system becomes complex enough it doesn't need to be designed or have some special property or circumstance.
Please note this is a VERY rudimentary explanation. If you are interested I suggest turning to more authoritative sources for more info, and please God I don't mean Wikipedia or the National Enquirer, one, in my estimation, being as authoritative as the other. Hope that helps some.
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
But to respect your question, I would just add that using a basic definition for life I believe you could say non biological systems are alive as well. Stars for instance, are born, take in nutrients, give off waste, can reproduce (a supernova explosion into a nearby dust cloud creates other stars or can), etc.
Just a side note; I don't think you could say that stars are alive because they do not: 1. Adapt and 2. Respond to stimuli. But it simply depends on how you define life.
So I get your point. It was, as I said, just a side note.
i was thinking the other day, that intelligence is inevitable.
quite interesting. ty correctresponse.
TheCorrectResponse wrote:The current epistemological view of science has been around since 1927 and is known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Briefly, it states that (in the scene that I believe the term proof is being used here), science can prove NOTHING. It can't and doesn't even attempt to discuss what is going on behind the scenes, as it were. The term proof in science merely means that there is no error in the math or logic being used NOTHING more.
I agree, science doesn't attempt to provide 'proof' in an absolute sense. But that hasn't rendered science non-functional. Even without absolute proof, functional results and a solid understanding of the natural world have resulted. The implications are important, and that's kind of why I started this thread. I wanted to explore the implications.
Also, bear in mind that I put this in the philosophy/debate forum because I knew there were going to be no right/wrong answers. It's more of an exploration of people's personal opinions.
TheCorrectResponse wrote:Ros: I am always impressed with people who try to have interesting scientific discussions on sites such as this; in my experience it is virtually impossible.
But to respect your question, I would just add that using a basic definition for life I believe you could say non biological systems are alive as well. Stars for instance, are born, take in nutrients, give off waste, can reproduce (a supernova explosion into a nearby dust cloud creates other stars or can), etc. The GAIA theory says the Earth is in some sense self aware and self regulating. Taking that position it seems that biological life coming into being isn't such a great leap. By the way, are you aware of the current idea of convergence as creating order. It's a very interesting idea and has deep iplications in area such as the idea of consciousness and self awareness.
I've seen some of the convergence stuff. It's interesting, but I haven't really looked into it much past the surface yet. New theories need to make predictions and to add to our understanding in some way. I'm not sure this convergence has added much yet.
