0
   

Attempt at reconciling free will and determinism

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 12:55 pm
Honestly, I don't think that this discussion belongs here. But hey, when did that ever stop me or anybody else on a2k?

I know this will come across as smug but wonder whether you guys are that well informed about the actual academic field and ideas involved. I suspect you have been exposed to a vulgarisation of the theory(ies) that was perhaps a bit simplistic and more ideologically uniform than is the case among scientists. You've been exposed to the hardcore materialist version of evolution frequent on forums and blogs, used in polemics against creationists. But within specialists of biology there are many different takes and nuances on evolution, as there should bebe. And the current theories are widely seen as unable to explain the appearance of life itself, as well as unsatisfactory to account for the emergence of some organs if memory serves. And of course quite a few biologists believe(d) in God....

In short, neo-Darwinism explains very well how species x comes from species y. But it can't explain how the "first species" (if that means anything) came to be. All bets are off on the origins of life. It's not even the TOPIC of evolution per se.

Let me try a metaphor or comparison: the emergence of life is to evolution what the big bang is to the expansion of the universe. We can observe and understand the latter, but we struggle to even conceptualize the former.

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 01:09 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Honestly, I don't think that this discussion belongs here. But hey, when did that ever stop me or anybody else on a2k?

I know this will come across as smug but wonder whether you guys are that well informed about the actual academic field and ideas involved. I suspect you have been exposed to a vulgarisation of the theory(ies) that was perhaps a bit simplistic and more ideologically uniform than is the case among scientists. You've been exposed to the hardcore materialist version of evolution frequent on forums and blogs, used in polemics against creationists. But within specialists of biology there are many different takes and nuances on evolution, as there should bebe. And the current theories are widely seen as unable to explain the appearance of life itself, as well as unsatisfactory to account for the emergence of some organs if memory serves. And of course quite a few biologists believe(d) in God....

In short, neo-Darwinism explains very well how species x comes from species y. But it can't explain how the "first species" (if that means anything) came to be. All bets are off on the origins of life. It's not even the TOPIC of evolution per se.

Let me try a metaphor or comparison: the emergence of life is to evolution what the big bang is to the expansion of the universe. We can observe and understand the latter, but we struggle to even conceptualize the former.




Here is the thing, we can produce RNA in a sterile environment through a process of having the base four chemicals that make up the combinations of aminoacids.

It has been done several times. But this gets swept under the rug even though it points out one very important aspect. These chemical combinations can naturally combine when subjected to water, evaporation, sunlight and time.

This means there is only one step away from RNA forming DNA. But if RNA is easily formed through a sterile process then it's really a common chemical interaction. Much like oxygen loves to share electrons with hydrogen.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 01:16 pm
@Krumple,
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=reproduction+of+animals+through+chemistry&qpvt=reproduction+of+animals+through+chemistry&qpvt=reproduction+of+animals+through+chemistry&qpvt=reproduction+of+animals+through+chemistry&FORM=IGRE
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 01:54 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
we can produce RNA in a sterile environment ... It has been done several times. But this gets swept under the rug even though it points out one very important aspect.

Yes, RNA can be found in nature and synthetised easily. But the problem is not RNA per se. The problem is RNA CODING FOR PROTEINS. The fact that nucleic acids have come to symbolize, record and reproduce an entirely different chemical group, proteins. The symbiosis between those two classes of chemicals is pretty much universal in life as we know it. And there is a big difference between that symbiosis and the mere presence of RNA and proteins in the environment.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 06:33 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
we can produce RNA in a sterile environment ... It has been done several times. But this gets swept under the rug even though it points out one very important aspect.

Yes, RNA can be found in nature and synthetised easily. But the problem is not RNA per se. The problem is RNA CODING FOR PROTEINS. The fact that nucleic acids have come to symbolize, record and reproduce an entirely different chemical group, proteins. The symbiosis between those two classes of chemicals is pretty much universal in life as we know it. And there is a big difference between that symbiosis and the mere presence of RNA and proteins in the environment.


Its only one step because the three parts which allow for replication are needed, that's it. They could also form naturally we just are not sure yet. And can two seperate pairs of RNA be combined to form DNA? Its not a very big leap. Just more research and experimenting is needed to see.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 06:57 am
@Krumple,
We just can't see how it could have happened, and we don't know how it happened. We don't even know IF it happened on our planet or if life actually came from elsewhere (panspermia).

It's okay though, because mysteries are good. Mysteries are beautiful, challenging, amazing. We don't need to pretend that we know everything. Only ideologues have this need to hide the uncertainties and mysteries of life under some fake ironclad certainty. Scientists, they are happy with the ambiguities, complexities and mysteries of life; it makes their work more interesting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 04:29:48