Go to I Don't Know Much
- Add a comment
- Go to Thinking Inside the Box
Re: non life can think
Thinking has nothing to do with it. There are living creatures now that have rudimentary light-detecting patches, not eyes, that are connected to nerves within their rather small and relatively simple nervous systems. there are other creatures that demonstrate all the major steps of the development of the eye, including patches in pits that give directionality, then a narrow, pinhole opening, on the order of a pinhole camera, and then addition of transparent structures behind the pinhole, structures that appear to be early types of cornea and lens. these developed first in pre-chordates, which had no skulls. The evidence suggests that most of the major steps in the evolution of the eye occurred over 500 million years ago, in the pre-Cambrian era. After that, there are details, but all vertebrate eyes are based on the same system, which developed before bones.
posted by
mousehop
on September 2, 2008 at 4:39 PM
| link to this | reply
non life can think
Mousehop said
"How did the eye develop? Well, it began with pigments, which interact with light."
And then? Are you saying that bits of non life can think?
Pigments: "Oh we can see light, lets grow an eye."
Eye: "Now we are functioning lets grow the optic nerve."
Brain: "We are recieiving something - quick we need software."
I think the analogy is true The different parts of the eye need to develop then the optic nerve and then there is the software in the brain to decode it. Later I also thought of the skull. Animals, fish, birds and reptiles have skulls with eye sockets.
posted by
witenite3333
on September 2, 2008 at 4:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Analogy
Faith, I repeat, has nothing to do with it. But avoiding false analogy is an important part.
How did the eye develop? Well, it began with pigments, which interact with light. Not hard to find, because iron and copper ions are present in living things. Pigments allow absorption of light. Response to light could be any of a number of things. There are two major pathways in response to light in eukaryotes: vision and photosynthesis. One converts light energy to chemical energy, the other gathers information from the environment about structures in the environment. The level of sophistication varies a great deal from simple organisms to complex ones like humans. Take a look at all of them, and the evolution of the eye is explained.
It is not logical to conclude that because a human eye depends for function on many interconnected parts that no simpler system could have biological value. It makes more sense to look at what there is, and compare.
Understanding the evolution of such complex systems as human vision is not a matter of faith, but hard work and careful observation. The evidence is available.
posted by
mousehop
on September 2, 2008 at 9:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: It's not a new proposition, but....
As I said in the blog, macroevolution is just the accumulation of changes in microevolution. So, yes, I do believe it happened all from evolution. And I don't see this as a matter of faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evolution is seen, and seen clearly. Extraoplation from one change to many is not faith; just simple reason. The laws governing such changes are identical. All you need is time, and there has been, well, lots of time since the first life appeared on Earth. After all, once you make one change, you have two starting points for the next changes. Then four, and so on. It doesn't take long to get rather a lot of changes.
Belief in a Creator, however, demands faith, because no one has seen a Creator. You say you can't see this kind of complexity coming from random processes, so there must be a Creator. I see random processes, but no Creator. Why make an illogical leap when none is necessary?
posted by
mousehop
on September 2, 2008 at 9:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Analogy
In a computer we have a screen, a cable connecting the screen to a video card plugged into the computer. There is software on the video card and there is driver software in the OS of the computer. The eye. There is the eye made up of various parts e.g. cornea, pupil, lens etc, the optic nerve connecting the eye to the brain and software in the brain to decode the images received in the eye. Now what came first, the eye, the optic nerve or the software in the brain. If the eye comes first in random evolutionary process then it would have been discarded as useless since there is no optic nerve or software to decode the information. Actually did the eye come before the brain or after. If the brain came first where did the software come from. If the optic nerve come first where did it connect to. Maybe it connected and one end magically grew an eye (with all its many varied parts) and then a brain formed at the other end.
It took humans to design and build a computer. A screen is a fairly simple device since it only displays. An eye is a little more complex since it is a receptor. After reading the above I can say that I don't really have the faith to be an evolutionist.
posted by
witenite3333
on September 2, 2008 at 1:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: It's not a new proposition, but....
mousehop, in one of the comments below you state "there is nothing in observation of nature, so far, that requires a Creator." Do you really believe that? What about the phenomenal complexity of nature? In your gut, do you really see all of Nature forming and coming together entirely by way of evolution? If so, I am very impressed with your degree of faith in the theory of evolution.
I just don't see it, frankly. I guess I'm just one of those simple minded folk who believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution than a creator at least initiating the whole process. Microevolution of course -- that's a given. It's the concept of macro evolution that I find pretty much impossible.
But perhaps I'm just not creative enough . . . .
posted by
JanesOpinion
on September 1, 2008 at 11:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: mousehop
You hit the mark exactly. The biggest problem for philosophers of science (besides maybe the complete lack of evidence suggesting the need for a Creator) is that assuming a Creator demands that we ask about His origin. How did this Intelligence become Intelligent, and where is She now?
I like your point about origins being a curiosity. I think that's one reason we haven't answered the questions about abiotic origins of life; learning about that has no practical value. It doesn't demand any new laws of nature, just a set of conditions that can work. Time spent on improving efficiency of resource use is much more valuable.
posted by
mousehop
on September 1, 2008 at 8:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: It's not a new proposition, but....
I don't suppose there is anything inherent in the idea of evolution that excludes the possibility of creation, really, but there is nothing in observation of nature, so far, that requires a Creator. Unnecessary complications are best avoided in any hypothesis; ergo, we stick to evolution, as nothing else is necessary.
I'm intrigued by your idea of anticipation. Can you offer examples? I mean, there are systems, like the immune system, which seems prepared for some stresses not yet encountered, which are explained, currently, by a random process of creating diversity. A sort of attempt to cover all the bases. This randomness covers all the usual suspects, and leaves room for evolution among bacteria and viruses not yet seen. That sort of anticipation is a kind of side-effect of the increasing complexity of life in general, but does have interesting philosophical possibilities. But I can fit it into evolution without much trouble, so far. Did you have other things in mind?
posted by
mousehop
on September 1, 2008 at 8:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Teacher, Teach
There are many minds that long to know...
posted by
mysteria
on August 31, 2008 at 11:32 AM
| link to this | reply
I just love you conclusion. I am very concerned about the backwards evolution of young people who are so used to technology they forget how to use their brain. Ask them what`s 4x4 and they will wip out their calculator! I think that`s a great issue for concern.
posted by
vogue
on August 31, 2008 at 6:33 AM
| link to this | reply
You have a point to ponder over ...
posted by
afzal50
on August 31, 2008 at 5:40 AM
| link to this | reply
you are a god damn genius!
posted by
muley12
on August 30, 2008 at 10:30 PM
| link to this | reply
mousehop
My problem with the concept of Intelligent Design is the blatant dishonesty upon which it's based. If one is willing to accept this "theory," the next logical question should be, intelligently designed by whom? The proponents neglect to the mention who this wondrous intelligent designer is, but with a wink and a nudge, we are to assume it is the Christian version of God, any only the Christian version. However, the undefined intelligent designer opens up possibilities these proponents are unwilling to accept. Without definition, this grand designer could very well be Allah, Zeus, Odin, or it could be the run away junior high school science project of a teen-aged quivering mass of protoplasm from a galaxy far, far away.
While I find the search for humankind's origins interesting and intriguing, ultimately, it means little to me. Whether I'm intelligently designed or evolved, I still have to go to work, keep my wife happy, and pay my mortgage.
posted by
Talion_
on August 30, 2008 at 7:07 PM
| link to this | reply
It's not a new proposition, but....
...do creation and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? Perhaps the latter could function within or as a part of the former. Also, when it comes to the human body, I've often being intrigued by the fact that its structure occasionally displays signs of anticipation. In other words, certain body elements are in place in order to prevent something else from occurring, or to ensure that something occurs. Anticipation kind of calls for an intelligence capable of forethought, whereas evolution, by its nature, is pretty much sequential. My reflections are not flawless, I know. It's just that there are enough niggling little things which raise questions in my mind about evolution, so that I can't buy it as a stand-alone theory. But boy, it's fun to talk about....
posted by
McKnife
on August 30, 2008 at 6:12 PM
| link to this | reply