Is life so complex that it requires a designer?

[arnisador]

I remember hearing once that:

"Astronmer's think life is probably out there because there are so many stars out there. Biologists think life is probably not out there because life is so complex"

Don't know where I heard it but it was interesting in terms of different perspectives.

I do like that! It has some truth to it. Astronomers see the number of options available in terms of potentially habitable worlds, whereas biologists see all that must go right to get a planet that supports life, followed by life itself!

My thought is that there is life out there. Under some theories, many of the basic materials for life were brought here by comets and the like anyway!

 

[arnisador]

I gotcha. I'm deffinitely a person who believes in evolution, maybe not to the extent that some do, but it deffinitely exists. However, without randomness, there must be purpose. Purpose hints at intellegence. Intellegence hints at design.

This is the argument that rivers are intelligent because they flow purposefully to the sea.

You're being far too anthropomorphic. Evolution doesn't necessarily create "better" creatures; look at the history of creatures leaving, and returning to, the sea. Mightn't dolphins be better off if they couldn't drown? To say that evolution is purposeful as though it pushes forward misses the point that evolution represents change to adapt--that isn't necessarily better or more advanced, just different. Bacteria are still here, because that appraoch is successful.

Did you actually read my posts? :idunno:
Your now telling me what my arguemnt was?

It's your responsibility to make your arguments clear--not others' responsibility to find sense in them.

I think you're failing to make your points clear. You might wish to either invest more time in your posts or, if that isn't worthwhile to you, sit this one out. If the other person cannot tell you what your argument was...it may well be your fault.

 

[mrhnau]

Eh, I don't buy this. If you have infinite time, and just need to get lucky once, the fact that order decays on average doesn't change that fact

Well said.

I do like that! It has some truth to it. Astronomers see the number of options available in terms of potentially habitable worlds, whereas biologists see all that must go right to get a planet that supports life, followed by life itself!

My thought is that there is life out there. Under some theories, many of the basic materials for life were brought here by comets and the like anyway!

I find the discussion of life on other planets quite interesting. It would be quite interesting if life is completely different than what we are used to. Even on earth, we have quite a variety of organisms. Extremophiles in undersea volcanoes, living in ice in the artic regions, the Dead Sea, its quite interesting. Who knows what form life might take?

*goes to get his xenobiologist degree and watch old Star Trek episodes*

hehe

MrH

 

[arnisador]

My opinion...speaking of life being "complicated" is meaningless without a metric. Is DNA complicated? What it makes is, but DNA itself is four bases repeated in various patterns. Is that complicated? Is the cratered surface of the moon complicated? Is the rain cycle complicated? How much more complicated is a kidney than a watch?

Without a metric, it's meaningless to try to discuss complicatedness in a scientific way. It's a fuzzy concept.

Eveolution seems an adequate explanation to me. It's the only scientific theory we have at the moment, so while--like others before it--it could be wrong, there are currently no competitors to it.

 

[OUMoose]

First explain how you are relevent here.

Are you referring to the self? If so, I am relevant as I am a living breathing human being. The discussion started on the origins of my kind, and their evolution over time. I'm guessing you're a human of some degree of intelligence, so you have as much relevance here as I do. Obviously we have differing viewpoints, which is great as we can normally both learn from each other, perhaps moving just that much closer to the truth.

Nowhere in the discussion did I see question of euclidian geometry, nor a debate attempting to disprove that the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle squared is equal to its rise squared plus its run squared. So I ask again, what is the relevance?

 

[MisterMike]

Obviously we have differing viewpoints, which is great as we can normally both learn from each other, perhaps moving just that much closer to the truth.

Is that why you posted:

Are you afraid to look outside your own little walled off utopia?

Pretty left field if you ask me. I described a couple of ways of looking at life in general, one form a more scientific standpoint, the other from a more "Relaxed" approach as someone else put it. Sounded like you were of the first group, typically characterized as people who need to see "the numbers" otherwise the insult you, so I merely posted something you might be able to accept.

Not exactly on the level of a Zen koan, but maybe if you had thought about it for a while it might have came to you.

Oh, and thanks for the neg rep points HardHead. Whilst not as low as the level of an anonymous "red dinger," I'd have thought you could have posted your comments here for all to see. I'm still all the more reformed now. You did a good deed.

 

[mrhnau]

Eveolution seems an adequate explanation to me. It's the only scientific theory we have at the moment, so while--like others before it--it could be wrong, there are currently no competitors to it.

Isn't that the question of the thread? Trying to see if there is sufficient reason to believe in a form of Intellegent Design? From what I've seen, its not the most thorough scientific treatment, more of a philosophical one at this point. If I'm wrong, correct me. I've not spent alot of time studying it.

A related question... Is ID just a code word for theistic evolution?

MrH

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I think Intelligent Design simply means Creationism. Just repackaged is all.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...

I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality. Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.

I wish I could have all the answers written down and proven in complex mathematical equations like they do. Oh the Joy! With my little black book, I could solve all the world's problems...Aren't we there yet??

It's evident right down to some of the martial styles they study. This foot here, that one there. This will happen if you do that. So controlling. No room for exploration. Total denial of the human spirit and that which they cannot control. It makes them feel safe, no matter what the situation. Too afraid to step into the unknown. Too much ego to lose. Too far up the black belt chain. Unwilling to step into the unknown, take risks, or let go of the hand that leads them. Like a child.

You call yourselves martial artists... Right. If that's the case we're at an all time low.

You could just say "You all are damned souls for pursuing science" and have been a lot more straightforward.

 

[OUMoose]

Pretty left field if you ask me. I described a couple of ways of looking at life in general, one form a more scientific standpoint, the other from a more "Relaxed" approach as someone else put it. Sounded like you were of the first group, typically characterized as people who need to see "the numbers" otherwise the insult you, so I merely posted something you might be able to accept.

Not exactly on the level of a Zen koan, but maybe if you had thought about it for a while it might have came to you.

My apologies if you read insult into my comments. However, statements like:

Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.

or

It's evident right down to some of the martial styles they study. This foot here, that one there. This will happen if you do that. So controlling. No room for exploration. Total denial of the human spirit and that which they cannot control. It makes them feel safe, no matter what the situation. Too afraid to step into the unknown. Too much ego to lose. Too far up the black belt chain. Unwilling to step into the unknown, take risks, or let go of the hand that leads them. Like a child.

or even

You call yourselves martial artists... Right. If that's the case we're at an all time low.

These aren't discussions topics nor life descriptions, they're insults. Maybe I really don't know what that word means, so I looked it up:

Insult: Verb. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.

Contemptuous... another big word. Lets review.
Contemptuous: Adjective. Manifesting or feeling contempt; scornful.

Hmmm. Sort of a non-descriptive definition. Just for clarification, lets look up scornful (or at least the root word, scorn).
Scorn:Contempt or disdain felt toward a person or object considered despicable or unworthy.

Unworthy? Despicable? Is that how you see the other members of this board, or just me? If I'm the only target of your ire, so be it. I've lived with worse. If it is everyone, however, why?

I'm sorry that you see the need for proof as a mind cut off from the spirit. Personally, I find blind faith just as disturbing.

Note to everyone else reading this thread: My utmost apologies for the thread hijacking. I will try harder to stay with the topic.

 

[Flatlander]

Oh, and thanks for the neg rep points HardHead. Whilst not as low as the level of an anonymous "red dinger," I'd have thought you could have posted your comments here for all to see. I'm still all the more reformed now. You did a good deed.

This doesn't need to be addressed in thread. If it starts private, keep it private please.

 

[Flatlander]

My utmost apologies for the thread hijacking. I will try harder to stay with the topic.

Good. Let's get back to it then. You guys all know the potential for this stuff to overheat. Help me out a bit, please.

Thanks folks. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

I think Intelligent Design simply means Creationism. Just repackaged is all.

I agree. Someone said (words to the effect of) "Intelligent Design is Creationism in a suit and tie." I understand where the ID people endeavour to draw a distinction, in that they accept the age of the earth at billions of years rather than thousands as in Creationism, but that seems like little difference to me.

As to the question of the thread, I agree that science isn't the only way to seek an answer to this question! But as it's a poll, I gave an indication of why I answered th epoll as I did. Put me down as not just a scientist but also a scientivist.

 

[arnisador]

These aren't discussions topics nor life descriptions, they're insults. Maybe I really don't know what that word means, so I looked it up:

Insult: Verb

You looked it up incorrectly, I'm afraid. You used the noun "insult(s)" but looked up the verb "insult" instead. Consider making the same error regarding the Holy See:

See: Verb. Perceive by sight or have the power to perceive by sight.

To put it another way, if one is to be pedantic, they should be...pedantic about it.

I don't think a definition of "insult" is very helpful. This is indeed a hot topic, but it's also a topic of real, current interest. Surely we can discuss it?

 

[MisterMike]

You know what, close me out. I'm done for now, maybe I'll sign up again some day.

 

[heretic888]

The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania. The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"

A question:

Do the organisms whom natural selection acts upons count as potential "designers"??

Laterz.

 

[mrhnau]

A question:

Do the organisms whom natural selection acts upons count as potential "designers"??

Laterz.

This could be taken a few ways:

1: Is God himself is still evolving
2: we, a still evolving species, can influence evolution, either directly (genetic manipulation, ie genetically modified crops ect) or indirectly (polution, global warming, ect). This might not be considered "natural" selection, but still an important influence

So, which are you refereing to? consider God an "organism"? non-human organisms relevant? what about symbiotic relationships? Parasites?

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

upnorthkyoso ... I agree there is the beginning of evidence that life either exists, or at one time did exist on Mars. But, as of this time, the fact remains, I believe unproven. We do have proof of liquid water. And Everywhere else we encounter liquid water, we have found life. It is an exciting time for science.

There is a thread on MT that outlined the discovery of life's traces on the martian surface.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21771&highlight=Life+Mars

 

[heretic888]

This could be taken a few ways:

1: Is God himself is still evolving
2: we, a still evolving species, can influence evolution, either directly (genetic manipulation, ie genetically modified crops ect) or indirectly (polution, global warming, ect). This might not be considered "natural" selection, but still an important influence

So, which are you refereing to? consider God an "organism"? non-human organisms relevant? what about symbiotic relationships? Parasites?

MrH

Specifically, I was referring to the Baldwin Effect (which James Mark Baldwin himself referred to as 'organic selection') --- the phenomenon by which ontogenetic evolution can indirectly influence phylogentic evolution.

This effect, it is argued, can help explain the evolution of increasing phenotypic plasticity among more recent species (most notably human beings, whose brains are the most phenotypically 'plastic' structure in nature), as well as explain the supposed disparity between genetic data (which indicates gradualism) and morphological data (which indicates punctualism).

This is to be distinguished from the now-discredited Lamarckism (which Baldwin himself argued against), which posits that ontogentic evolution directly influences phylogenetic evolution (i.e., learned traits lead to an immediate adaptation in the organism's genome). Most of the supposed 'neo-Lamarckian' models presented by evolutionary theorists today are actually forms of Baldwinian evolution.

The examples you cited --- genetic engineering, global warming, industrial revolution, etc --- are all manifestations of the Baldwin Effect, which itself is somewhat reciprocal. A population, through collective 'learning', can develop the ability to interact with their environment in a way that is adaptive (such as, say, language or the use of tools). This will lead to changes in the environment (either minor or major) that the population must then adapt to if they are to prosper. This leads to further collective 'learning' (assuming the population doesn't die out, that is) in response to the new, more complicated environment, which once again poses new challenges to the population, which need to be adapted to via further communal 'learning'.... and, so on and so on.

Among other things, this phenomenon helps explain the Flynn Effect --- the steady increase in average I.Q. scores among all industrialized nations throughout the 20th century.

That all being said, I also subscribe to a form of neo-Hegelianism and feel long-term evolution gradually leads to greater and greater 'spiritual' realization (i.e., self-transcendence). I do not feel, however, that "God" necessarily changes or evolves in the strict sense...

Hope that sums everything up. Laterz.

 

[andy]

What does not have a design? order from chaos?