Is evolution a theory?

[brandt]

Not that lucky really. Complex systems emerge, not spontaneously but as a result of earlier events. The "irreducible complexity" has already been examined and thoroughly trounced as an explanation.

[LorrB]

Nov 22, 2011 14:47:44 GMT 9.5 brandt said:

LorrB. I think that you would enjoy a book called Wholeness and Implicate Order. It is a fascinating text. Not only do I think that you would enjoy it, I think that you would benefit from it. I highly recommend it. I consider it one of the books that formative for me.

By Bohm? I read his book about Implicate and Explicate Order well over 20 years ago. That was a special special book for me at the time, not because it was about something new, but rather that it was a scientific explanation for what Eastern sacred texts had always told us. Theosophical literature explains the same thing, but in more detail. Light from the East?

In Bohm’s conception of order, then, primacy is given to the undivided whole, and the implicate order inherent within the whole, rather than to parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and continua. For Bohm, the whole encompasses all things, structures, abstractions and processes, including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures as well as those that involve metamorphosis of structures or things. In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and independent "sub-totalities". The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is fundamentally separate or autonomous.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm

Emphasis mine on the last bit... might add a bit to conversations on other threads - Free will. Temples in the Heavens, etc.

Maybe Cayce's source was right after all .. Mind & minds is/are the Builder/s. One Mind really, don't you think?

[mgc]

The first life form we see is already genetically highly sophisticated

the trick is in the "we see"

the only xplanation for our failure to make life appear out of non-living materials is imo that we still dont seem to have the right recipe.

i suggest to keep looking.

[brandt]

Just give it time.

[paul]

Here is one account of life from inert matter

www.aetherometry.com/DISPLAY/JBioHemOnc/JBHO01-02-01

[brandt]

Makes evolution even more likely and doesn't suggest aliens or intelligent designism.

[paul]

As you will have noticed, while the SAPA bions may well eventually produce a life form, they do so in the presence of protoplasmic soup. "Protoplasm is composed of a mixture of small molecules such as ions, amino acids, monosaccharides and water, and macromolecules such as nucleic acids, proteins, lipids and polysaccharides."

That is, the building blocks need to be pre-supplied. How does that occur?

[mgc]

for evolution to be true, life should form out of the "presupplied" materials. if life formed out of materials that were not available, that would be a miracle.

[paul]

So the early Earth did not provide a protoplasmic soup and yet the prokaryotes appeared. That is the core issue.

[mgc]

im sure a "soup" of some sort formed on earth.
if u know the ingredients to that soup, u can recreate the environment that allows life to form out of "dead" materials. (according to evolution that is).

[brandt]

Nov 23, 2011 11:47:42 GMT 9.5 paul said:

So the early Earth did not provide a protoplasmic soup and yet the prokaryotes appeared. That is the core issue.

Google, "how do organic compounds occur"

[paul]

"After allowing the experiment to continue for a week, the results where startling. The previously colorless solution inside the apparatus had turned red. Upon analyzing the solution, Miller found many organic molecules present, some of which couldn't be readily identified. The most important of created compounds, however, where amino acids. This, in effect, proved Oparin's theory that organic compounds COULD have been created in the early atmosphere. Further studies showed that some amino acids WOULD have combined with hydrogen cyanide (HCN), which is a byproduct of volcanic activity. This combination WOULD form purines and pyrinidines, which ARE USED to make nucleic acids, which in turn CREATE DNA "

Thus we have 5 hypothesised steps in a sequence. Where is the geological evidence to support this proposed mechanism?

[brandt]

Keep digging. You don't want any information from me. You need to find out for your self.

[Henka]

Here you go Paul, maybe this article will shed some light: www.livescience.com/17185-snowball-earth-animal-diversity.html

[paul]

"During the Cryogenian period, recent studies suggest the planet may have been a "Snowball Earth" at times, completely coated in ice for stints lasting millions of years. Researchers have suggested the deep freeze COULD have spurred the evolution of animals by pumping a surge of nutrients into the oceans."

"The burst in diversity later seen in the Cambrian MIGHT then be due to how traits of animals evolved and interacted with each other while Earth was a frozen orb. This interaction SPURRED the development of more features, and thus greater diversity. For instance, the advent of multicellular predators MIGHT have triggered ARMS RACES between hunters and prey, and sponges and burrowing worms around at the time MIGHT have altered the landscape in ways that helped other life flourish, just as earthworms do now by churning up soil."


Still seems a bit theoretical to me

[brandt]

Sure, it all came from aliens or some All-Father, that isn't theoretical. I am a bit offended that you would even engage in a conversation that I was stupid enough to believe was about mutually seeking truth. It appears that it was all about confirmation bias. So yes, I agree with you. It was all about God. There could never be enough evidence so it must be Deity directly.

[paul]

I was not intending to offend. Personally I would be surprised if the debate of religious creationism and Darwinian evolutionism encompassed the realities of Earth.

To start with that framework polarises existence into spirit and matter. Perhaps existence is more complex

[LorrB]

[paul]

Perhaps the human race is sometimes a co-creator.

[LorrB]

Nov 28, 2011 15:34:34 GMT 9.5 brandt said:

Sure, it all came from aliens or some All-Father, that isn't theoretical. I am a bit offended that you would even engage in a conversation that I was stupid enough to believe was about mutually seeking truth. It appears that it was all about confirmation bias. So yes, I agree with you. It was all about God. There could never be enough evidence so it must be Deity directly.

We are mutually seeking truth. But there are some things that some minds reject ... for me it would be that this world is it, there is nothing more to life. For others it might be that they find it impossible to believe that the Universe is teeming with life, seen and unseen.

Obviously, all types of people need to be a little accommodating to each other in discussions like this. We are not going to reach a consensus, we all 'know' what we 'know', until something comes along which changes what we 'know'.

Trying to come to an understanding of why people think what they do can be quite a rewarding exercise. It does not mean one has to agree with what they say, just respect each other as fellow men with a common goal - seeking more knowledge.