the universe

[SeagullSongs]

Well, they certainly know that the building blocks for life (amino acids) are easily found outside of this planet, and that life started relatively quickly here. Proves nothing, but "suggests" it's not too difficult. We're not even certain yet that there's no life on Mars, and that's pretty damn close.

As for "purpose". There is none, of course (IMHO).

I agree that I believe that there is no purpose to life. And who says that all life has to be formed using the amino acids we know? Why can't they be sulphur-based? Sulphur can also form 4 bonds like carbon.

EXACTLY. Similarly, atoms are made of protons and electrons and neutrons and stuff. But what are the protons, electrons & neutrons made of?

Mind blowing.

Electrons are fundamental particles, that's to say they are made of electrons, and not any smaller components.

Protons and neutrons are regions containing quarks:
A proton contains 2 up quarks and 1 down, a neutron contains 1 up and 2 down. Radioactive decay occurs when a quark changes from one type to another.

A scene from the film Contact blew my mind.

In our Galaxy alone there are over 200 billion stars.

If one out of every million of them had planets

If one out of every million of them had life on the planets

If one out of every million of them had intelligent life, then there would be millions of civiliations out there.

That doesn't seem correct? 200 billion times a millionth times a millionth times a millionth is to the order of ten millionths, not millions of civilisations? It might work with hundredths rather than millionths.

ANother mind blower, our nearest neighbouring star is 4.5 light years away. My understanding is you would have to travel 4.5 years at 56,000,000 mph to reach it. It is just one of 200 BILLION stars, and out galaxy is one of 200 billion galaxies.... cool or what

It's even more than that, the speed of light is ~186,000 miles per second, or ~670,000,000 miles per hour. Mind-blowing!

Darwinian evolution is incomplete, which is essentially why it is still considered a theory.

One of the biggest problems is that the "random mutations" have never been observed. If it were true, you would find countless useless physical traits in life forms that randomly mutated but have no specific purpose like you suggest - but we don't. There are various "evolutionary scars" such as the human tail and wisdom teeth - but they once had a purpose in previous existences.

How often do you see a lifeform reproduce, only to find it had randomly mutated an extra leg, or perhaps gills, or anything else - Never.

If a life form did develop a "random mutation", more often than not the life form would survive even if the mutation were a hindrance - and so we would be able observe these "random mutations" in every life form on the planet today if it were true.

It is clearly not a case of trial and error. Life evolves to survive in its environment by adaptation - this is very specific and can be seen amongst even the most recent of known life forms. You won't find a single trait in any species on the planet that doesn't serve a purpose - doesn't appear very random at all.

I'm going to pretend I didn't read any of that, I don't want to have to quote my ENTIRE biology textbook to prove you wrong.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Admittedly that was an extreme example for arguments sake - but the point was that evolution always find solutions to environmental problems and it doesn't randomly mutate traits for sake of it.

Physical traits are a result of genes and that is what Darwin studied to create the theory of evolution.

If you choose any trait from any species out of the billions of life forms on the planet there will always be reason for it being there. It would be remarkably unlikely for natural selection to destroy every non-adaptive random mutation and keep only the adaptive mutations - but as unlikely as that sounds it appears to be true, unless of course that aspect of the theory of evolution is wrong...

I can't explain it for you here, I don't have time, but you're very confused on the subject of evolution, both conceptually and in the detail. Do a bit of research then come back I'd say.

 

[Silk]

Admittedly that was an extreme example for arguments sake - but the point was that evolution always find solutions to environmental problems and it doesn't randomly mutate traits for sake of it.

Once again you are confusing mutations with physical traits. And if you are saying, as you appear to be, that no "bad" or even neutral mutations have ever been observed, then this is just simply false.

Physical traits are a result of genes and that is what Darwin studied to create the theory of evolution.

What did he study? He didn't study GENES as he didn't know about them.

If you choose any trait from any species out of the billions of life forms on the planet there will always be reason for it being there. It would be remarkably unlikely for natural selection to destroy every non-adaptive random mutation and keep only the adaptive mutations - but as unlikely as that sounds it appears to be true, unless of course that aspect of the theory of evolution is wrong...

It's not clear what you mean by "non-adaptive random mutation" - give us an example of the sort of thing you mean.

 

[pigbite]

The theory is that natural selection will favour adaptive mutations and eliminate non-adaptive ones - but the theory ignores the reality that many non-adaptive traits would survive the gene pool yet have never been observed despite the billions of known life forms.

er... no.

 

[Frutos]

Not strickly true. We understand the basic building blocks for life to exist and the key elements required. However, the miracle that another planet has all of these in a sustainable atmosphere with the correct temperature is a long shot.

Surely we only understand the basic building blocks for life as we know it?

Who is to say that there isn't life out there somewhere which is formed from utterly different building blocks and in utterly different conditions than we either understand or think possible?

Whatever though, I am TOTALLY convinced that something is out there somewhere.

 

[Aadam]

...

 

[jgmcdee]

The theory is that random mutations working alongside natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. "Adaptive traits" such as the useful traits that we see in all life forms survive, whereas the "non adaptive" traits such as harmful or useless mutations are eliminated.

The problem with this is that only adaptive traits have been observed.

We only started thinking about genes ~150 years ago. Evolution runs over much larger timescales (regardless of if you think of it as continual, punctuated equilibrium, whatever) so you are not going to be expected to find any mutation, adaptive or non-adaptive, in the timeframe that you are talking about.

And when you look further back then of course you're only going to find the adaptive mutations because they're the ones that survived.

But, if you want an example of a non-adaptive random mutation that survived because its effects aren't too serious then how about albinism (not to be mistaken with Albionism, which is of course a totally beneficial mutation that is expected to overtake the entire population of the south coast in the next few years)?

 

[Silk]

The theory is that random mutations working alongside natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. "Adaptive traits" such as the useful traits that we see in all life forms survive, whereas the "non adaptive" traits such as harmful or useless mutations are eliminated.

The problem with this is that only adaptive traits have been observed. Random mutations that we have observed are almost always harmful. A very recent example of evolution at work is the human ability to digest lactose, something we as a species were unable to do several thousands of years ago (some still can't today) but once people domesticated cattle mutations were acquired that allow them to continue drinking milk into adulthood.

Evolution only shows evidence of adapting to its environment and/or to enhance the chances of survival of the species. It clearly does not gamble with genes, it only creates physical traits which are required.

I can't give you an example of a "non-adaptive random mutation" because I don't believe they exist, but the theory relies upon it and that's the general dispute. It appears that randomness does not play a part in the evolution of species, but instead the genetic mutations which lead to new or improved physical traits are not actually random at all.

I'm not clear on what you see as the difference between a "non-adaptive random mutation" and a harmful mutation, for example a genetic disease.

 

[pigbite]

But, if you want an example of a non-adaptive random mutation that survived because its effects aren't too serious then how about albinism (not to be mistaken with Albionism, which is of course a totally beneficial mutation that is expected to overtake the entire population of the south coast in the next few years)?

Don't think I fancy a bunch of mutant JCLs clamouring for season tickets.

 

[Bean]

What's the point of having such a enormous space with one miniscule planet with life on? There must be other life forms out there like us.

 

[SeagullSongs]

What's the point of having such a enormous space with one miniscule planet with life on? There must be other life forms out there like us.

Who says there has to be a point? I look at a fly buzzing around the room and conclude that it has no point on this planet but to produce more flies, which also have no other purpose.
In the long run, what's our purpose? To survive? So in the meantime, think!

 

[Silk]

This is my point. The "random mutations" as described in the theory of evolution are not random at all. The mutations that we have observed have always been genetic disorders. The mutations in evolution are always adaptive, I have never read about a known case of evolution making a mistake or producing random traits.

It is all mutations and thus "mistakes ". Copying errors. The question is whether these errors result in a benefit or a hazard. You seem to agree that mutations have resulted in both benefits AND hazards, so you seem to be arguing with yourself. Carry on, but it seems futile.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Everything seems to have a purpose. The role of flies are to a) speed up bio-degradation and b) to contribute to the food chain. If flies somehow became extinct, then potentially the food chain would be so disrupted that it could wipe out a majority of species on the planet.

The universe and its laws, including the laws of life, all seems to be very specific yet vital for our existence. It is not difficult to appreciate that there could be a greater point to everything.

Everything seems to have a purpose because after millions and millions of years of life on this planet, we are at this point, with this number of species because everything has evolved together. No one species would be hear without another, that holds for all life because all life has evolved together out of very basic building blocks.

Come on, come clean, after reading all your posts I reckon you're a keen disciple of The Darwin Delusion, or some such text offering so called scientific evidence to disprove evolution and support some form of revised creationism.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It is all mutations and thus "mistakes ". Copying errors. The question is whether these errors result in a benefit or a hazard. You seem to agree that mutations have resulted in both benefits AND hazards, so you seem to be arguing with yourself. Carry on, but it seems futile.

Exactly, only the mutations that actually turn into a benefit go on to reproduce, any mutations that do not help a species tend not to survive. It therefore leads creationists to suggest something has a hand in the mutations, when actually it is purely what survives best.

 

[SeagullSongs]

Everything seems to have a purpose. The role of flies are to a) speed up bio-degradation and b) to contribute to the food chain. If flies somehow became extinct, then potentially the food chain would be so disrupted that it could wipe out a majority of species on the planet.

The universe and its laws, including the laws of life, all seems to be very specific yet vital for our existence. It is not difficult to appreciate that there could be a greater point to everything.

I'm aware of their importance within food webs, but what is the point in the food web itself and the animals which make it up? My mentality is that there is no point to anything and that we should just make the most of our relatively short time on the planet!

Genetic disorders are almost exclusively caused by new mutations in the DNA. Like cancer, anthropogenic factors are likely contributors. Genetic disorders are effectively broken programming, sometimes hereditary but rarely - and this is not related, nor can it be compared, to genetic mutations in the theory of evolution. Genetic disorders do not lead to new physical traits, they simply make existing processes in the body to malfunction and cause disease.

If it were as clear-cut as that, there would be no 'genetic disorders' around today, it's all about probability. If a genetic disorder prevents an organism from creating offspring, you can deduce that any individuals with the genetic disorder will be the origin of the mutation, regardless of how common it is.
Natural selection is all about increasing the likelihood of an organism passing on its alleles to offspring hence increasing the allelic frequencies. If the allele is beneficial to the survival of an organism, it is more likely to survive to an age where it can reproduce and pass it on.
Natural selection is very difficult (if not impossible) to identify in humans nowadays, not only due to the fact evolution is a long process, but also because of the massive diversity in populations and the fact humans are spread across practically the entire planet.
Also, it's not only the - for example - attractive or well endowed people who are 'selected' to mate, it's almost everyone, so this slows down the already slow process even more.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

They say the universe is huge...it probably is...but what is outside the universe? Take a trip on this rocket to see how big it ishttp://spacewander.com/USA/english.html You do not have to do anything but enjoy the ride.
Does'nt it make man look small...so as big as the universe is it goes back as well as we have bugs who have parasites on them who have microbes on them...Big fleas have little fleas on their back to bite them...little fleas have smaller fleas...Ad Infitum.
We are but a split second alive compared to time in the universe....and as long as we finish above Palace I could'nt give a monkeys!

 

[SeagullSongs]

What if (by one means or another) there is another big bang in the distant future, formed from the remnants of the current universe? What if this has already happened an infinite number of times and the various cosmological constants and values are different every time? Then there would at some point (now) be a universe where the conditions were just right for life to develop.

Any civilisation that does evolve and is capable of thought would surely come to believe there is a purpose for its existance? That's us - here and now - and time can only be appreciated now because there are life-forms to appreciate it. The time between all life becoming extinct and developing again in the next universe is both negligible and infinite.

This is what my mind tends to contemplate when it wanders.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I have not read the Darwin Delusion but maybe I should.

In the 21st century as we have effectively falsified so many traditional religious beliefs, much of the western world has adopted a nihilistic and sobering form of pseudo-realism that the life, the universe and everything is nothing more than an inevitable consequence of an infinite realm - and life and the universe is just the way things are, devoid of any purpose.

Although this could be true, it's equally important to logically and rationally admire that the universe does appear to be fine tuned for our existence. This can be seen with gravity - a force which, had it been even remotely stronger or weaker, the planets wouldn't form. You could apply the same logic to the electromagnetic or nuclear forces. They are laws of the universe that abide by rules. Why should there be any rules?

You could go on to admire the elements - from oxygen to radium - all of which have specific and often crucial properties and values. Or perhaps admire the existence of light, what would the universe be without it. There are countless fundamental laws of the universe which are crucial for our existence. Science doesn't question WHY they exist, it's not its role to, but just explain how it exists.

Rationally, the universe should be a chaotic mess - but it's because of these fundamental laws that it exists with order, just as the laws of life and evolution allow us to exist. If there were a super computer powerful enough to randomly generate a universe, it would almost always be a chaotic mess - but for whatever reason ours has almost impeccable order - but how and why?

Science likes to explain this by theorising that perhaps we live in one of many universes - or maybe this is just the latest edition of an almost infinite rebirths of our universe. While that could be true, it's just as naive as saying there is no purpose to everything when it certainly seems as if everything has been fine tuned for our existence.

You have hit the nail on the head in some ways. Science is theorising by definition, then cementing a theory through experimentation. There are no scientific facts, only well proved theories. Science accepts that it only knows at best 5% of what makes up the universe, the other 95% being dark matter and energy and other stuff we simply know nothing about. You make it sound like we know exactly what makes the universe like it is, but actually we can only best guess, come up with things like the Higgs Boson then through experimentation try to see if the theories stand up.

What is naive is that just because we don't know everything, there really is no rational reason to jump on some belief system that there must be a purpose for everything? Why is it necessary to have faith that there is something else when we can simply continue to enjoy discoveries such as the recent Higgs Boson that unlock our current understanding.

Far from being naive, the joy of science is that it openly welcomes deviations from it's established laws and theories. If something can be disproved, such as Einstein's theory over Newton, then it is embraced (all be it with a great battle) within the scientific community and our text books revised accordingly.

Right now, you're not happy with evolution, but appear to be jumping to a finite conclusion that because that theory is not perfect, there must be intelligent design (certainly the implication of your posts) or purpose to existence beyond simple chemistry, biology and physics. Why make the leap? Science doesn't make the leap, it will continue to test theories and scrap them if they turn out to be wrong.

 

[Mr Burns]

That doesn't seem correct? 200 billion times a millionth times a millionth times a millionth is to the order of ten millionths, not millions of civilisations? It might work with hundredths rather than millionths.



It's even more than that, the speed of light is ~186,000 miles per second, or ~670,000,000 miles per hour. Mind-blowing!

.

Oops. Thanks for that. Meant to say 560,000,000, left of a nought, but still wrong. I always am mixing up the 560 and 670 ( not sure where I get the 560 from ). and I think the Contact quote was about the universe, not our galaxy so its 200 billion stars per galaxy times 200 billion galxies, so maybe it will work then........

 

[Mr Burns]

You have hit the nail on the head in some ways. Science is theorising by definition, then cementing a theory through experimentation. There are no scientific facts, only well proved theories. Science accepts that it only knows at best 5% of what makes up the universe, the other 95% being dark matter and energy and other stuff we simply know nothing about. You make it sound like we know exactly what makes the universe like it is, but actually we can only best guess, come up with things like the Higgs Boson then through experimentation try to see if the theories stand up.

What is naive is that just because we don't know everything, there really is no rational reason to jump on some belief system that there must be a purpose for everything? Why is it necessary to have faith that there is something else when we can simply continue to enjoy discoveries such as the recent Higgs Boson that unlock our current understanding.

Far from being naive, the joy of science is that it openly welcomes deviations from it's established laws and theories. If something can be disproved, such as Einstein's theory over Newton, then it is embraced (all be it with a great battle) within the scientific community and our text books revised accordingly.

Right now, you're not happy with evolution, but appear to be jumping to a finite conclusion that because that theory is not perfect, there must be intelligent design (certainly the implication of your posts) or purpose to existence beyond simple chemistry, biology and physics. Why make the leap? Science doesn't make the leap, it will continue to test theories and scrap them if they turn out to be wrong.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.