darwinism/evolution/entropy

[Maui]

Something that is often overlooked in America is that there is a new proof of evolution beyond the fossil record: DNA sequencing clearly shows the trail of evolution. There is no thermodynamic inonsistency. Yet at the same time, our definitions of life are being stretched: we have just discovered that Earth's largest biosphere (ocean floor muck) is populated with mostly pre-cellular forms. And what exactly is Phoenix looking for on Mars?

One thing for certain is that we are the luckiest bits of "life" in the known universe. We are indeed blessed -- by a God or the gods. Earth, with its warm sweet atmosphere, rocky continents surrounded by a thin blue crystal of water... The path of evolution continues, so our goal must be to preserve genetic diversity - not destroy it. Do we want to pass on our planet to cockroaches, or something a little higher?

(By the way, magpies have just been added to the short list of self - conscious beings...)

[donmartin]

re: darwin and thermodynamics/entropy

I am told that complexity and entropy are in direct relationship in that any increase in complexity means a direct and corresponding increase in entropy because the greater the complexity the higher the probability of reduction in order. Does this mean that the more complex an organism the greater the probability of reduction in its order, and in the case of organisms such as the human species, the greater the probability of its imminent extinction? Is this one of the reasons for the great extinctions of the past? And to survive and explore, as a species, must home sapiens sapiens in some way create a less complex species?

And the passage referred to in St. John is John 1, (the "Christmas Message") written, I gather, in Ephesius, within the influence of Hellenistic philosophy: specifically the notion of "essence," a notion I believe to have been disputed as a first principle by Rene Descartes from whom we have derived much of our current Euro-centred philosphies. Herein may lie the dispute between darwinists and theologists.

Ironically, as we may regard darwinism as a depreciating algorithm, we are left in predictive thought, in the forthcoming absence of our species, with but a concept of our species. Or as we would say in terms of ancient philosophers, with the essence of existence ( dust to dust...).

So, perhaps evolution of species and entropy are the same phenomenon. Evolution is a function of our (all) species' extinction.

The meek shall inherit the earth. Those guys knew a lot more than we give them credit for.

[Acolyte]

Oct 1, 2008 8:19:49 GMT kiwistonewall said:

Acolyte,

I am bewildered at your speculations. I am always amazed at some of the weird and improbable theories that people come up with so they can justify their rebellion against the Creator.

However, I am firmly of the belief that creation is so obvious to us all that we are without excuse. (I have this on very good authority!)

As to the God you obviously have difficulty believing in? I'm sure I don't believe in Him/Her either.

The one I believe in IS the Almighty, the totally other, who exists outside our Universe, yet pervades every piece of it. In Him we live and move and have our being. He is the I WAS, the I AM and the I WILL BE.

I am convinced that He is there, and He is NOT SILENT. He has spoken by Prophets and (I believe) His Son.

But continue to seek, and pray that you will see.
May the God of all Truth open your eyes.

First, while I don't believe in the biblical God at all, that doesn't mean I don't think about the possibility there might be a God-Creator. But when I do, it seems to me to make more sense that there is only one Source, one Life going on.

I think (not believe) that maybe evolution & morphogenetic fields may both be how things work & I think some biologists may be on the right track when they look to external-to-the-body fields as being the source of impulse and originating thought. There are, for example, some strange things occurring when body parts are implanted or attached to people that are difficult to explain if it's all just cells & DNA.

What 'informs' my world view is that maybe the Reality IS God, that we are Her life force & we live in Her, so to speak, learning who She is & finding Knowledge to take back to Her either when we die, when we 'graduate' or when All Things Have Passed.

But these are only thoughts. The same as it is thoughts that maybe Life ticks along with evolution, perhaps guided by itself if Sheldrake & others have it right. Survival of the Fittest as a mechanism for Evolution doesn't seem to explain properly the wild explosion of variety that comes after an ELE. (Extinction Level Event) such as has occurred a number of times in the past. If random mutation is the srouce of differences, the 'explosion' should have been a more drawn out affair; the relative rapidity with which niches were filled with new species would seem to suggest something a little more rapid than an occasional mutation tick of the clock.

I don't see any difficulty, if Life is something different from the purely physical, & we DO seem to have problems defining Life & Consciousness within the world seen through the lens of Science, that there may be levels of Life & we aren't necessarily at the pinnacle of it all.

I think (not believe) that maybe there are Beings who view greater worlds or different vibrations to us - the different views of the Milky Way seen when you simply alter the frequency you use to view were an eye-opener to me (pardon the pun) & I realised that there may be 'modes' of living which experience different things to what I experience.

It's also possible that a larger Being could imitate the God-Creator & 'spluit' attention into smaller packets to focus on some aspect of existnece for learning purposes. Or perhaps a Being who has lifted themselves out of this 3D purely physical realm might reach down to prod a seeker in the right direction, or even 'life a life' to bring a message on a better way to live or learn.

There are mysteries out there & in here *points to self* that simply don't get addressed by science, but that doesn't mean we can't apply science methods to them to extract all possible information before we 'eat from the burrito pile' ;D ;D

It's been a long road getting here, but I lean more towards an original Source no longer available & look at the mystical events as perhaps more like the elder Beings trying to provide some light along the way, rather than there being messages direct from the God-Creator.

[jimg]

I don't know if this comment will steer the subject off track or not, but here goes.

We have had a discussion at work about God.
Ascribing the concept of God as the "lawgiver", there will always be a god in society.

The state, or a dictator may ascribe that position to himself (the cesars did). Absolute freedom would be anarchy as each man is his own god.

Now it seems to me, that when man decides that he is capable of creating justice, and law, that law will be relative to what the governing body decides. There would not be continuity through time, or between people.

If there is a God, a lawgiver, then there can be confidence in knowing your place in society. If you rebel against the laws, there is punishment (in this world or the next).

The reason all this came up was because Bill Mahr is trumpeting his new movie about why atheism rules. For all his freedom without God though, he doesn't come across as a very happy person.

[Acolyte]

Oct 13, 2008 3:02:48 GMT jimg said:

I don't know if this comment will steer the subject off track or not, but here goes.

We have had a discussion at work about God.
Ascribing the concept of God as the "lawgiver", there will always be a god in society.

The state, or a dictator may ascribe that position to himself (the cesars did). Absolute freedom would be anarchy as each man is his own god.

Now it seems to me, that when man decides that he is capable of creating justice, and law, that law will be relative to what the governing body decides. There would not be continuity through time, or between people.

If there is a God, a lawgiver, then there can be confidence in knowing your place in society. If you rebel against the laws, there is punishment (in this world or the next).

The reason all this came up was because Bill Mahr is trumpeting his new movie about why atheism rules. For all his freedom without God though, he doesn't come across as a very happy person.

The assumptions behind this view worry me a little - there's an implication that beings can't provide their own ethics or moral reasons for finding a better way of life.

And the religious texts would tend to disagree with the notion that 'If there is a God, a lawgiver, then there can be confidence in knowing your place in society' - Gods are notoriously difficult to please, have a habit of not following their own rules & regularly require their worshippers to go outside what most people consider to be ethical behaviour.

The actions that can follow using faith to decide on what is Truth are manifest in our history & rarely approach the rational. Making God the lawgiver seems to disassociate the rational mind from any control over the actions of the faithful. Somehow God the lawgiver never seems to be around to show what His truth is & His appointed representatives seem to always come down on the side of personal power.

[donmartin]

Is entropy the only truth?

[Acolyte]

Maybe the only Truths are Entropy and Life? Life holds back the decline caused by Entropic processes? Could that be the purpose of Life?

Oh, the pain, the pain... my head hurts...

[Maui]

Oct 14, 2008 7:15:20 GMT Acolyte said:

Maybe the only Truths are Entropy and Life? Life holds back the decline caused by Entropic processes? Could that be the purpose of Life?

Oh, the pain, the pain... my head hurts...

Yes! Exactly! But so what?

This week's NATURE (# 7214) has an Editorial and News item about the biodiversity crisis: "A quarter of mammals face extinction" (Natasha Gilbert, p. 717). Just the fact that life holds back entropy is no big deal. The fact that it holds back so well here on Earth, and has evolved over billions of years to this point and we are the stewards -- that is truly precious in the known universe.

Here is the challenge to religion: the answer is population control. How can intelligent adults expect their grandchildren to have anywhere near the resources that have been available to previous generations?

[Acolyte]

Population control is the answer to most of the problems we face. I gave up on the greenies a long time back because it's an issue they refuse to face. If we didn't have 7 billion people all producing wastes, the Earth systems wouldn't be getting pushed to limits.

Pollution, consumerism, food, water, heat emissions - none of these would be critical if there was (say) a billion people on the planet. Just dealing with the daily production of faeces for 7 billion people is a mind boggling concept.

But population is an issue everyone thinks is too precious to everyone else for them to consider adding it to any platform. Back in the 80's when i tried to work out why, I kept running into two barriers - religion and personal freedom. And yet nearly everyone I talked about it with was willing to limit their progeny if it meant a better life for their grandkids - the 'gotcha' was that they needed assurance that everyone else would also limit their progeny or they (mostly) wouldn't do it.

[donmartin]

Energy is limitless and available. Were a limit on population established, thereby creating a "closed" population, would we not then create a more sustainable orderly human environment? Entropy, even though it otherwise ensures the probability of failure of the complex human species , would then be negated, or at least limited, in its effect.? Instead of decreasing disorder, perhaps increasing order, both in the species, and its environment?

Is it not true, that environmentalism, of any nature or kind, is meaningless without limiting, or "closing" as it were, the population of the human species?

[kaz]

Quoting Donmartin "Were a limit on population established, thereby creating a "closed" population, would we not then create a more sustainable orderly human environment?"

Sounds like HITLER......

The way we are now is chaos at its best, I say go forth and multiply.... We cannot possibly hope to control our population. Look at China, they imposed a limit and male children became more valuable than female children.

As painful as it will be, we will self regulate our population through natural disaster, disease and starvation. I can't see how it would happen any other way.

[Acolyte]

Oct 17, 2008 8:05:38 GMT kaz said:

Quoting Donmartin "Were a limit on population established, thereby creating a "closed" population, would we not then create a more sustainable orderly human environment?"

Sounds like HITLER......

The way we are now is chaos at its best, I say go forth and multiply.... We cannot possibly hope to control our population. Look at China, they imposed a limit and male children became more valuable than female children.

As painful as it will be, we will self regulate our population through natural disaster, disease and starvation. I can't see how it would happen any other way.

1st... Hitler wasn't wrong in supposing we can create a better race by selective breeding - he was wrong because he thought he could define what 'BETTER' was. The FACT is, eugenics works - we know this because of cattle, sheep cats, dogs... the list goes on.

Population control in China did NOT cause males to be more valuable than females - that was the Chinese society. In a land where the male is dominant, if a family is only allowed one child they will try to ensure that child is male. It's not rocket science but it also isn't eugenics.

It may be painful to regulate population via destructive methods but a sane society could use rational thought & rational action to bring society into a survivable mode. Allowing things to run wild until 'natural disasters' bring population control is being animal. Apparently we are animals who wait for nature to limit our growth.

[Maui]

acolyre wrote:
"...a sane society could use rational thought & rational action to bring society into a survivable mode. "

I have always suggested that transportation was a first step. Fewer cars. Even by just repairing wreck-damaged Superliners, Amtrak could increse service on long-distance routes.

I forsee a future with geofusion-powered mag lev trains. The new insight I propose is solar induction of fusion.

I am excited because I just found some more "circumstantial" evidence" of inductions: Maunder wrote

"In November 1882, a monster sunspot easily visible to the naked , crossed the sun and when it was about halfway across, on November 17, a very violent magnetic storm, as these agitations of the magnetic needle are called, occurred."

And from Rosaly Lopes, ALIEN VOLCANOES:

Krakatau became restless in early 1883...erupted on May 20, and on August 26 an eruption vaporized the northern two-thirds of the island.

[donmartin]

I think the start of my question is whether all rational human conduct is consistent with and flows from what is referred to as evolution, which theory is at present described and set out by Darwin, and elaborated upon by authors such as Daniel Dennett and Jared Diamond.

Is all rational thought and conduct an essential aspect or outcome of the theory or algorithm of evolution and is such rational thought a limit which denies an otherwise natural, high entropic resolution to humanity?

And therefore, as somewhat of an aside, is all human thought and conduct, whether its nature be moral, ethical, or "appropriate", an outcome consistent with evolution and therefore contributory to or defining of species specific survival?

Essentially, does the algorithm of evolution, which in itself creates high entropy by increasing complexity, itself create rational thought and conduct which "limits" the evolution algorithm thereby creating order in a closed system? And from whence does such symmetry arise?

Remember, Einstein said that he could not deny the existence of God because, a priori, all should be chaos.

[Maui]

If you take a close look at proteins, order is not what first comes to mind. As I said above, DNA proves evolution -- and it also proves it is a messy process. There is no thermodynamic inconsistency, or unexplainable "symmetry."