Evolution Argument ( Why we cannot prove it )

[ShadowWolf]

I was just posting this up here since I found this ( seemingly ) cool area here.

Take a gander at this, but I think I've figured out WHY we cannot reproduce life:

The world as we know it is a system, where each individual has a specific part in the entirety of it all. Because of this, each part of the system is capable of performing certain fuctions. Let's compare the human with that of, say, a TV.

Ever try to turn your TV on once, and without turning it off turn it on again?

I think this applies directly to the reason why we cannot, ourselves, create life. Let's address the question of a woman's womb. Well, the womb of a woman insn't actually creating life, but rather manipulating energy to assist the system in creation of life. Note that no special things are done in most situations and the system inside of the woman DOES shift to support this as well.

The problem with the whole evolutionary proof is that we, as people, cannot reproduce the evolution of life without first destroying life itself.

Does this make any sense to you all?

 

[Elledan]

<< The problem with the whole evolutionary proof is that we, as people, cannot reproduce the evolution of life without first destroying life itself.

Does this make any sense to you all? >>

Nope, not at all.

Once we acquire sufficient data, we too will be able to create lifeforms out of non-organic materials.

 

[ShadowWolf]

That makes no sense to me...how could you possibly create life when other life exists? You'd have to figure out how children are born and do it that way, but that wouldn't PROVE anything at all would it? The system for creation of life doesn't exist, thus is why you'd have to destroy life in order to be able to create it ( I do mean in a small area of course ) but, that is difficult enough itself.

 

[jhu]

your position doesn't make much sense. but please clarify what "life" means.

 

[Sahakiel]

Two things.
1. I'm confused by your first post. Header is evolution, suddenly we're talking about life, creating life, giving birth not actually creating life.. and so on. All I can say is, "huh?"
2. What's the definition of "life"? note: you answer that definitively and you'll be the greatest philosopher of all time.

 

[bizmark]

Goddamnit I'm addicted to this forum. I try to quit, but I keep coming back....

anyway, I see what he's saying. Only once has life formed where once there was no life. All subsequent life has followed from this initial instance of life. Even if we created life out of non-living materials, our living selves are necessary to that process.

Life begets life begets life. What begot the inital life?

This argument holds regardless of how one defines "life". If one accepts that "life" exists now, and that it has existed in the past, and that all currently-"living" things are the result of actions or processes of other "living" things, and you accept that at one point in the past there was no "life", then the step from non-"life" to "life" was a huge one and one that can never be replicated without first annihilating all current "life".

 

[rimshaker]

<< Goddamnit I'm addicted to this forum. I try to quit, but I keep coming back....

anyway, I see what he's saying. Only once has life formed where once there was no life. All subsequent life has followed from this initial instance of life. Even if we created life out of non-living materials, our living selves are necessary to that process.

Life begets life begets life. What begot the inital life?

This argument holds regardless of how one defines "life". If one accepts that "life" exists now, and that it has existed in the past, and that all currently-"living" things are the result of actions or processes of other "living" things, and you accept that at one point in the past there was no "life", then the step from non-"life" to "life" was a huge one and one that can never be replicated without first annihilating all current "life". >>



Excellent answer and train of thought. Personally, i'm happy with Adam and Eve.... my brain hurts.

 

[m0ti]

I'd just like to point out that sperm and eggs are also alive. one celled organisms that exist within a larger framework, but very much alive, so life isn't exactly being created at the child level, just maybe transformed.

 

[BurntKooshie]

This whole discussion is so devoid of facts, and doesn't even belong here to begin with, I figured I'd add my two cents to lighten the mood:

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on it's face and the egg is frowning and looking a bit pissed off. The egg mutters, to no-one in particular, "Well, I guess we answered THAT question..."

 

[geek167]

It is impossible to prove evolution or creationism because good science is reproducable.

We cannot go back and try to reproduce either one. To believe in either evolution of creationism you have to have faith.

We can create theories and facts about the present but we have no FACTS about the past to prove either.


This isn't highly technical. It is called Science.

 

[Elledan]

<< Life begets life begets life. What begot the inital life? >>


- Amino-acids can form on their own out of anorganic substances under normal conditions.
- things like membranes and various organic substances are often formed in meteors.
- the first life probably started in the oceans, near an area with geothermal activity. These organisms lived on various chemicals.

Sure, we don't know exactly yet how these amino-acids form cells, but we can observe that the cells of every multi-celled organism are build up out of a collection of parts which formed seperately. This is the so-called endosymbiosis theory.

 

[CTho9305]

<< << The problem with the whole evolutionary proof is that we, as people, cannot reproduce the evolution of life without first destroying life itself.

Does this make any sense to you all? >>

Nope, not at all.

Once we acquire sufficient data, we too will be able to create lifeforms out of non-organic materials.
>>


agreed.

ROFL@bk

 

[ShadowWolf]

Well, at least wbwither understood what I was trying to say.

Also, I think the definition of life is defined within the statement where I talk about creating life: Simply something who is living.

By create I mean we generate through no use of things existing now ( eggs, sperm, etc ... ).

I also never went off topic, the discussion of evolution vs. creationism is based on life in and of itself, thus discussion that topic leads to revelations about the debate.

Anyways, I'll re-explain:

When discussing evolutionary theory, often scientists are called upon to create or prove evolution. The problem with this is simple: A system or environment must be at a state to support the desired results or the end result simply will not happen. More simply put: Things can't happen when the environment is wrong to make those things happen. Such as turning on your TV. You can't turn on a TV which is already on, the environment for that is not there, but rather replaced with sustaining the "life" of the TV. A similar result exists when trying to evolve or create a species. The environment of creation or evolution must pre-exist, which in the case of life creation no life may exist at all. Thus, to prove either way would require you to exterminate life in a controlled area to provide the proper result.

To state that this discussion is void of facts is odd anyways, perhaps you're just judging me based on THEORIES and not FACTS because you simply wish the theories to be true.

A lot of science is theories, and I apologize for putting this thread here in the first place, it was just on my mind so I decided to post it

 

[Turkey]

... but you can turn on someone else's TV, even if yours is on. So what prevents creation of life even though there is life around us? Are you proposing that life is some sort of ether-like substance that cannot be created or destroyed? What happens to it when someone dies? Did the first animals in creation somehow contain more of it than we do now since they were created first? Do larger or more sentient beings have more of it than smaller or less sentient? Is it dished out in discrete quanta or infinitely variable quantities? Can a person acquire more of it? If so, by what means? If they do, does that mean somewhere they are killing a kitten? Or are you saying this life-ether can only be created/grown if it is already present within a "life?" If so, where did it come from in the first place? What happens when a person dies/is dying/makes a miraculous comeback? What stimulates it to be created/grow? If a living thing becomes fragmented (cut off a tree limb) what happens?

 

[jhu]

By create I mean we generate through no use of things existing now ( eggs, sperm, etc ... )

i still don't quite understand what you're getting at. we can basically make our own bacteria by making spheres of lipid bi-layers and injecting some dna and proteins. it's that simple.

 

[bizmark]

<< ... but you can turn on someone else's TV, even if yours is on. So what prevents creation of life even though there is life around us? Are you proposing that life is some sort of ether-like substance that cannot be created or destroyed? What happens to it when someone dies? Did the first animals in creation somehow contain more of it than we do now since they were created first? Do larger or more sentient beings have more of it than smaller or less sentient? Is it dished out in discrete quanta or infinitely variable quantities? Can a person acquire more of it? If so, by what means? If they do, does that mean somewhere they are killing a kitten? Or are you saying this life-ether can only be created/grown if it is already present within a "life?" If so, where did it come from in the first place? What happens when a person dies/is dying/makes a miraculous comeback? What stimulates it to be created/grow? If a living thing becomes fragmented (cut off a tree limb) what happens? >>



There's no need to be absurd. The TV analogy doesn't work on many levels, although it is useful for elucidating the basic idea.

The key observations here are:

1) All observable life came about as a direct result of the actions or processes of living things.

2) Life exists. At one point in the past, life did not exist.

3) Therefore, sometime, life must have formed from non-life.

4) This life-from-non-life process is irreproducible, primarily because we ourselves are alive.



<< i still don't quite understand what you're getting at. we can basically make our own bacteria by making spheres of lipid bi-layers and injecting some dna and proteins. it's that simple. >>



Yes, we can make our own bacteria, but we ourselves are alive. The life that we create has its origins in something else that is living -- namely, ourselves.

If it sounds like I'm repeating myself, that's because I am.

 

[ShadowWolf]

Turkey:
You have to think of each TV set as a closed system, which is basically is. Life is also a closed system, but you can create mini-systems within that larger system. What I'm saying is: In order for us to be able to create life and thus witness ( or not witness ) evolution, we would have to destroy ALL life within a specific closed area. That's the problem. I'm not making any claims as to what life is, but rather just the generation of it ( thus a living organism ).

Jhu:
The key point is that all of those are products from the system of sustaining life.

 

[CTho9305]

<< By create I mean we generate through no use of things existing now ( eggs, sperm, etc ... )

i still don't quite understand what you're getting at. we can basically make our own bacteria by making spheres of lipid bi-layers and injecting some dna and proteins. it's that simple. >>



I think he'd also require we fab the DNA and proteins artificially, which, while tedious and expesive is probably doable even with current technology.

edit: shadowwolf got a post in before me . I now believe that shadow is going to disallow anythign we made, because we are the product of evolution (dont exactly understand), making this in fact impossible without a few billion years on your hands. I dont exactly understand the purpose of this question... maybe I dont even understand the question

 

[PowerEngineer]

Well Wolf, I don't see how you get to the statement that we will never be able to create life. If you mean, as wbwither suggested, that this would be the equivalent of life creating life, which is not the same as life coming into being where no life has been before (Star Trek-ish sounding) -- then I see your point.

Geek, I agree that the purest science occurs in areas where we can stage experiments that verify the truth in our conjectures. However, I have to take exception to your assertion that we have "no facts about the past" and that all beliefs concerning unreproducable events are faith based. Clearly, we have millions of facts about the course that life took on this planet in the fossil records (as well as other facts concerning the geology of this planet and the cosmology of our universe) to work with. These certainly aren't enough to pull together a complete error-free story of life, but it (along with Ocum's Razor) does allow us to piece together the best explanation we can come up with right now -- which is called evolution. Of course we'll continue to unearth (literally and figuratively) new facts that will change and (more importantly) improve our explanation.

Now THAT is really what science is all about: the constant search for new facts (both supporting and counterdictory) that lead to ever improving explanations of reality. And that is strikingly different from the faith-based creationist belief that starts and ends with the same static (God-revealed) "truth".

You might also reflect on the fact that even reproducable science does not "prove" anything in the most absolute sense. As one example, consider what Einstein's theories on special and general relativity did to Newtonian physics.

 

[bizmark]

<< shadow is going to disallow anythign we made >>



Yes, that's exactly right, because we ourselves are alive, and we are trying to prove that life can emerge from non-life. If we create life in a lab, that's not proving anything except that life can be formed from intelligent design. No I'm not a creationist.

Let me see if I can put this in terms of some equations.

What we'd LIKE TO prove:

(Lots of NONLIVING elements) ===> LIFE

What we CAN prove:

(Lots of NONLIVING elements) + (The creative power of humans, i.e. something LIVING) ===> LIFE

We can NEVER remove the LIFE element from the left side of the equation.



<< I dont exactly understand the purpose of this question... maybe I dont even understand the question >>



Yeah, I don't really think that it's a question or something worth debating. It's essentially a paradox -- it's interesting to look at, but once you've figured out the basic facts, you really can't get much out of thinking about it. Just an interesting twist of fate.

 

[Elledan]

ShadowWolf,

Even IF there is some mysterious lifeform which created life on earth, it still remains a lifeform, and must therefore have been formed in some way or another.

Spontaneous generation of life is the ONLY possible explanation for the formation of life.

 

[Sahakiel]

Quite simply put, I think anything you or anyone else is arguing is irrelevant until we establish just exactly what is the meaning of this term "life" that everyone keeps throwing around. Until that is defined, I don't think anything argued will apply.

 

[Elledan]

<< Quite simply put, I think anything you or anyone else is arguing is irrelevant until we establish just exactly what is the meaning of this term "life" that everyone keeps throwing around. Until that is defined, I don't think anything argued will apply. >>


Life - a complex system of chemical reactions or similar, which is able to interactively react to its environment.

 

[Evadman]

Life - a complex system of chemical reactions or similar, which is able to interactively react to its environment.

A computer would fit those terms ( except for the cemical part, but that can be argued / bipassed )

Pretty much everyone here can point out what is alive, and what isn't. But what exactly are the difference that we are looking at?

Here is a question: Is a virus alive?

 

[criter]

02.03.06
Life per say is not the physical, rather the spiritual. Given most do not consider the mineral kingdom to possess 'life' yet it does possess a corporal reality. Even what many consider 'human,' it is not vested with life till that ethereal spark manafest itself within that bag of water.
All this physical reality is just a head trip of G. In fact most of the universe is not the visible reality. And when the dimension of time is added the question becomes a mater of endurance. Living for a microsecond, or a century, ? does the duration that one exist qualify the importance or validity of that existance.
The limited existance within this corporal reality likely allows thought to improve one's lot within the corporeal/ethereal reality. Evolution could just be the progression one must endure (karma) to finaly get to the point where one does it all over again for the fun of it, or possibly even evolve to a higher consciousnes and become the G of your own universe. Learn your lessons well.