Evolution Argument ( Why we cannot prove it )

[Twilite]

While I currently have no revealing dialogue to add to the topic, I have noticed that either everyone has gone to sleep, or SOMEBODY has properly irritated everyone by attempting to inject the questionable aspect of philosophy/politics (frequently one and the same). Has this suddenly become an uncomfortable topic, or shall someone besides myself engage in properly shooting down the "thumper"?

 

[bizmark]

<< 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. >>



The only assumptions about 'life' that we need to make are: 1) we (humans) are 'living', and 2) at one point in the past, there was nothing which was 'living'. (Taking something which is 'living' to be something which has the quality of 'life'.) Everything else follows.

 

[Twilite]

Ok, since the audience is absent for the time being, I will offer a reply to my own commentary. In response to the query of a virus being "alive", by the provided definition, the answer is a resounding YES, absolutely. As far as the philisophical theories go, to each their own. If you have found an "ultimate" purpose, excuse, or definitive theory as to why "life" exists and continues in it's inimitable fashion, I applaud your sense of security. I hope that it gives you comfort and direction. That is one of the unfortunate necessities of being a socially acceptable human being. Sadly enough, I believe the question at hand is the "ultimate" question. Before anything we currently know of actually "became" something, there was allegedly "nothing". This even applies to the "invisible / multi-dimensional" items which are currently being theorized about (dark matter, muons, quarks, and such). Even assuming the "G" entity as a possibility, the question remains; What was there before that, and how did it come to be if there was in fact nothing to begin with. The answer, by these terms, is currently impossible to comprehend, nevermind to describe. If nothing else, you would need a common frame of reference to make a comparison, and as far as I can see, the dead won't be telling us about the finer points of that issue any time soon. Good luck with the rest of the argument.....

 

[singh]

It seems as though you have forgotten to write anything abou the title posted. Anyways, I would like to point out that "life" can be looked as a complex system created from much (much) simpler systems. So even though a simple system (any system) could be looked upon as lifeless, a complex system (with complex interactions) could be thought of as "life". Simply put, "life" could originate from (seemingly) "lifeless" systems. Evolution (by definition) is exactly that. Sure, evolution may even be (seemingly) random, but there is always a probability (even if it's very small) that something simple could turn into something vastly complex. So it is simply a matter of waiting long enough.

 

[jhu]

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

ok, how about we make something else that uses the same idea:

1) barrier that seperates inside from outside (eg lipid bilayer)
2) non-conventional protein machinery (ie we create our own)
3) dna-like protein encoding scheme

what'd we get is, again, life.

 

[Elledan]

<< Here is a question: Is a virus alive? >>


Nope. A virus consists out of a number of chemicals, but no active processes take place within the virus. It only has a string of DNA or RNA, contained within a construction build up out of various substances.

I consider viruses to be mere side-effects of evolution; formed during the evolution of certain species.

Also, a virus can not look for a host, it can not protect itself, move itself and does not require any energy, nor does it produce any. In short, a virus is as much a lifeform as a grain of sand is. More complex yes, alive no.

 

[LadyJessica]

<< I consider viruses to be mere side-effects of evolution; formed during the evolution of certain species. >>



Yes, possibly mutated transposons. Speaking of which, did you know that people probably have at least 4000 transposons in their genes?

 

[ShadowWolf]

You're right -- I disallow anything we made. I'm no creationist, not even part. I do not fully believe in evolution as it exists now.

What I was trying to state is that in evolution, you cannot prove evoultion exists per-se because evoultion is currently occuring. We CAN create Life but we cannot generate life because it would require US and that's the factor that I'm getting at.

Besides, I believe amino acids & protiens are a product of their environment ( thus is why they form specific lifeforms ) and do not act the same way in each environment. Because of that, we'd have to destroy life to make life.

Let me define making life as watching life occur on it's own as proof that evoultion occurs.

 

[LadyJessica]

Why don't you just call it "watching life" instead of "making life"? You're confusing people.

 

[Elledan]

<< We CAN create Life but we cannot generate life because it would require US and that's the factor that I'm getting at. >>

We can generate life. We can create life.

Why can't we? Or why won't we ever be able to?



<< Besides, I believe amino acids & protiens are a product of their environment ( thus is why they form specific lifeforms ) and do not act the same way in each environment. Because of that, we'd have to destroy life to make life. >>


You're making very little sense here. 0% to be precise.

Please explain once more, in detail, and using only scientific terms what exactly your point is.

 

[ShadowWolf]

To clarify myself:

Alright, realize I'm discussing relating Evoultion to the generation ( or creation of ) life. Let's define the creation of life by utilizing the simple parts ( amino acids, protiens, etc.. ) in their most base form to witness the spontanious generation ( if you will ) of living organisms ( such as bacteria ) without using those that exist in their present form ( DNA/RNA ) or pre-made templates ( such as man-made life ).

That said, we CAN utilize processes to cause reproduction of life, but that IS NOT creation of life. Using spheres of bilipids and injecting DNA & protiens we are not generating life, but rather stimulating reproductive sequences. Perhaps if I put it into a math equation, you could better see my point:

This is what we cannot show:
(Environment) + (Non-living Elements) = Spontanious Generation
(Spontanious Generation) = (Creation of Life)

This is what we can show:
(Environment) + (Non-living Elements) + (Pre-existing Life ie-> Humans) = (Reproductive Squence)
(Reproductive Sequence) = (Continuation of Life)

That's more my point more than anything. Although we CAN produce a reproductive sequence of sorts ( the lipid sphere), we are not creating a life system or a new life. The reason is that life already exists. I'll elaborate further:
In a given system inside the rainforest there are creatures and plants which rely on each other to survive. Now, within that system we couldn't create the rainforest because it's already there. There's no suitable area for it to exist and the envrionment itself isn't suited for the generation of a rainforest. It's more there to stimulate it's continual growth. Now, say, we destroy all of the rainforest in that area & it's surroundings, we then could create a new rainforest after 10 or 15 years or so because the environment would now be suitable to have a rainforest be there.
Relating this back to the spontanious generation of life: There's no way to spontaniously generate life unless life in that system is destroyed. Unfortunately, that means we couldn't possibly intervene or the experiment would be different. It's now: "Can humans create life", NOT "can nature spontaniously generate life." Because of that fact, we're no longer discussing the argument with Evolution's claim.
So let's say, then, for us to spontaniously generate life, we'd have to remove life and not intervene. So, basically, in order to create life we'd have to watch life occur before our very eyes.

Here's another li'l question I thought of:
Is evolution effected by entropy?
I think so

Also, a computer is not able to react to it's environment really. If you place a computer in a cold room, it doesn't react to the cold -- it keeps doing what it was doing before without thought processes. Also, computers do not natively posess the ability to distinguish any of that -- it has to be taught how.

 

[Agent004]

You know, if you guys got the BBC about a few months ago, there was a programme called Universe, it gives some very interesting idea (yes, it an idea, theory ) about how the life (biological) is form the first time.

Good prgramme never the less

 

[Elledan]

<< That's more my point more than anything. Although we CAN produce a reproductive sequence of sorts ( the lipid sphere), we are not creating a life system or a new life. The reason is that life already exists. I'll elaborate further:
In a given system inside the rainforest there are creatures and plants which rely on each other to survive. Now, within that system we couldn't create the rainforest because it's already there. There's no suitable area for it to exist and the envrionment itself isn't suited for the generation of a rainforest. It's more there to stimulate it's continual growth. Now, say, we destroy all of the rainforest in that area & it's surroundings, we then could create a new rainforest after 10 or 15 years or so because the environment would now be suitable to have a rainforest be there.
Relating this back to the spontanious generation of life: There's no way to spontaniously generate life unless life in that system is destroyed. Unfortunately, that means we couldn't possibly intervene or the experiment would be different. It's now: "Can humans create life", NOT "can nature spontaniously generate life." Because of that fact, we're no longer discussing the argument with Evolution's claim. >>


- You're NOT talking about evolution here, but biogenesis. Big difference.

- Would a sterile environment, devoid of any elements produced by, or being part of lifeforms do? In such an environment, we could observe life form. Heck, with a sufficient computersystem we could create a simulation. The world created in this simulation would 'work' according to the same 'rules' as the earth when life was formed.

Again, if you do have a point, please make it as clear as possible to us.

 

[ShadowWolf]

No, actually I'm using Biogenesis as a method to prove we cannot properly prove evoultion either way.

The best way to prove or disprove evolution is by witnessing ( or not witnessing ) it occuring. The, in my opinion, best way to see this is through creation of life in a small system. We will, then, understand how species as we know them came to be, whether evolution or otherwise.

Yes, we could create a small system void of all life as we know it in a computer system. But we'd have to understand all of the factors regarding energy that are required, which I think could be discovered by looking at reproduction, a similar process.

I still believe my point is quite clear, I've asked a few people to read it and they understand it, though may not agree entirely

Like you said, more research must be done

 

[CTho9305]

<< (Environment) + (Non-living Elements) = Spontanious Generation
(Spontanious Generation) = (Creation of Life) >>



so if I take a sterile environment, throw in a bunch of long molecules (some lipids and a bunch of proteins - none of which are alive, none of which can create copies of themselves)... they will probably eventually move together and create a bacterium. what part of this is not allowed????

 

[jhu]

No, actually I'm using Biogenesis as a method to prove we cannot properly prove evoultion either way.

The best way to prove or disprove evolution is by witnessing ( or not witnessing ) it occuring. The, in my opinion, best way to see this is through creation of life in a small system. We will, then, understand how species as we know them came to be, whether evolution or otherwise.

Yes, we could create a small system void of all life as we know it in a computer system. But we'd have to understand all of the factors regarding energy that are required, which I think could be discovered by looking at reproduction, a similar process.

I still believe my point is quite clear, I've asked a few people to read it and they understand it, though may not agree entirely <http://forums.anandtech.com/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif>

Like you said, more research must be done

i'm still not sure what you're getting at. elledan's right in that you're talking about biogenesis, and not evolution. evolution happens. we can see it. just look at how many anti-bacterial resistant bacteria have emerged in the last 50 years.

 

[bizmark]

<< so if I take a sterile environment, throw in a bunch of long molecules (some lipids and a bunch of proteins - none of which are alive, none of which can create copies of themselves)... they will probably eventually move together and create a bacterium. what part of this is not allowed???? >>



The "I". "I take" this, "I throw" that. It needs to happen completely without input of any sort of any currently-"living" being.

 

[CTho9305]

<< The "I". "I take" this, "I throw" that. It needs to happen completely without input of any sort of any currently-"living" being. >>


Well DUH!. if you say no input (including informational - otherwise we could synthesize everything needed) from any living thing allowed, then of course we can't create life. wierd definition of create you use though. as I said earlier, since evolution requires billions of years, and life has a fairly low chance of spontaneously appearing in any given location we watch, we would have to watch billions of planets for billions of years to satisfy you. You asked a question which cannot have an answer other than the one you appear to want. The way you asked it, this belongs in OT, as I would interpret it as a troll rather than an interesting/technical question....

 

[DeTard]

<< The "I". "I take" this, "I throw" that. It needs to happen completely without input of any sort of any currently-"living" being. >>



Your "point" actually has no point. You are proposing the impossible by saying that to make this experiment, you cannot do the experiment. So in other words, your defense is actually no defense, but rather confusing others into agreeing with you. When say that the "I" cannot be in it, what exactly are you trying to get at? The fact that you do not want anyone to try this, or the fact that if someone does successfully complete this experiment that you want an excuse for not believing it?

What Ctho meant by his post about the sterile environment is that supposing that you have an environment that has absolutely no life whatsoever (no bacteria, single-cell organisms, protozoa, viruses, etc.... and do NOT get into the discussion of whether viruses are really life or not), and no complex protein compounds that would be found in a fertile environment, and included atoms and molecules that would have been found in the early Earth, that eventually life would be created. Whether it was a result of lightening, incredible heat of a molten Earth (remember, when planets are formed they are not cold rock but rather bits of a star that eventually cools), or some other unknown phenomena, SOMETHING happened to suddenly create the first proteins. This was the very first step in the move to life as we know it. There was amino acids after these proteins were created as a result of the proteins combining with other proteins in certain patterns, and when the patterns became widespread they actually would show that some form of asexual reproduction was taking place. This is exactly what DNA does, it reproduces itself and it is made up of amino acids in complex patterns and requires no interaction from the outside. This has been observed and proven. At this point, I personally wouldn't say that this was life just yet, but if amino acids in thousands, and even millions of different patterns started appearing (this is a chain reaction.... lightning wouldn't just effect molecules and atoms in certain regions of the world really, but would occasionally result in the same reaction... IF lightning really did cause the original reaction), then all that would be needed is time to create the first single-celled organism. Think about it this way, it is natures way and has always been natures way for things to combine in various ways. Some ways work, some don't. If it works, it can still be improved upon or it will die (aka "survival of the fittest"). Cells of today are still just amino acids and can be put together using technology that is currently available, the DNA is the only difficult part since we do not know from experience what does and what doesn't work out as a successful lifeform. Now think of a whole world that just has atoms, molecules, simple and complex proteins, and amino acids. There would be countless billions of them eventually, and given time, they will combine. This is where your cells came from.

 

[DeTard]

 

[bizmark]

<< Well DUH!. [...] You asked a question which cannot have an answer other than the one you appear to want. The way you asked it, this belongs in OT, as I would interpret it as a troll rather than an interesting/technical question.... >>





<< Your "point" actually has no point. You are proposing the impossible by saying that to make this experiment, you cannot do the experiment. So in other words, your defense is actually no defense, but rather confusing others into agreeing with you. >>





<< 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. >>


^^^^^^ ME, 25 posts ago

I almost said an interesting twist of definitions.

I've been trying to make this clear for a while now. I didn't say it outright because I didn't want to be mean. Rather I tried to put it in as simple and unambiguous terms as possible to make everybody realize that there's really nothing worth debating here. It's a simple conclusion based on a couple of easy assumptions/definitions. It's playing with words. It's mildly interesting because it's somewhat paradoxical. You look at it, you say "Hmm, okay, so if you define this... okay, you're right." Does it mean anything? No.

 

[azkiwi]

"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."

*********

assumption - life arose only once. We have no evidence to support or refute this. Evolutionary science chronicles the evolution of all life and is not yet refined enough to pinpoint one origin. Life may yet turn out to be so so hard to create given enough time and energy. Chances are good we will discover bacteria in many corners of our solaor system.

assumption - life did not exist. No data to support this, though it may seem logical currently.

I think this is a rather bifurcated discussion - the origin of life and the evolution of life are quite distinct issues. There are millions of supporting facts for the theory of evolution, comparatively few for a given theory of the origin.

 

[ShadowWolf]

Cth0's basically got it, except you couldn't just use any protiens, but you'd have to figure out the mechanics for a protien pre-life. This can be done with a computer. I've proven myself wrong. You CAN test whether evolution occurs ( I call evolution the theory of evolution in it's entirety, saying you can see it around is somewhat wrong because evolution attempts to explain our predecessors, which can only be done if you witness it yourself ), but it requires elements created BEFORE life existed because life's existance ( we're saying that life is just a general statement for the existant of living organisms such as bacteria ), you would be able to witness the creation & evolution of life into a much larger scale and thus see HOW it was we become who we are.


Although doing the above would damage the experiment because of living beings' intervention, I think we could make plausible findings from it. Besides, we COULDN'T do it within a computer because computers don't make decisions that nature sometimes does. Computer is restricted to logic, that's the problem. But we could use a computer to describe the experiment's needs and essentials.

The topic is basically moot, as I somewhat hinted to before.

I really didn't intend on it being a rant, argument, or anything, but just a general thought.

It's not a troll, science is similarly linked to technology ( however not directly ).

 

[azkiwi]

"I call evolution the theory of evolution in it's entirety, saying you can see it around is somewhat wrong because evolution attempts to explain our predecessors, which can only be done if you witness it yourself ), but it requires elements created BEFORE life existed because life's existance ..."

I'm not sure if you actually understand evolutionary theory at all. ( Did you get your education in Kansas by any chance?) Theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain our predecessors - if anything, it attempts to explain us by looking at our predecessors. I don't know that Theory of Evolution has anything to say about pre-life, it certainly doesn't require pre-life as a condition for the theory to be true.

Evolution simply postulates that living organisms will adapt, over generations, to be more competitive for their niches.

There is ample evidence to support this theory, and none of it requires our interfering presence. It is all based on the scientific method, and everyone is invited to disprove any single piece of it. Using the scientific method, no-one has yet debunked the driving premise, though lots of emotively-based arguments take potshots at small pieces of it.

 

[Locutus4657]

Ok... And I beleive that since creation nor evelution is provable that must mean life does not exist.... ;-)

Carlo



<< 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? >>