Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on January 11, 2016, 04:37:37 PM
-
Hi everyone,
A single copying mistake resulted in complex organisms evolving....according to a recent report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/startling-new-discovery-600-million-years-ago-a-single-biological-mistake-changed-everything/
*****************
Incredibly, in the world of evolutionary biology, all it took was one tiny tweak, one gene, and complex life as we know it was born.
..... if the flaw is wrong in exactly the right way, the incredible can happen: disease resistance, sharper eyesight, swifter feet, big brains, better beaks for Darwin’s finches.
In a paper published in the open-access journal eLife this week, researchers say they have pinpointed what may well be one of evolution’s greatest copy mess-ups yet: the mutation that allowed our ancient protozoa predecessors to evolve into complex, multi-cellular organisms. Thanks to this mutation — which was not solely responsible for the leap out of single-cellular life, but without which you, your dog and every creature large enough to be seen without a microscope might not be around — cells were able to communicate with one another and work together.
“It was a shock,” co-author Ken Prehoda, a biochemist at the University of Oregon, told The Washington Post. “If you asked anyone on our team if they thought one mutation was going to be responsible for this, they would have said it doesn’t seem possible.”
“We were expecting many genes to be involved, working together in certain ways, because [the jump to multi-cellularity] seems like a really difficult thing to do,” he said.
But it turned out that only one was needed: A single mutation that repurposed a certain type of protein.
******************
Interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I'm curious as to why they characterise it as a 'mistake'. That sort of implies that perfect replication of genetic sequences was the 'intention'...
O.
-
I'm curious as to why they characterise it as a 'mistake'. That sort of implies that perfect replication of genetic sequences was the 'intention'...
O.
Mistake as in a random mutation perhaps.
-
I'm curious as to why they characterise it as a 'mistake'. That sort of implies that perfect replication of genetic sequences was the 'intention'...
So it's like, the faulty copying process allowed the copying process itself to evolve and get better, but if it had got better still, evolution would have ground to a halt right there.
-
So it's like, the faulty copying process allowed the copying process itself to evolve and get better, but if it had got better still, evolution would have ground to a halt right there.
Which in some ways it has for animals that are totally successful in their environment.
I'm thinking of crocodiles and sharks, which have pretty much stood still, over time.
-
If an organism is perfectly adapted for living and reproducing in its current environment, then it can't evolve further until the environment changes in some way.
The environment will inevitably change some time, and it will evolve further. That is why the ability to mutate (copy incorrectly) is essential for every species ... otherwise it becomes extinct.
-
IMO, a single 'mistake' leading to such major changes is indicative of intervention of some kind. And I am sure there are many more such 'mistakes' at various points leading to human emergence and the present situation.
-
IMO, a single 'mistake' leading to such major changes is indicative of intervention of some kind.
A single mistake cannot produce major changes ... it can only pave the way for more changes to take place which sum up into a major change.
And I am sure there are many more such mistakes at various points leading to human emergence and the present situation.
Exactly! A series of minor mistakes is the only thing that can produce a major change.
-
A single mistake cannot produce major changes ... it can only pave the way for more changes to take place which sum up into a major change.
Exactly! A series of minor mistakes is the only thing that can produce a major change.
All the more reason to believe that there is intention behind it. What scientists write off as 'mistakes' is what we can also view as tweaking or 'fine tuning'.... as the Anthropic Principle puts it. It all adds up nicely.
The usual impression that... if certain chemicals are left alone long enough 'complex life' and humans will automatically evolve, is clearly wrong. Certain 'mistakes' or 'fine tuning' is needed every now and then to keep it on course. Consciousness and Intelligence are needed for that to happen.
We must also remember that if this mistake or 'tweaking' happens in only one individual unicellular organism, it would not be enough for life to change so dramatically on the planet as a whole. It has to happen simultaneously in millions of such organisms everywhere for multicellular life to emerge around the world.
-
We must also remember that if this mistake or 'tweaking' happens in only one individual unicellular organism, it would not be enough for life to change so dramatically on the planet as a whole. It has to happen simultaneously in millions of such organisms everywhere for multicellular life to emerge around the world.
Another clear misunderstanding of evolution. A single advantageous mistake in one simple organism can't change any other organism on the planet. But it can continue reproducing copies of itself and thus finally supplant its competitors. But that takes a long time, which is why no drastic change is possible in one generation.
-
Yes, humans were certainly a mistake!
-
Evolution is in fact Roman Catholic but flirted with Rastafarianism for a while.
-
Another clear misunderstanding of evolution. A single advantageous mistake in one simple organism can't change any other organism on the planet. But it can continue reproducing copies of itself and thus finally supplant its competitors. But that takes a long time, which is why no drastic change is possible in one generation.
That's what you might believe based on your current understanding of how evolution works. But is there any proof that the 'mistake' happened only in one individual unicellular organism and from there it spread world over? Similarly with all the other millions of 'mistakes' along the way!?
In both cases, the idea of 'fine tuning' is very relevant. There is no getting away from that.
-
That's what you might believe based on your current understanding of how evolution works. But is there any proof that the 'mistake' happened only in one individual unicellular organism and from there it spread world over?
It matches the distribution models for other genetic variation - it's not impossible that this, like any variation, may have emerged spontaneously in different locations, it's just unlikely that random variation led to the same place twice.
In both cases, the idea of 'fine tuning' is very relevant. There is no getting away from that.
The idea of 'fine tuning' is always relevant with evolution, because it's easy to mistakenly attribute some sort of intention to the process and presume that ending here is so colossally unlikely that it must have been intentional. That logical fallacy, of course, presumes that where we are was 'the point' - every possible end-point for the process is equally (un)likely, it's only our cognitive bias that presumes any importance to this particular outcome.
O.
-
It matches the distribution models for other genetic variation - it's not impossible that this, like any variation, may have emerged spontaneously in different locations, it's just unlikely that random variation led to the same place twice.
The idea of 'fine tuning' is always relevant with evolution, because it's easy to mistakenly attribute some sort of intention to the process and presume that ending here is so colossally unlikely that it must have been intentional. That logical fallacy, of course, presumes that where we are was 'the point' - every possible end-point for the process is equally (un)likely, it's only our cognitive bias that presumes any importance to this particular outcome.
O.
My point was that...even if the very same 'mistake' happened in just two different organisms (let alone many more) at broadly the same time, it still cannot be a 'random variation'.
-
That's what you might believe based on your current understanding of how evolution works. But is there any proof that the 'mistake' happened only in one individual unicellular organism and from there it spread world over? Similarly with all the other millions of 'mistakes' along the way!?
Of course there's no proof that such didn't happen ... and very likely it did. What difference does that make?
In both cases, the idea of 'fine tuning' is very relevant. There is no getting away from that.
"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.
When an enormous number of elements are scattered far and wide in a void, they will gather into groups and react to one another and their surroundings. Most of the groups won't form in such a way as to engender life, but when the number is large enough it is probable that one or more will.
-
My point was that...even if the very same 'mistake' happened in just two different organisms (let alone many more) at broadly the same time, it still cannot be a 'random variation'.
It could, it's just incredibly unlikely. It's effectively random whether a tossed coin comes up heads or tails, but just because it's come up heads twice in a row here doesn't mean it's impossible that it happen somewhere else. The chances of a coin toss, at 50-50, are relatively high, so it's not that unlikely - the chance of a specific random mutation are considerably lower, so the chances of it happening twice are incredibly lower. The point of probability, though, is that no matter how close to practically impossible any given incident gets, it's never going to be actually impossible for it to happen twice if it's possible for it to happen once.
O.
-
Of course there's no proof that such didn't happen ... and very likely it did. What difference does that make?
"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.
When an enormous number of elements are scattered far and wide in a void, they will gather into groups and react to one another and their surroundings. Most of the groups won't form in such a way as to engender life, but when the number is large enough it is probable that one or more will.
Leonard,
You say..'"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.'
'Fine tuning' IS the evidence, for God's sake!!
What you say is like claiming...'galaxies are moving apart at an increased rate, so something must be pushing them apart...but there is zero evidence for that something...so the galaxies are probably moving apart due to random factors'. The fact that they are moving apart IS the evidence for this something (Dark Energy).
-
A single mistake cannot produce major changes
Yes it can. The problem in evolutionary terms is that mutations producing large changes will almost inevitably produce non viable organisms that don't survive to reproduce.
-
You say..'"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.'
'Fine tuning' IS the evidence, for God's sake!!
No, fine tuning is a presumption - you're presuming in the idea that the universe is fine-tuned that we were an intended outcome. There is no more evidence that we were a deliberate intention than there is for the universe being 'fine-tuned' for us. The universe may well just be, and we are the life that has emerged and adapted to this universe.
O.
-
It could, it's just incredibly unlikely. It's effectively random whether a tossed coin comes up heads or tails, but just because it's come up heads twice in a row here doesn't mean it's impossible that it happen somewhere else. The chances of a coin toss, at 50-50, are relatively high, so it's not that unlikely - the chance of a specific random mutation are considerably lower, so the chances of it happening twice are incredibly lower. The point of probability, though, is that no matter how close to practically impossible any given incident gets, it's never going to be actually impossible for it to happen twice if it's possible for it to happen once.
O.
Outrider,
First of all, the coin has only two possibilities. Random variations in DNA on the other hand have perhaps infinite possibilities. Has anyone determined exactly how many variations are possible? I doubt it.
Given this situation, if even two individual unicellular organisms have exactly the same variation....it cannot be random. It's in fact possible that perhaps millions of individual unicellular organisms developed the very same variation leading to multicellular organisms developing the way they did.
And this of course, goes much further since the change from unicellular to multicellular is just the first step. Heaven knows how many more such 'mistakes' are required to lead to such diversity and complexity as we see today. It would be impossible to determine that.
The dice is obviously loaded...and DNA is clearly programmed to develop the way it did.
-
Leonard,
You say..'"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.'
'Fine tuning' IS the evidence, for God's sake!!
But it isn't fine tuning! It just happens that one combination of constants is suitable for life to develop. ONE combination out of trillions of random combinations.
-
First of all, the coin has only two possibilities. Random variations in DNA on the other hand have perhaps infinite possibilities. Has anyone determined exactly how many variations are possible? I doubt it.
Given this situation, if even two individual unicellular organisms have exactly the same variation....it cannot be random. It's in fact possible that perhaps millions of individual unicellular organisms developed the very same variation leading to multicellular organisms developing the way they did.
Yes, it can be random. That's the nature of probability, it's entirely possible for extremely unlikely things to happen, and for them to happen twice.
And this of course, goes much further since the change from unicellular to multicellular is just the first step. Heaven knows how many more such 'mistakes' are required to lead to such diversity and complexity as we see today. It would be impossible to determine that.
The dice is obviously loaded...and DNA is clearly programmed to develop the way it did.
No, it isn't 'clearly' programmed at all.
It's possible that it was programmed, but seeing as this is about probability: in order for it to be programmed, the programmer would have had to know exactly what environment each example of each genetic marker was going to be in at the point of reproduction. If you think that the prospect of two examples of a random mutation occuring in the same way was unlikely, how unlikely is that programmer?
O.
-
But it isn't fine tuning! It just happens that one combination of constants is suitable for life to develop. ONE combination out of trillions of random combinations.
Leonard,
Yes...and when that ONE combination out of a trillion possibilities actually happens in several individual organisms..... and when similar ONE IN A TRILLION combinations happen repeatedly again and again a million times leading to increased complexity....it is obviously a case of FINE TUNING!
Now...how that fine tuning happens is a different discussion. I wish people could actually get to that stage!
-
Yes, it can be random. That's the nature of probability, it's entirely possible for extremely unlikely things to happen, and for them to happen twice.
No, it isn't 'clearly' programmed at all.
It's possible that it was programmed, but seeing as this is about probability: in order for it to be programmed, the programmer would have had to know exactly what environment each example of each genetic marker was going to be in at the point of reproduction. If you think that the prospect of two examples of a random mutation occuring in the same way was unlikely, how unlikely is that programmer?
O.
Outrider,
What do you mean... 'it can be random.....that's the nature of probability'...when the probability is almost NIL and it happens repeatedly again and again?!
When you refer to a programmer...maybe you are thinking of a Christian God. I am not.
How the fine tuning and programming happens is what we need to find out...if we ever get to that in the first place. ::)
The idea of a common biofield or some other kind of connection is what I discussed in the thread on Interconnection.
For a start, questioning neo-darwinism and reconsidering Lamarckism in the light of findings in epigenetics...should be the way forward.
-
What do you mean... 'it can be random.....that's the nature of probability'...when the probability is almost NIL and it happens repeatedly again and again?!
The probability, as you've said is almost nil - however, that's the probability each time, and there are trillions upon trillions of iterations for the extremely low probability to manifest in. And, so far as the evidence suggests, it doesn't happen again and again; each particular mutation has occurred only once. Or are you talking about mutations in general, in which case the probability is conspicuously higher.
When you refer to a programmer...maybe you are thinking of a Christian God. I am not.
No, not really, just any programmer. Any programmer intending this specific outcome from that process would need to establish a spectacularly accurate predictive model of how the universe was going to turn out in order to ensure that each mutation occurred in the right place at the right time in the sequence. That, I feel, is significantly less likely than the possibility of multiple iterations of the same individual unlikely random mutation.
How the fine tuning and programming happens is what we need to find out...if we ever get to that in the first place. ::)
No, first you need to establish THAT fine tuning has happened - you need to demonstrate that this outcome for reality was somehow the intended outcome. Otherwise you don't have a universe fine-tuned for us, you have us naturally emerging to suit the universe in which we've manifested.
The idea of a common biofield or some other kind of connection is what I discussed in the thread on Interconnection.
And, like many of the hypotheticals that you cite, they're possibilities that completely lack any supporting evidence - they aren't definitively wrong, they're just currently unfounded.
For a start, questioning neo-darwinism and reconsidering Lamarckism in the light of findings in epigenetics...should be the way forward.
Neo-Darwinism is well-validated - it's always open to question, of course, but at this stage unless something remarkable comes up it's not going to be completely overturned, just refined. Lamarckism has been pretty thoroughly refuted in the sense it was intended, though you could look at epigenetics as a sort of neo-Lamarckism, I suppose - regardless, epigenetics is one of the major areas of investigation in evolutionary biology (and medical biology, for that matter) at the moment.
O.
-
Leonard,
Yes...and when that ONE combination out of a trillion possibilities actually happens in several individual organisms..... and when similar ONE IN A TRILLION combinations happen repeatedly again and again a million times leading to increased complexity....it is obviously a case of FINE TUNING!
It doesn't happen in several different organisms again and again. It happens in one organism and is reproduced in that organism's progeny.
Now...how that fine tuning happens is a different discussion. I wish people could actually get to that stage!
There is no "fine tuning" discussion to get onto. You simply do not understand evolution.
-
For a start, questioning neo-darwinism and reconsidering Lamarckism in the light of findings in epigenetics...should be the way forward.
Lamarckism isn't even a hypothesis. It doesn't explain anything. Why would a giraffe's neck get longer if it's stretched? There's no physical or chemical reason. If there's a biological reason, where did that come from?
Muscles get bigger if they're exercised, but that's the result of a genetically programmed mechanism, which evolved, the Darwinian way.
So is epigenetics. It's part of Darwinism. There's nothing Lamarckian about it.
-
The probability, as you've said is almost nil - however, that's the probability each time, and there are trillions upon trillions of iterations for the extremely low probability to manifest in. And, so far as the evidence suggests, it doesn't happen again and again; each particular mutation has occurred only once. Or are you talking about mutations in general, in which case the probability is conspicuously higher.
No, not really, just any programmer. Any programmer intending this specific outcome from that process would need to establish a spectacularly accurate predictive model of how the universe was going to turn out in order to ensure that each mutation occurred in the right place at the right time in the sequence. That, I feel, is significantly less likely than the possibility of multiple iterations of the same individual unlikely random mutation.
No, first you need to establish THAT fine tuning has happened - you need to demonstrate that this outcome for reality was somehow the intended outcome. Otherwise you don't have a universe fine-tuned for us, you have us naturally emerging to suit the universe in which we've manifested.
And, like many of the hypotheticals that you cite, they're possibilities that completely lack any supporting evidence - they aren't definitively wrong, they're just currently unfounded.
Neo-Darwinism is well-validated - it's always open to question, of course, but at this stage unless something remarkable comes up it's not going to be completely overturned, just refined. Lamarckism has been pretty thoroughly refuted in the sense it was intended, though you could look at epigenetics as a sort of neo-Lamarckism, I suppose - regardless, epigenetics is one of the major areas of investigation in evolutionary biology (and medical biology, for that matter) at the moment.
O.
Outrider's latest trick is to try to say that an idea that isn't one he subscribes to has to be established as fact but that it is alright for him to have ideas.
Apparent Fine tuning is evident enough for Sean Carroll to try ''solve the fine tuning problem'' and for Dawkins to try to tackle it by advocating multiverse theories in ''The God Delusion'' and they are on a higher intellectual pay grade than your good self.
-
Outrider's latest trick is to try to say that an idea that isn't one he subscribes to has to be established as fact but that it is alright for him to have ideas.
Failing to differentiate between the provisional validation of scientific enquiry, established definitional fact, and purely hypothetical claims bereft of any justification once again, Vlad?
Apparent Fine tuning is evident enough for Sean Carroll to try ''solve the fine tuning problem'' and for Dawkins to try to tackle it by advocating multiverse theories in ''The God Delusion'' and they are on a higher intellectual pay grade than your good self.
And those explanations rely on discounting the egotism of ignoring the anthropic principle and the fact that incredibly small probabilities are likely to occur if given enough iterative opportunities - exactly what I said. Thanks for the back up.
O.
-
And those explanations rely on discounting the egotism of ignoring the anthropic principle and the fact that incredibly small probabilities are likely to occur if given enough iterative opportunities - exactly what I said. Thanks for the back up.
O.
Utter spin since those values which constitute fine tuning are those that are observed. Whereas multiverse not, Egotism not involved.
-
Utter spin since those values which constitute fine tuning are those that are observed. Whereas multiverse not, Egotism not involved.
The egotism was part of the ignoring the anthropic principle argument, the multiverse concept is part of the explanation of the increased iterations of small probabilities - don't try to conflate the two.
The anthropic principle expressly requires observed phenomena - fine tuning requires a tuner that is not observed, and presumes a human significance which is not observed.
O.
-
Outrider,
What do you mean... 'it can be random.....that's the nature of probability'...when the probability is almost NIL and it happens repeatedly again and again?!
If something happens repeatedly again and again, the probability is certainly not almost nil.
The idea of a common biofield or some other kind of connection is what I discussed in the thread on Interconnection.
Your first step should be to show that this bitfield really exists. Why don't you outline the experiment you are going to use to do that.
For a start, questioning neo-darwinism and reconsidering Lamarckism in the light of findings in epigenetics...should be the way forward.
Lamarckism is thoroughly discredited. If you think it's not, ask yourself why Jews still need to circumcise male babies.
-
Apparent Fine tuning is evident enough for Sean Carroll to try ''solve the fine tuning problem'' and for Dawkins to try to tackle it by advocating multiverse theories in ''The God Delusion'' and they are on a higher intellectual pay grade than your good self.
Wrong kind of fine tuning. Perhaps if you read the thread you'd realise we were talking about the apparent fine tuning of organisms to fit their environment, not the apparent fine tuning of the Universe to fit the eventual appearance of life.
-
...
Your first step should be to show that this bitfield really exists. Why don't you outline the experiment you are going to use to do that.
...
Should be very straightforward - unless Sriram is the only person that can see or feel them.
-
Hi everyone,
1. When the probability of something happening (specific mutations) is very small (one in a trillion) and if it actually happens, there is a possibility of some sort of a tweaking. If it happens more than once (in many organisms simultaneously)... then it is most probably a tweaking or fine tuning.
Additionally, if such very low probability mutations keep happening in multiple organisms around the planet again and again leading to ever increasing complexity and finally to humans....then it is most certainly a fine tuning.
2. Darwinism does in fact allow for intelligent selection because Darwin used the term 'Natural Selection' only to differentiate it from Artificial Selection where humans breed animals and plants to bring out certain characteristics. Darwin was an agnostic and did not disbelieve in intelligent direction to evolution or in active adaptations to the environment. In that sense Darwinism and Lamarkism did have some common premises.
It is Neo-Darwinism (promoted by Wallace & others) that proposes random variations and NS as the sole mechanisms for evolution....and which therefore discredits Lamarckism.
In the light of epigenetics...the mechanism for a Neo-Lamarckian evolution theory is opened up. We don't have to keep on and on about Giraffe's necks and circumcision. We need to move forward with this new knowledge.
3. About how the communication is passed on between organisms and the environment, please refer to my thread on 'Interconnection'. There obviously is some sort of a communication going on all around. For this, the ancient idea of a biofield can be considered as a possibility.
For objective purposes this is a conjecture....but needs to be taken seriously for further research. Saying....'ok..prove it!' ....is a juvenile stand to take. When someone proposes Dark Matter or Dark Energy or String....no one says ..'ok..prove it!'. The task of proving is taken up by multiple people around the world who work for decades and eventually may or may not actually 'prove it'. A similar attitude is to be taken for the biofield also. It is not a God proposal to be relegated to the woo category immediately.
As far as the subjective experience of the biofield is concerned....millions of people around the world can and do sense the biofield. I can too. And its not a magical or supernatural experience. Its just a simple case of being sensitive and focused. Like we can't normally sense certain things like minute sounds or subtle flavours & smells or other sensations... but if we are focused and manage to train ourselves we can sense them. Sensing the biofield is similar to that.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
1. When the probability of something happening (specific mutations) is very small (one in a trillion) and if it actually happens, there is a possibility of some sort of a tweaking. If it happens more than once (in many organisms simultaneously)... then it is most probably a tweaking or fine tuning.
Or you have significant number of opportunities for it to happen. One in a million chances happen nine times out of ten if you given them billions of chances to happen. The chances of a lottery win are 1 in about 46 million, these days, yet someone wins every couple of weeks...
Additionally, if such very low probability mutations keep happening in multiple organisms around the planet again and again leading to ever increasing complexity and finally to humans....then it is most certainly a fine tuning.
If it were the same mutation, in the absence of any other mutations, you might have a case (although the more likely explanation, I feel, is that you've miscalculated the probability of that mutation occurring). However, you don't have the same mutation occurring repeatedly, you have different mutations, each with their own (low) chance.
2. Darwinism does in fact allow for intelligent selection because Darwin used the term 'Natural Selection' only to differentiate it from Artificial Selection where humans breed animals and plants to bring out certain characteristics.
Yes, but Darwin's explanation of the origin of the range of species does not include artificial selection because it has not been operating for long enough to explain the range of life that we see.
Darwin was an agnostic and did not disbelieve in intelligent direction to evolution or in active adaptations to the environment.
And yet his own writings make clear that he was unsettled by the implication of his work, which was that there was no guiding hand at work, and how that would be taken by the general populace.
It is Neo-Darwinism (promoted by Wallace & others) that proposes random variations and NS as the sole mechanisms for evolution....and which therefore discredits Lamarckism.
No, it's the evidence which both supports 'Darwinism', and the neo-Darwinian view of evolution, and which discredits Lamarck's hypotheses.
In the light of epigenetics...the mechanism for a Neo-Lamarckian evolution theory is opened up.
Epigenetics does not operate on anything like the scale that Lamarck was suggesting - to call it neo-Lamarckian is to clutch at old straws. Why not just call it epigenetics, as the people who study it do, given the differences?
We don't have to keep on and on about Giraffe's necks and circumcision.
Unfortunately we do. There are powerful, well-funded movements out there that deny evolution of any sort occurs. We still have to win that fight. Talking about epigenetics, which is still poorly understood by the experts, is to introduce ignorance into a debate which needs clarity.
We need to move forward with this new knowledge.
Yes, we do, but we also need to move forward with the old arguments, given that there are still some people that haven't accepted the reality of them.
3. About how the communication is passed on between organisms and the environment, please refer to my thread on 'Interconnection'. There obviously is some sort of a communication going on all around. For this, the ancient idea of a biofield can be considered as a possibility.
There are various feedback mechanisms at work in nature between organisms and their surroundings - the biofield does not appear to be one of them.
For objective purposes this is a conjecture....but needs to be taken seriously for further research. Saying....'ok..prove it!' ....is a juvenile stand to take.
Rupert Sheldrake has already been proposing this for some time, and each and every single one of his experiments has either shown nothing or been refused funding because it is poorly designed.
When someone proposes Dark Matter or Dark Energy or String....no one says ..'ok..prove it!'.
On the contrary, that's pretty much the current focus of cosmologists and particle physicists around the world.
The task of proving is taken up by multiple people around the world who work for decades and eventually may or may not actually 'prove it'. A similar attitude is to be taken for the biofield also.
No, that's not the case. We have evidence that something is causing acceleration of the expansion of the universe - we have labelled this 'Dark Matter/Energy', and now we're trying to demonstrate what it might be and how it might operate: we're seeking to explain and observed phenomenon which currently does not have an explanation. The Biofield doesn't explain anything that doesn't already have a perfectly sufficient explanation - there are no unexplained phenomena that require something more than the cyclic nature of chemical and physical properties through biomes.
It is not a God proposal to be relegated to the woo category immediately.
No, it's a woo proposal that requires justification before it will be taken seriously.
As far as the subjective experience of the biofield is concerned....millions of people around the world can and do sense the biofield.
Millions of people around the world can sense angels, gods, ghosts and the presence of water: all of these, when tested, provide no supporting evidence. Why is this biofield idea any different?
I can too.
You think you can.
Some people think they can sense Allah. Other people think they can sense God. They can't both be right - indeed at least one group MUST be wrong - but they could both be wrong.
People's impressions of what they can 'sense' is fallible, moreso when what they sense isn't sensed using any of the conventional, well-established, well-documented human sensory mechanisms.
[quote[And its not a magical or supernatural experience. Its just a simple case of being sensitive and focused. Like we can't normally sense certain things like minute sounds or subtle flavours & smells or other sensations... but if we are focused and manage to train ourselves we can sense them. Sensing the biofield is similar to that.[/quote]
Then you'll be able to replicate the measurements with mechanical equipment of course - until someone does that, all you have is an unsubstantiated claim.
O.
-
Millions of people around the world can sense angels, gods, ghosts and the presence of water: all of these, when tested, provide no supporting evidence. Why is this biofield idea any different?
You think you can.
Some people think they can sense Allah. Other people think they can sense God. They can't both be right - indeed at least one group MUST be wrong - but they could both be wrong.
People's impressions of what they can 'sense' is fallible, moreso when what they sense isn't sensed using any of the conventional, well-established, well-documented human sensory mechanisms.
[quote[And its not a magical or supernatural experience. Its just a simple case of being sensitive and focused. Like we can't normally sense certain things like minute sounds or subtle flavours & smells or other sensations... but if we are focused and manage to train ourselves we can sense them. Sensing the biofield is similar to that.
Then you'll be able to replicate the measurements with mechanical equipment of course - until someone does that, all you have is an unsubstantiated claim.
O.
Outrider,
To address only the last part of your post...what is the difference between sensing Allah or sensing God? Those are only interpretations of their experience.
The fact that they experience something cannot be disputed. That is what we need to address. We get caught in religious arguments without taking a secular and independent view of it as just an experience that needs to be explained.
You again want a mechanical instrument to measure the experience...which is itself asking for the impossible. Which mechanical instrument can measure Dark Matter or Parallel Universes?
-
To address only the last part of your post...what is the difference between sensing Allah or sensing God? Those are only interpretations of their experience.
Except that some of them 'know' from their experience that it's definitively God and not Allah, and vice versa. Some of them 'know' definitively that it's a creator deity, whilst others 'know' that it's a nature spirit, or a contacting alien intelligence. What they believe they know is questionable, just as your sense of a biofield is questionable.
The fact that they experience something cannot be disputed.
Actually it can be disputed. They have a sensation, whether they are sensing something or that sensory impression is being spontaneously created by a 'malfunction' of the brain is open to question.
We get caught in religious arguments without taking a secular and independent view of it as just an experience that needs to be explained.
No, that's exactly what we're doing - first you have to demonstrate a reason to think that there actually is a phenomenon. At the moment, you've not done that.
You again want a mechanical instrument to measure the experience...which is itself asking for the impossible.
Why? If the 'sensation' can only occur on a living thing, how do you determine whether it's reality impinging on the person or a creation of the person impinging on their sense of reality - especially when only certain people claim to be susceptible to sensing it?
Which mechanical instrument can measure Dark Matter or Parallel Universes?
Given that we've not explained what the causal mechanisms of those phenomena are, we've no definitive way of knowing.
O.
-
If an organism is perfectly adapted for living and reproducing in its current environment, then it can't evolve further until the environment changes in some way.
The environment will inevitably change some time, and it will evolve further. That is why the ability to mutate (copy incorrectly) is essential for every species ... otherwise it becomes extinct.
Not quite. DNA can and does change all the time. The key point is that as long as a mutation is neutral or beneficial it will get passed on.
-
Not quite. DNA can and does change all the time. The key point is that as long as a mutation is neutral or beneficial it will get passed on.
The difference here though is between random genetic drift, which is nonadaptive, and natural selection, which is adaptive.
-
Not quite. DNA can and does change all the time. The key point is that as long as a mutation is neutral or beneficial it will get passed on.
A mutation cannot be beneficial if the organism is already perfectly adapted to its environment, which is what I said.
-
A mutation cannot be beneficial if the organism is already perfectly adapted to its environment, which is what I said.
I'm not sure the concept of perfectly adapted makes any real sense.
-
I'm not sure the concept of perfectly adapted makes any real sense.
Why not? If an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment, then by definition any change in its must be detrimental.
-
Just to clarify, I can see that there would be situations with almost negligible environmental pressures, and any likely drift would be hugely unlikely to be beneficial, but perfection isn't really a suitable concept. And that is leaving aside any discussion on 'hopeful monsters'.
-
Why not? If an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment, then by definition any change in its must be detrimental.
That isn't an argument for it being a correct statement, merely a repetition. I don't think 'perfection' is viable in a non designed process because the adaptations have to progress on the basis of what happened previously. As stated, the concept of very little significant environmental pressure is fine but perfection is not an evolutionary term.
-
On BBC4 tonight at 10pm there is a film called 'Creation', a biopic about Darwin starring Paul Bettany. Made in 2009.
-
The Mammoth programme currently on is probably more interesting than the biopic if you are interested in evolution.
-
What's that on? I will search the TV guide for it. Still I will probably watch or record 'Creation'. The character of Darwin interests me, read a couple of books about him some time ago.
-
What's that on? I will search the TV guide for it. Still I will probably watch or record 'Creation'. The character of Darwin interests me, read a couple of books about him some time ago.
BBC 4
-
Except that some of them 'know' from their experience that it's definitively God and not Allah, and vice versa. Some of them 'know' definitively that it's a creator deity, whilst others 'know' that it's a nature spirit, or a contacting alien intelligence. What they believe they know is questionable, just as your sense of a biofield is questionable.
Actually it can be disputed. They have a sensation, whether they are sensing something or that sensory impression is being spontaneously created by a 'malfunction' of the brain is open to question.
No, that's exactly what we're doing - first you have to demonstrate a reason to think that there actually is a phenomenon. At the moment, you've not done that.
Why? If the 'sensation' can only occur on a living thing, how do you determine whether it's reality impinging on the person or a creation of the person impinging on their sense of reality - especially when only certain people claim to be susceptible to sensing it?
Given that we've not explained what the causal mechanisms of those phenomena are, we've no definitive way of knowing.
O.
Outrider,
So...you are willing to accept Dark Matter existing all around us as a fact and also include it in all further theories of the universe, even though there is absolutely no sensory evidence at all of its existence.....but the experiences of billions of people (along with significant objective evidence such as I have stated in some other posts), you will insist on dismissing as a figment of the imagination, not worthy of investigation?
-
So...you are willing to accept Dark Matter existing all around us as a fact and also include it in all further theories of the universe, even though there is absolutely no sensory evidence at all of its existence.....
No. Dark matter is an hypothesis which explains the observed, and otherwise unexplained, phenomenon of the continued acceleration of the expansion of the visible universe. It's not 'fact', nor is it treated as such, and various hypotheses that branch off from it are part of the ongoing work to either validate or refute it.
but the experiences of billions of people (along with significant objective evidence such as I have stated in some other posts), you will insist on dismissing as a figment of the imagination, not worthy of investigation?
Again, no. The 'evidence' you've cited is personal testimony - your own admission was that this can't be objectively measured, which makes it questionable whether it's a phenomenon at all. Neither of those makes it unworthy of investigation, quite the opposite. However, the investigations have been done, and there's no evidence for a 'biofield'.
This is not some ideological drawing of a line in the sand - if you have something that you think is real, suggest how it could be tested. 'x number of people think it's real' is not a test, millions upon millions of people are already demonstrably wrong on a number of issues, why should this one be any different?
It's entirely plausible that Dark Matter/Energy will prove not to be real - they're the best explanation we've currently come up with, but that's not saying a great deal yet - but they remain only hypotheses awaiting confirmation or repudiation, they are far from a scientific theory yet.
O.
-
No. Dark matter is an hypothesis which explains the observed, and otherwise unexplained, phenomenon of the continued acceleration of the expansion of the visible universe.
That's Dark Energy. Dark Matter is the stuff that explains why stars in galaxies orbit the centre faster than expected.