Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on February 21, 2019, 05:58:44 AM
-
Hi everyone,
All living things have a survival instinct. It probably began with the tendency to replicate in RNA/DNA.
The question is, why should any organism survive? Why did DNA have the tendency to replicate?
Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained. It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.
Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form. In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.
The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA. That is the essence of Life itself.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
All living things have a survival instinct. It probably began with the tendency to replicate in RNA/DNA.
The question is, why should any organism survive? Why did DNA have the tendency to replicate?
Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained. It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.
Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form. In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.
The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA. That is the essence of Life itself.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Isn't nature wonderful.
-
Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained. It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.
Nonsense.
Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form. In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.
The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA. That is the essence of Life itself.
Is this even a real question? Those organisms that have traits that aid survival (in their environment), tend (somewhat unsurprisingly) to survive better than those without said traits. Therefore (again unsurprisingly) they tend to leave more descendants than those without said traits.
The DNA of any given generation is dominated by that which was passed on by those members of the previous generation that were good at surviving and passing on their DNA. Hence the DNA that survives encodes the traits that aid survival.
It is a truism that all organisms alive today come from a long, unbroken line of survivors.
Welcome to natural selection.
-
Hi everyone,
All living things have a survival instinct. It probably began with the tendency to replicate in RNA/DNA.
The question is, why should any organism survive? Why did DNA have the tendency to replicate?
Science usually treats all these as just emergent properties that cannot be explained. It is just a property of that molecule/organism...that is all! Science does not encourage such questions as... 'Why?' either.
Every organism dies but it tries its best to pass on its DNA...which is what 'survives' after it, albeit in a mutated form. In other words, even as organisms and species die, the DNA survives in some form.
The question is, why does the DNA need to survive? Something survives through the DNA. That is the essence of Life itself.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
DNA doesn't have 'needs'. It cannot help doing what it does. I think to imagine DNA has needs merely demonstrates an anthropic bias in conceptualisation.
-
Looks like you've got things back to front, Sriram. :)
-
DNA doesn't have 'needs'. It cannot help doing what it does. I think to imagine DNA has needs merely demonstrates an anthropic bias in conceptualisation.
A chip is similar to a DNA molecule ie. it is a tiny piece of stuff that is coded with multiple complex functions.
When a computer chip performs some task....it is not exhibiting its own need. It is exhibiting the need of its maker. Some computer guy wants to perform some task for which he uses that chip.
-
A chip is similar to a DNA molecule ie. it is a tiny piece of stuff that is coded with multiple complex functions.
When a computer chip performs some task....it is not exhibiting its own need. It is exhibiting the need of its maker. Some computer guy wants to perform some task for which he uses that chip.
Which is totally irrelevant because extant DNA is good a surviving because any traits that aid survival survive, and any that don't, don't. No maker, no intelligence, no purpose, and no magic required.
This really isn't complicated...
-
Nice video....
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p06y2c9k/why-water-is-one-of-the-weirdest-things-in-the-universe
-
A chip is similar to a DNA molecule ie. it is a tiny piece of stuff that is coded with multiple complex functions.
When a computer chip performs some task....it is not exhibiting its own need. It is exhibiting the need of its maker. Some computer guy wants to perform some task for which he uses that chip.
Your bias is still showing. There is no evidence that DNA was 'made' in the same way that a microchip was made. Indeed, DNA 'evolved' from precursor replicating molecules. There is no need for an overlay of anthropic bias in the way we view the world; this bias may have evolved for reasons, our cognitive functioning did not evolve for the purposes of pure reasoning, rather it is honed by natural selection to best keep us alive.
-
Your bias is still showing. There is no evidence that DNA was 'made' in the same way that a microchip was made. Indeed, DNA 'evolved' from precursor replicating molecules. There is no need for an overlay of anthropic bias in the way we view the world; this bias may have evolved for reasons, our cognitive functioning did not evolve for the purposes of pure reasoning, rather it is honed by natural selection to best keep us alive.
That is just your belief. There is no evidence that these are all just random chance driven happenings. You are assuming that.
Natural Selection is just a metaphor. It is a term that can be used anywhere. A 'all in one' solution for everything. Your idea assumes that survival is important to begin with, but you take it for granted as just a natural fact of life.
I am also assuming that survival is important to begin with but prefer to ask the question...why? Why do organisms survive? What is it that drives this instinct? What survives in spite of so many organisms and species going extinct?
Human made products evolve too and they are also subject to 'artificial selection' by humans depending on what proves useful. There is a clear parallel.
-
That is just your belief. There is no evidence that these are all just random chance driven happenings. You are assuming that.
There is absolutely no evidence for anything else and once we have replication with variation and inheritance, natural selection takes over and is perfectly capable of explaining all we see.
Natural Selection is just a metaphor. It is a term that can be used anywhere. A 'all in one' solution for everything.
Natural selection is not a metaphor. Your total ignorance of the subject, coupled with a studiously closed-minded and stubborn refusal to learn anything about it, is once again on prominent display.
Your idea assumes that survival is important to begin with, but you take it for granted as just a natural fact of life.
Nonsense. As has been explained - once we have replication with variation and inheritance, those replicators that are better at surviving (through random variation) will be the ones that survive and pass the traits one. The process continues from generation to generation until all that is left is replicators that are very good at surviving.
This is perhaps one of the most blindingly obvious and simple examples of natural selection there is. It's really, really simple and completely explains exactly why all organisms have a "survival instinct".
I am also assuming that survival is important to begin with but prefer to ask the question...why? Why do organisms survive? What is it that drives this instinct? What survives in spite of so many organisms and species going extinct?
See above. The answer is simple and blindingly obvious.
-
DNA doesn't have 'needs'. It cannot help doing what it does. I think to imagine DNA has needs merely demonstrates an anthropic bias in conceptualisation.
That didn't seem to matter when Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene"
-
That didn't seem to matter when Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene"
Have you actually read the book?
-
Have you actually read the book?
Yes.A long time ago.
-
Yes.A long time ago.
Then you might have noticed that he points out that genes aren't really selfish. That actually is a metaphor.
-
Then you might have noticed that he points out that genes aren't really selfish. That actually is a metaphor.
A metaphor for what?
-
A metaphor for what?
For the fact that genes that 'act' in their own 'self-interest', i.e. those that produce traits that result in more copies of themselves in the next generation, are the ones that survive.
-
For the fact that genes that 'act' in their own 'self-interest', i.e. those that produce traits that result in more copies of themselves in the next generation, are the ones that survive.
Ah, so, judging by your use of the inverted comma it is a metaphor for two more metaphors.
-
So altruism is an emergent entity not demonstrated at the level of the gene.
-
Ah, so, judging by your use of the inverted comma it is a metaphor for two more metaphors.
Which I then explained literally: look after the "i.e."...
So altruism is an emergent entity not demonstrated at the level of the gene.
This was part of the point of the book. Dawkins is arguing that the "unit of selection" is the gene, not the organism (or group). It's genes that are 'selfish', not necessarily organisms. Altruism within a closely related group may well result in more copies of the gene(s) that produce it because there is a good chance they are present in other members of the group too.
-
That didn't seem to matter when Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene"
I think that Dawkins was possibly thinking of people like you when he wrote an introduction to the 30th Edition of 'The Selfish Gene'. He talks about the misgivings he has had about the title because many of his critics prefer to emphasise the word 'selfish' rather than the word 'gene' "and prefer to read a book by title only," "without the large footnote of the book itself."
-
Which I then explained literally: look after the "i.e."...
This was part of the point of the book. Dawkins is arguing that the "unit of selection" is the gene, not the organism (or group). It's genes that are 'selfish', not necessarily organisms. Altruism within a closely related group may well result in more copies of the gene(s) that produce it because there is a good chance they are present in other members of the group too.
All very well but then Dawkins redefines altruism, or uses an incorrect term for selfishness or is in fact being crypto eliminativist about this.
The reduction doesn't work because there is no altruism at the gene level.
The eliminativism doesn't work because Dawkins treats altruism as a really phenomenon, doesn't he?
-
All very well but then Dawkins redefines altruism, or uses an incorrect term for selfishness...
What are you on (about)?
-
What are you on (about)?
I suspect that he doesn't know.
-
I suspect that he doesn't know.
I suspect you aren't funny.
-
I suspect you aren't funny.
I suspect that you read my post!
I never get to the end of Seb's posts since I always nod OFF decisively everytime.
::)
-
That is just your belief. There is no evidence that these are all just random chance driven happenings. You are assuming that.
Natural Selection is just a metaphor. It is a term that can be used anywhere. A 'all in one' solution for everything. Your idea assumes that survival is important to begin with, but you take it for granted as just a natural fact of life.
I am also assuming that survival is important to begin with but prefer to ask the question...why? Why do organisms survive? What is it that drives this instinct? What survives in spite of so many organisms and species going extinct?
Human made products evolve too and they are also subject to 'artificial selection' by humans depending on what proves useful. There is a clear parallel.
I don't think we have any answers as to 'why' we are surviving. Why at all have a survival instinct and why the complexity?
Randomness and NS are the obvious 'answers' given by science.....but clearly these are not enough. And true randomness may not even exist....as we know.
DNA strands surviving, replicating, synthesizing proteins and evolving into complex organisms due to 'Natural Selection' is clearly nonsense.
'We don't know' should be fine. A pretentious 'science can explain all that'....is dysfunctional.
-
I don't think we have any answers as to 'why' we are surviving. Why at all have a survival instinct and why the complexity?
This has been explained to you. Just because you can't or won't understand or accept it, or even offer a counterargument, doesn't change the fact that the survival instinct is trivially easy to explain in terms of natural selection.
Randomness and NS are the obvious 'answers' given by science.....but clearly these are not enough.
Baseless assertion. Why are they not enough?
And true randomness may not even exist....as we know.
Irrelevant. The randomness need only be effectively random with regard to the process.
DNA strands surviving, replicating, synthesizing proteins and evolving into complex organisms due to 'Natural Selection' is clearly nonsense.
Your baseless assertions are clearly nonsense.
'We don't know' should be fine. A pretentious 'science can explain all that'....is dysfunctional.
In this instance, we do know (well "know" as well as we know anything in science). Why are you insisting on ignoring the blindingly obvious?
-
I don't think we have any answers as to 'why' we are surviving. Why at all have a survival instinct and why the complexity?
Randomness and NS are the obvious 'answers' given by science.....but clearly these are not enough.
Why?
-
I don't think we have any answers as to 'why' we are surviving. Why at all have a survival instinct and why the complexity?
Randomness and NS are the obvious 'answers' given by science.....but clearly these are not enough. And true randomness may not even exist....as we know.
DNA strands surviving, replicating, synthesizing proteins and evolving into complex organisms due to 'Natural Selection' is clearly nonsense.
'We don't know' should be fine. A pretentious 'science can explain all that'....is dysfunctional.
Don't really understand the sentiments here. Things evolve because it is logical for them to do so. It is logical for instance that living creatures would evolve a survival instinct. it is when things seem illogical that we need to ask 'why'.
-
Don't really understand the sentiments here. Things evolve because it is logical for them to do so. It is logical for instance that living creatures would evolve a survival instinct. it is when things seem illogical that we need to ask 'why'.
You are telling me evolving is logical?! DNA thinks logically now?!! Hmmm!
-
You are telling me evolving is logical?! DNA thinks logically now?!! Hmmm!
Now you're just being silly, well, more silly than usual... ::)
This has been explained - what is it you are finding difficult to understand?
-
You are telling me evolving is logical?! DNA thinks logically now?!! Hmmm!
Of course that's not what is being said.
-
You are telling me evolving is logical?! DNA thinks logically now?!! Hmmm!
Are you just being silly for the sake of it? The idea is that as entities evolve it is logical that the progress of their evolution is linked to their greater capacity to survive. To suggest that those entities that survive have a lesser capacity to survive is surely illogical, isn't it?
How on earth do you get from that to the nonsensical idea that DNA must think logically?
-
Hi everyone,
This is not very difficult to understand really....!
There is no logic to this world. There is no logic to the stars, planets, galaxies, Big Bang, gravity, earth, Life, evolution, complexity.....etc. etc. The world does not function according to any logic.
Logic is a human construct and implies anything that appears reasonable to our minds. Once a certain law or natural disposition is given, we can talk of logic .....not before that! For example, once we take gravity for granted, we can then assume logically that all objects will be attracted by it. Once we take evolution for granted, we can logically assume that all living things will evolve.
But there is nothing logical about the existence of gravity or evolution or Life by itself.
Either we assume that these forces and processes exist due to random reasons (if there is anything that we can call truly random) or that they are caused by something that precedes them or there is some intervention from external agencies beyond this world. Saying that they are 'logical' doesn't make sense in this context.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
This is not very difficult to understand really....!
There is no logic to this world. There is no logic to the stars, planets, galaxies, Big Bang, gravity, earth, Life, evolution, complexity.....etc. etc. The world does not function according to any logic.
Logic is a human construct and implies anything that appears reasonable to our minds. Once a certain law or natural disposition is given, we can talk of logic .....not before that! For example, once we take gravity for granted, we can then assume logically that all objects will be attracted by it. Once we take evolution for granted, we can logically assume that all living things will evolve.
But there is nothing logical about the existence of gravity or evolution or Life by itself.
Either we assume that these forces and processes exist due to random reasons (if there is anything that we can call truly random) or that they are caused by something that precedes them or there is some intervention from external agencies beyond this world. Saying that they are 'logical' doesn't make sense in this context.
Cheers.
Sriram
I would suggest that what I suggested in post 33 is perfectly valid.(i.e. evolutionary progress is linked to survival). The Oxford definition of 'valid' that is appropriate here is 'The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.'
Hence I see no reason at all to change what I have written. The idea that DNA can 'think' and can think 'logically' bears no resemblance to what has been written. It is entirely a conjecture of your own making, and, to my mind, is a particularly silly one.
This is not very difficult to understand really....! :)
-
This is not very difficult to understand really....!
Yet it still seems to be beyond you...
There is no logic to this world. There is no logic to the stars, planets, galaxies, Big Bang, gravity, earth, Life, evolution, complexity.....etc. etc. The world does not function according to any logic.
Given that the world is predictable, self-consistent, and most significantly, modellable with mathematics, we have good reason to think you are wrong.
Logic is a human construct and implies anything that appears reasonable to our minds.
I'll add logic to the list of things you don't understand.
Once we take evolution for granted, we can logically assume that all living things will evolve.
There is actually no need to take evolution "for granted", evolution by natural selection follows logically from populations of replicating entities, with inheritance and variation, faced with limited resources.
Survival "instinct" follows logically from natural selection.
Either we assume that these forces and processes exist due to random reasons (if there is anything that we can call truly random) or that they are caused by something that precedes them or there is some intervention from external agencies beyond this world.
Then we can apply exactly the same logic to whatever you might imagine causes these things or intervenes from "beyond this world" and head off into an infinite regress...
::)