Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith · 02-24-2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy

"Keith what do you mean by complex structures, brain, eye, ear? I am no biologist and I do not know much about bats, but for humans the answer is obvious. It is also obvious for cats and dogs."

I'm referring to the eyes and ears, at least for now. Do any of you have a rough idea how long it might have taken for bat ears to develop? You can pick any species of bat. I'm wondering if it was a few hundred years, a few thousand, or a few million years.

Keith

Starboy · 02-24-2003, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
That's fair enough but then don't use the word select because this verb implies that a choice was made by an organism.

Amos, you bring up a good point. In the past selection implied a being making the selection, but in the age of machines we now grant that a machine can make a selection. Science treats nature as if it were a machine. This doesn't resolve the issue because, after all, machines are things built by man for a purpose. In the case of nature, it is not known if it was built. The assumption of many scientists is that it was not built, it just is. There is no reason to think the universe has a purpose because: 1) to us it doesn't look like the universe has a purpose or 2) if the universe did have a purpose it has nothing to do with us (which is probably why to us it doesn't look like it has a purpose).

Now I know that there are many of the religious that are convinced that the universe has a purpose and human beings are somehow involved in that purpose. All I have to say to those folks is that they need to get out more, stop spending their entire lives looking at the tops of their shoes or contemplating their navels, or *gasp* reading the bible. The universe is a very big place filled with things stranger than anything humans can possibly imagine.

Starboy

Starboy · 02-24-2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
I'm referring to the eyes and ears, at least for now. Do any of you have a rough idea how long it might have taken for bat ears to develop? You can pick any species of bat. I'm wondering if it was a few hundred years, a few thousand, or a few million years.

Keith

Keith, are you picking on bats for a specific reason?

Marlowe · 02-24-2003, 11:28 AM

A quick perusal of available information on bat evolution tends to reveal an emphasis on the development of flight rather than on the development of their eyes or ears. Keep in mind not a lot of evolutionary biologists focus exclusively on bats. Things might go better in the discussion if you were specific about what you're trying to ask, Keith. If you're looking for an answer to how a complex structure like an eye comes into being - to speak plainly it is barely understood by evolutionists at the moment. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put forward the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is heavily supported by complexity theory, not to mention the data we have from the fossil record.

Gould's theory postulates that organisms are not ruled simply by natural selection. It is not that a species' DNA only keeps genes that are directly related to survival. A species' DNA has numerous genes that are 'fuzzy', that is they have no immediate use in the current enviornment, but they have no specific detriment either - so there is no selection pressure for the DNA to dump them. This allows a genome (such as a bat's ancestors) to maintain a backlog of possibly useful genes and structures. When environmental pressures change or when enough complexity is built up in a species (the greater number of individuals in a breeding population, the greater the range of genes for a specific trait), then there is a convergence - a jump in complexity. Out of this jump come emergent structures and emergent behaviors. An emergent structure would be - an eye, or an entirely new species or an entirely new ecosystem.

Theses theories are very new and not entirely worked out yet - but they fit the data so far and there is a good mathematical basis for them as well.

02-24-2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
or 2) if the universe did have a purpose it has nothing to do with us (which is probably why to us it doesn't look like it has a purpose).

Starboy

Starboy, it is silly to even suggest that the universe has a purpose because it does not have a mind to be of purpose.

From this follows that we are obviously not part of that which exists in the universe but only we think that we are. In other words, we don't know what we are talking about!

02-24-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marlowe
This allows a genome (such as a bat's ancestors) to maintain a backlog of possibly useful genes and structures.

Theses theories are very new and not entirely worked out yet - but they fit the data so far and there is a good mathematical basis for them as well.

That's interesting. This backlog is called our soul and we've got a whole storehouse full of it (we have ancesters too). Maybe that is the reason why there are no genes in our brain.

Starboy · 02-24-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
Starboy, it is silly to even suggest that the universe has a purpose because it does not have a mind to be of purpose.

From this follows that we are obviously not part of that which exists in the universe but only we think that we are. In other words, we don't know what we are talking about!

Amos, sometimes you say the darndest things. I agree, we do not know what we are talking about, that is why we have so many people engaged in exporing the universe in the activity known as science. As to the universe and purpose, what I was trying to say is that if the universe was created as a machine by some other being it might have a purpose, but from what can be seen so far, it is not obvious that there is a purpose or that humanity figures in that purpose in any way.

Starboy

Keith · 02-24-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marlowe

"The big problem with the Hot Soup theory was the idea that chance would lead to spontaneous construction of complex molecules like DNA - in fact mathematicians calculated that it would take far in excess of the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around for it to happen. Biologists still repeated the Hot Soup theory because it was all we had. Then, the Hot Soup theory was greatly refined by complexity theorists, particularly Stuart Kauffman.

Actually it's not really out of chance. The new science of complexity shows how in a sea of different chemicals, complexity increases - that is more and more differing chemicals build up in a localized area until a certain threshold is reached, wherein autocatalytic sets spontaneously form. These are loops of chemical reactions where one chemical (A) becomes a catalyst for other chemicals (B and C), which combine to form a catalyst that forms (A). These loops start out simple and then more loops build up in localized area. Since chemicals are moving about in the soup, running into and catalyzing each other eventually by their natural properties they recombine into larger autocatalytic sets, with more components. The same process of increasing complexity occurs again as the autocatalytic sets become more complex and eventually lead to the formation of highly complex moelcules that can replicate themselves - such as RNA and DNA.

A detailed description of Kauffman's theory can be found in his book At Home in the Universe. What it finally comes down to is that there is a decent mathematically based theory for how life came to be, it involves not chance but the natural way in which the universe is structured - which is for systems to build greater and greater levels of complexity - see Waldrop's Complexity - the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos.

Do the laws we are in the midst of discovering via Complexity mean there is intent in the universe? Not really. Complexity specifically exists in a borderland between order and chaos. Intent (or purpose, of life knowing how to create an eye, etc) suggests order. Chaos is randomness. Turns out that life and evolution are not either - they are both."

Yes, this is true, it isn't merely "chance." For a complex system to emerge, there has to already be information within the system. Complex systems are "information driven" systems. Such systems don't just spontaneously become complex for no reason. But this just pushes the whole thing back a few more levels. From what source did the information originate?

Keith

02-24-2003, 12:25 PM

Starboy I understand and there was no harm intended. My point is that science is nice and exhillerating. I agree with evolution but not with the selfrighteous idea that creation is wrong per se. I agree that their idea of the good old grade school creation story is wrong but that does not make creation wrong. In fact, the exchange we hare having here is part of creation wherein there is speaker and a listener. Out of this comes understanding (with or without agreement) and a new concept is created. As we go through life we make millions of these and they collect in our soul to become our character after which our children are reproduced and so on and so on until we either go right or wrong and can or cannot reproduce. Bats do the same thing because all sentient beings have a conscious mind and a subconscious mind to do this with.

Keith · 02-24-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marlowe

"A quick perusal of available information on bat evolution tends to reveal an emphasis on the development of flight rather than on the development of their eyes or ears. Keep in mind not a lot of evolutionary biologists focus exclusively on bats. Things might go better in the discussion if you were specific about what you're trying to ask, Keith. If you're looking for an answer to how a complex structure like an eye comes into being - to speak plainly it is barely understood by evolutionists at the moment. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put forward the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is heavily supported by complexity theory, not to mention the data we have from the fossil record."

Is it at least possible that a bat ear (pick any species of bat) could have only required a few hundred years to develop?

Keith

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-24-2003, 11:28 AM	#54
Marlowe Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Little Rock Posts: 51	A quick perusal of available information on bat evolution tends to reveal an emphasis on the development of flight rather than on the development of their eyes or ears. Keep in mind not a lot of evolutionary biologists focus exclusively on bats. Things might go better in the discussion if you were specific about what you're trying to ask, Keith. If you're looking for an answer to how a complex structure like an eye comes into being - to speak plainly it is barely understood by evolutionists at the moment. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put forward the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is heavily supported by complexity theory, not to mention the data we have from the fossil record. Gould's theory postulates that organisms are not ruled simply by natural selection. It is not that a species' DNA only keeps genes that are directly related to survival. A species' DNA has numerous genes that are 'fuzzy', that is they have no immediate use in the current enviornment, but they have no specific detriment either - so there is no selection pressure for the DNA to dump them. This allows a genome (such as a bat's ancestors) to maintain a backlog of possibly useful genes and structures. When environmental pressures change or when enough complexity is built up in a species (the greater number of individuals in a breeding population, the greater the range of genes for a specific trait), then there is a convergence - a jump in complexity. Out of this jump come emergent structures and emergent behaviors. An emergent structure would be - an eye, or an entirely new species or an entirely new ecosystem. Theses theories are very new and not entirely worked out yet - but they fit the data so far and there is a good mathematical basis for them as well.

02-24-2003, 12:25 PM	#59
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Starboy I understand and there was no harm intended. My point is that science is nice and exhillerating. I agree with evolution but not with the selfrighteous idea that creation is wrong per se. I agree that their idea of the good old grade school creation story is wrong but that does not make creation wrong. In fact, the exchange we hare having here is part of creation wherein there is speaker and a listener. Out of this comes understanding (with or without agreement) and a new concept is created. As we go through life we make millions of these and they collect in our soul to become our character after which our children are reproduced and so on and so on until we either go right or wrong and can or cannot reproduce. Bats do the same thing because all sentient beings have a conscious mind and a subconscious mind to do this with.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.