A few questions for atheists...

[Loudmouth]

Not as a whole, but then animals, for instance, don't get their energy directly from the sun. They have to actively seek energy input by ingesting it.

They do get energy indirectly from the sun. Animals feed on photosynthesizers, or they feed on other animals who feed on photosynthesizers. Ultimately, nearly all of the energy found in Earth's ecosystems comes from the Sun.

Yes, it would be, but, and I may be mistaken, the effects of oxidation are cummlative as is damage to genectic material and shortening of telomeres leading to copying mistakes and sometimes cancers beginning from the moment of conception.

There are already DNA repair mechanisms that fix many of these mistakes, but still let a few through. There is no physical, chemical, or biological reason why DNA repair mechanisms could not repair 100% of mutations . . . but they don't. The thought is that there is often no gain in fitness with long life, and in many cases a species is less fit if individual organisms live for a long time.

Perhaps, the overall efficiency of the system allows the organism to grow and thrive until these things overcome that efficiency and degrade enough to cause the organism to die because it can no longer sustain the chemical reactions necessary to keep it alive.

The reason that we lose efficiency over time has nothing to do with entropy, however. There is more than enough energy available to life to overcome these problems.

I guess I think of it in terms of chemical reactions. All chemical reactions, and in this context the specific ones i'm talking about (oxidation, genetic degeneration, shortening telomeres, etc.) ultimately are governed by entropy, going from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.

You should also know that nearly all chemical reactions can be driven "backwards" by adding energy to the system. For example, hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water while releasing energy. That is positive entropy. You can also add energy to the system by adding electricity, and what do you get? Water splits into molecular oxygen and hydrogen again.

Whatever oxidation damage occurs, it could be reversed if energy is added to the system.

Life is just a really complicated chemical reaction that "seeks" to dissipate energy and increase entropy.

Followed by multiple steps to reduce entropy in specific molecules. It is what we call homeostasis.

 

[rjw]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

If you are asking whether or not I think that life originated by atoms randomly bumping together at the correct time and in the correct configuration, then no, I don't think that.

I think the origin of life was a chemical and physical process - a set of chemical reactions building up in complexity, over time. Those reactions obeyed the laws of chemistry and physics. (That is, those laws constained the otherwise random process. They ensured that only certain outcomes, as opposed to any outcome, could happen).

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

They do get energy indirectly from the sun. Animals feed on photosynthesizers, or they feed on other animals who feed on photosynthesizers. Ultimately, nearly all of the energy found in Earth's ecosystems comes from the Sun.



There are already DNA repair mechanisms that fix many of these mistakes, but still let a few through. There is no physical, chemical, or biological reason why DNA repair mechanisms could not repair 100% of mutations . . . but they don't. The thought is that there is often no gain in fitness with long life, and in many cases a species is less fit if individual organisms live for a long time.



The reason that we lose efficiency over time has nothing to do with entropy, however. There is more than enough energy available to life to overcome these problems.



You should also know that nearly all chemical reactions can be driven "backwards" by adding energy to the system. For example, hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water while releasing energy. That is positive entropy. You can also add energy to the system by adding electricity, and what do you get? Water splits into molecular oxygen and hydrogen again.

Whatever oxidation damage occurs, it could be reversed if energy is added to the system.


Followed by multiple steps to reduce entropy in specific molecules. It is what we call homeostasis.

Well, sure. If you want to be specific.

 

[Papias]

..... in many cases a species is less fit if individual organisms live for a long time.

No. Natural selection only rarely, if at all, operates on the species level.

... there is often no gain in fitness with long life....

No, I think it is clear that a longer living individual is more fit (more likely to leave more offspring) than one that dies sooner (because it's hard to leave offspring when dead).

However, that makes the mistake of thinking of this looking at the individuals. As Dawkins and others have emphasized, that's not realistic. This needs to be looked at from the gene's viewpoint.

From the gene's viewpoint, the longer lived organism, in old age, will soon be competing with copies of the same gene in it's offspring. Those offspring will be more fit because they have the recombinations needed to better fight parasites, etc (the benefits of sex).

Thus, old age and death are selected for due to competition with one's offspring, resulting in more copies of the gene (gene fitness) even though the individuals are less fit as individuals.

-Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Natural selection only rarely, if at all, operates on the species level.

You sure about that? It would seem to me that evolution only operates at the species level, otherwise known as the population level. Evolution does not operate at the individual level. The individual survival of an organism doesn't matter, as it concerns evolution. What matters is how many grandchildren that individual has, relative to others in the population. If a short life span increases the survival of those grandchildren, then natural selection will favor a shorter life span.

No, I think it is clear that a longer living individual is more fit (more likely to leave more offspring) than one that dies sooner (because it's hard to leave offspring when dead).

A mouse has a very short life span, yet a single mouse can more offspring than any human.

Also, the survival of children and grandchildren is reduced if they are competing with their parents and grandparents.

However, that makes the mistake of thinking of this looking at the individuals. As Dawkins and others have emphasized, that's not realistic. This needs to be looked at from the gene's viewpoint.

From the gene's viewpoint, the longer lived organism, in old age, will soon be competing with copies of the same gene in it's offspring. Those offspring will be more fit because they have the recombinations needed to better fight parasites, etc (the benefits of sex).

Thus, old age and death are selected for due to competition with one's offspring, resulting in more copies of the gene (gene fitness) even though the individuals are less fit as individuals.

-Papias

If children are competing with their parents and grandparents, that reduces the survival of those children. Therefore, mutations that shorten the life span of parents while not affecting their fecundity will be selected for in many cases. Long life spans will only be selected for if they increase the survival of offspring, as is often the case for humans who rely on social groups and knowledge passed on from each generation.

 

[Papias]

It would seem to me that evolution only operates at the species level, otherwise known as the population level. Evolution does not operate at the individual level.

No, "species" =/= "population". Yes, evolution happens in populations over time, as individuals compete.

We are mixing our terms even though we agree. I'll try to be clear below.

The individual survival of an organism doesn't matter, as it concerns evolution. What matters is how many grandchildren that individual has, relative to others in the population. If a short life span increases the survival of those grandchildren, then natural selection will favor a shorter life span.

Right. I'm calling that the individual level, not the species level.

If children are competing with their parents and grandparents, that reduces the survival of those children. Therefore, mutations that shorten the life span of parents while not affecting their fecundity will be selected for in many cases. Long life spans will only be selected for if they increase the survival of offspring, as is often the case for humans who rely on social groups and knowledge passed on from each generation.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. I think that solves the "question" of why old age and death has been selected for.

Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

No, "species" =/= "population".

It most certainly does. A species is defined as the largest population in which free interbreeding occurs.

We are mixing our terms even though we agree.

I think this is probably the case.

 

[Cearbhall]

Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?

Not an external intelligence, no.

 

[[serious]]

It most certainly does. A species is defined as the largest population in which free interbreeding occurs.



I think this is probably the case.

I've got to side with Papias here. The two terms are related, but not fully synonymous. A population is all of the individuals of the same species within an ecological community. Two groups of the same species separated geographically would constitute two populations.

As for the broader point, well, I think the broader point is pedantic nonsense that I don't care about. The important thing is that evolution acts on groups, not individuals. Since both populations and species are groups, let's let the minor points slide.

 

[Loudmouth]

As for the broader point, well, I think the broader point is pedantic nonsense that I don't care about. The important thing is that evolution acts on groups, not individuals. Since both populations and species are groups, let's let the minor points slide.

I agree. Evolution acts on groups of interbreeding individuals (at least for sexual species). The rest is pedantry and semantics, which scientists really like to argue over.

 

[[serious]]

I agree. Evolution acts on groups of interbreeding individuals (at least for sexual species). The rest is pedantry and semantics, which scientists really like to argue over.

You mean which researchers like to argue over.

 

[Abraxos]

Entropy.

Well that's just brilliant isn't it.

"The reality of Genetic Entropy is positively fatal to Darwinism" ~ Dr. John Sanford-genetics professor at Cornell U.

 

[[serious]]

Well that's just brilliant isn't it.

"The reality of Genetic Entropy is positively fatal to Darwinism" ~ Dr. John Sanford-genetics professor at Cornell U.

Could you define "Genetic Entropy"?

 

[Abraxos]

Could you define "Genetic Entropy"?

It essentially means a universal tendency toward dissipation, degeneration, decay, and death. And it's not something you need to read in a book, it's something we all experience everyday.

Entropy = gradual decline.

 

[Shemjaza]

It essentially means a universal tendency toward dissipation, degeneration, decay, and death. And it's not something you need to read in a book, it's something we all experience everyday.

Entropy = gradual decline.

Universal doesn't mean at a consistent rate, or even that local increases aren't possible.

Food can be cooked, snow flakes can form, and children can be born, grow up and create things.

 

[Abraxos]

Atheists are certainly experts at jargon.

 

[Shemjaza]

Atheists are certainly experts at jargon.

I'm happy to explain what I mean.

Over the scale of the universe entropy is wearing everything down. Even at the scale of our Solar system the Sun is burning out, but the energy provided to the Earth is enough to keep things developing and growing.

 

[[serious]]

It essentially means a universal tendency toward dissipation, degeneration, decay, and death. And it's not something you need to read in a book, it's something we all experience everyday.

Entropy = gradual decline.

So not a scientific term, but rather just something that feels true to you, wrapped up in science sounding terms?

Ok, let's look at that:

The human population lives longer on average, and is larger and healthier than at any time in history. That seems to run counter to the idea of gradual decline.

Many creatures, the hydra for example, do not seem to biologically age. Others, like the desert tortoise, face less mortality as they get older.

So for both individuals and populations, gradual decline doesn't need to happen.

 

[Abraxos]

Truth is we grow, we age, we die.

Jargon merely spin that to mean something else.

 

[[serious]]

Truth is we grow, we age, we die.

Jargon merely spin that to mean something else.

Hydras don't biologically age.