A few questions for atheists...

[Cute Tink]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. As promised, here's question 2. I've also included Google's definition of homeostasis to ensure we're all talking about the same thing...

homeostasis -- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. (Google)

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

No, and I did read your further clarifications.

 

[dysert]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

 

[Cute Tink]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

Honestly I don't give much thought to homeostasis or when it may have become a factor in life.

 

[Abraxos]

I don't see how you can move on to 3 when 1 isn't even explained, other with a lazy "yes".

The theory of abiogenesis is ongoing. The Miller-Urey experiment was a failure. Next method: Bashing 2 rocks together in hopes a worm will form.

Problem is in Darwins time, they thought that a cell was as sophisticated as a ping pong. As science progressed it became known as an information, processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity.
Cells employ a complex information-processing system to access and express the information stored in DNA as they use that information to build the proteins and protein machines that they need to stay alive. Scientists attempting to explain the origin of life must explain how both information-rich molecules and the cell's information-processing system arose. ~ Steven Meyer

 

[essentialsaltes]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

No.

I expect the initial living things were too simple to have any form of homeostasis. The pathways that govern homeostasis evolved over time.

 

[[serious]]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

It depends where you peg the start of life. Simple replicator can exist without homeostasis, but since homeostasis is a defining property of life, the first true life must have had some for of it.

I'll answer two ways:
Was the first self reproducing thing with selectable trait capable of homeostasis? No.

Was the first completely alive thing capable of homeostasis? Yes, as gaining the ability to self regulate was probably the last thing to develop

 

[Shemjaza]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

No. Life would have initially been at the mercy of its environment. If the conditions changed so its processes failed it would just die.

The ability for an individual to adjust to a changing environment is a trait subject to selection and mutation like any other.

 

[Astrophile]

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?

Probably, but it's a lot more complicated than that. You should try reading some books about the origin of life.

 

[florida2]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. As promised, here's question 2. I've also included Google's definition of homeostasis to ensure we're all talking about the same thing...

homeostasis -- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. (Google)

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

No, unless you define my hypothalamus as intelligent which I think would be a stretch. The simplest or organisms can carry out homeostatic perfectly well on their own without a brain or even nerves.

The idea that God would make life which he would then have to micro manage every property of every cell is ludicrous and would be incredibly bad design.

Why do you ask? Is this what you believe?

 

[VirOptimus]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

This question is very loaded IMO and carries with it many assumptions and assertions.

The process of life starting is probably very gradual and the assumption of a "spark" is therefore probably not correct for starters.

Homeostasis is simply a process, there is no "taking over" from anything.

 

[Jimmy D]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

I don't believe that, I should imagine that whatever it is you're referring to was not that complex. Who knows?

 

[dysert]

Probably, but it's a lot more complicated than that. You should try reading some books about the origin of life.

I have ;-)

 

[dysert]

Thanks for the interesting answers so far and for not beating me up about the fuzziness of the question. The last question is more of an essay question, and I'll post it later today.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

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

No. Vague notions of what constitutes "some form of intelligence" not withstanding.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

No. Again, setting aside the issues with your phrasing. Homeostasis emerged at some point later which was selected for and persisted because it increased fitness. There was no "taking over".

 

[46AND2]

The theory of abiogenesis is ongoing. The Miller-Urey experiment was a failure.

It most certainly was not a failure, and if you think it was, then you don't really understand the intent of the experiment.

 

[AirPo]

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?

No, but it may have more to do with the way the question is worded. As far as I know, the line between a living entity and a non living entity is not fine but fuzzy. So I think he qualifier "at just the right time" makes it a no.

 

[AirPo]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. As promised, here's question 2. I've also included Google's definition of homeostasis to ensure we're all talking about the same thing...

homeostasis -- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. (Google)

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

No, I'd say it's the laws of nature that controls homeostasis in organisms.

 

[AirPo]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

No, similar to me reasons for my first answer.

 

[dysert]

Here's the last question. It's a "why" question so I won't be surprised to see a variety of answers. It's also obviously an essay question, so knock yourselves out. Thanks.

Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?