Three Big Questions

[Job 33:6]

Why is life on distant planets ineviable tho? Isit because of that equation? The drake equation i believe?

Of course none of us truly knows for sure, but what we are finding as time goes on are dozens, which will become hundreds, then thousands, then millions, then billions of earth-like habitable planets in the universe.

In history, people looked at earth as if it was the center of the universe. People believed that the sun revolved around the earth. We were central, we were "privileged", "better", "special".

People used to be completely unaware that stars were their own sun's, thinking that our sun was the only sun (again we were privileged with the only sun in existence).

Eventually we learned that earth was not the center of our solar system, but rather, our sun was. (We became less central). And people didn't like this idea, in truth. As we all know, there was staunch resistance, particularly by the Catholic Church, against Galileo, considered a heretic for suggesting that we weren't in the center of it all. Copernicus only published on the de-centralized nature of the earth, while on his death bed, as he knew he couldn't be punished then, and yet still further his ideas were rejected.

People at one point in time, eventually learned that earth wasn't the only planet (we became less central).

People eventually learned that our sun wasn't the only star. (We became less central).

We eventually learned that we lived in a solar system. But we soon also gathered that yet again, we weren't in the middle of things, but rather we learned that there are a practically infinite number of other solar systems.

We eventually learned that we were in a galaxy. The milky way. But again, we weren't even the center of that, we are on a distant arm of the milky way. If the milky way were a busy city like Manhattan, we would be in upstate new York in the far less populated woods.

And again we see ourselves, not in the center of it all, but on the edge, distant.

We eventually learn that our milky way was not the only galaxy in the universe but rather that there were hundreds of billions of galaxies just like ours. Again, we found that we weren't in the center of it all.

People used to think that...people were unrelated and independent of the animal kingdom, the center of life on earth for all history. We then learned (as some Christians of course still don't accept), that we (humanity) used to be like other non human animals, ourselves, our ancestors were amphibians and reptiles etc. Yet again, the focus pulls away from us being at the center of it all.

And now, really just in recent times (10-20 years), we've begun discovering that earth isn't the only earth. We've begun discovering other "Earths". Now earth is no longer "The Earth" but rather is "An Earth", of many). Many Earth's that are habitable that we and other hypothetical life, could comfortably live on. We are beginning to gather that there are countless Earth's.

So what does this mean?

In our history, people have always believed that we were in a more "priveleged" position than we actually were. Well, there is only 1 earth and it is ours. Well there is only 1 sun and it is ours. There is only one mankind and it is ours (independent and better than all life), there is only 1 solar system and it is ours, there is only 1 galaxy and it is ours, there is only 1 earth and it is ours etc.

Mankind consistently has viewed itself as the most special, the only special, THE special, of all that exists.

But as time goes on, we consistently find more and more beyond us.

And, I think that this trend of "moving away from the center" will inevitably lead us to find more life in the universe (assuming we get the technology to investigate). I believe this trend will continue. And with a universe of a practically infinite number of habitable "Earths", I think it's just a matter of time before we find extra terrestrial life (assuming we get the technology to search).

And now, we have people resistant to the idea that ETs may exist. But why? Are they worried that if others exist, that we might not be as central as we want to believe we are in the universe? Are they afraid that it might mean that God might love us less?

If the trend continues, life will be found. But I for one, will continue to believe that we are loved, even if we aren't in the middle of it all.

 

[SelfSim]

Nice poetry but ..

And now, really just in recent times (10-20 years), we've begun discovering that earth isn't the only earth. We've begun discovering other "Earths". Now earth is no longer "The Earth" but rather is "An Earth", of many). Many Earth's that are habitable that we and other hypothetical life, could comfortably live on. We are beginning to gather that there are countless Earth's.

Fact: Earth is still the only planet we know of which has extant life.

So what does this mean?

It means Earth is still unique in the universe we know of. What makes it unique, is its life.

In our history, people have always believed that we were in a more "priveleged" position than we actually were.

All I have that mean is that beliefs are irrelevant.
...

But as time goes on, we consistently find more and more beyond us.

Its plainly obviously not beyond us, when we're the ones doing: finding out more and more ..

And, I think that this trend of "moving away from the center" will inevitably lead us to find more life in the universe (assuming we get the technology to investigate). I believe this trend will continue. And with a universe of a practically infinite number of habitable "Earths", I think it's just a matter of time before we find extra terrestrial life (assuming we get the technology to search).

So you subsititute a belief in place of: 'we don't know'. Why not just go with: 'we don't know' and leave it at that? No need for more beliefs of the same type which have dominated human history .. (just as you so eloquently pointed out).

And now, we have people resistant to the idea that ETs may exist. But why? Are they worried that if others exist, that we might not be as central as we want to believe we are in the universe? Are they afraid that it might mean that God might love us less?

Its not the idea that I personally resist .. its the belief that it does, that I resist.

If the trend continues, life will be found.

... and there it is .. exactly what I say we need to resist. There is no objectively established reason for the belief that life will be found. In fact, looking for a specific pattern match to what we are familiar with, could potentially inhibit exploring what more there is for us to perceive .. We don't know.

But I for one, will continue to believe that we are loved, even if we aren't in the middle of it all.

What we're in the middle of, is the 'downtown central' of life. And at the core of that life, is a mind exploring its own perceptions. I care about that!

 

[Job 33:6]

Nice poetry but ..
Fact: Earth is still the only planet we know of which has extant life.
It means Earth is still unique in the universe we know of. What makes it unique, is its life.
All I have that mean is that beliefs are irrelevant.
...
Its plainly obviously not beyond us, when we're the ones doing: finding out more and more ..
So you subsititute a belief in place of: 'we don't know'. Why not just go with: 'we don't know' and leave it at that? No need for more beliefs of the same type which have dominated human history .. (just as you so eloquently pointed out).
Its not the idea that I personally resist .. its the belief that it does, that I resist.
... and there it is .. exactly what I say we need to resist. There is no objectively established reason for the belief that life will be found. In fact, looking for a specific pattern match to what we are familiar with, could potentially inhibit exploring what more there is for us to perceive .. We don't know.
What we're in the middle of, is the 'downtown central' of life. And at the core of that life, is a mind exploring its own perceptions. I care about that!

Of course nobody knows if alien life actually exists, I'm just proposing why I think it is inevitable that life will be found. You're free to disagree.

And yes, I agree that we ultimately do not know what is out there.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

There was no explicit distinction between micro and macro evolution in Darwin's time, but the core of his theory was how observable instances of change in populations, i.e. what some now call microevolution, would, over generations, result in a diversity of species, ie. macro evolution. So I can't agree with you there.

The rest of that paragraph is also inaccurate. There have been a number of named extensions and expansions of Darwin's theory, the 'teaks and additions' are not 'official' or 'unofficial', they're typically agreed by consensus, and they're not "conflating the original theory to include more than was intended." Darwin intended his theory to be developed and expanded.

But the punctuation was OK.

Ok, I kind of mixed up terms there. What i actually meant to refer to was not microevolution (sorry for that), but evolution on cellular levels/smaller scales (as opposed to evolution within species and between species) Darwin's evolution focuses on outwardly visible adaptations in various species and how species can evolve into other species. He doesn't delve "below the hood" into how the "vital systems" of the various species, and all species in general evolve. Below are just some examples :

1. how does blood and the vessels that it runs thru, evolve in tandem, since they have to? Blood comes first? or vessels? how is it decided? Of course, there's many other examples of this, but 1 will suffice for now

2. And another query is how cells came to be. E.coli bacteria is considered one of the simplest lifeforms around today. And yet, it is pretty complex :
• A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
• A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
• An enzyme capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
• An enzyme capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
• An enzyme that can build cell walls
• An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
• An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
• Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes

And the standard response for this is that thru millions of years of evolution, is how the e.coli cell came to be. Stepping aside from discussions concerning the feasibility or possible process of this, let's look at the first most basic, living cells :
· A cell wall
· The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
· The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
· The ability to split itself to reproduce

Otherwise, it is not really a cell and it is not really alive. But the question then now, is how did even this cell, form?
note : Much of Point 2. was lifted from the Howstuffworks "How Evolution works" page.

As for your second point, yes I agree, the theory is meant to be grown and expanded. What I wrote there is just for background info on the Theory of evolution. Similar to why study history when we are living in the present? For one thing, to learn from the past, but another is also to appreciate how things came to be, and what we have now, or perhaps, developing a change in view once acquiring a better understanding of the past, and how we arrived at what we have today. In summary, knowing more allows one to better judge and ascertain. Reading your feedback, I think in future additions I would change the "tone" of it to not sound condescending or sarcarstic, which actually wasn't my intention, tho when choosing words like "conflating" and phrases like "include more than intended", I guess it comes across as such.
Though I admit, the title is to attention-grab but the book is meant to be objective without having a bias towards anything.

 

[Gene2memE]

Gosh, if only there weren't people researching the origins of how particular biological systems developed.
And if only there weren't people researching how life developed from earlier non-living replicators.
And if only there were literally thousands of research papers published on these topics that are available with a bare handful of terms entered into a search engine.

1. how does blood and the vessels that it runs thru, evolve in tandem, since they have to? Blood comes first? or vessels? how is it decided? Of course, there's many other examples of this, but 1 will suffice for now

Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium

2. And another query is how cells came to be. E.coli bacteria is considered one of the simplest lifeforms around today. And yet, it is pretty complex :
• A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
• A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
• An enzyme capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
• An enzyme capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
• An enzyme that can build cell walls
• An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
• An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
• Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes

The Role of Lipid Membranes in Life’s Origin

And the standard response for this is that thru millions of years of evolution, is how the e.coli cell came to be. Stepping aside from discussions concerning the feasibility or possible process of this, let's look at the first most basic, living cells :
· A cell wall
· The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
· The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
· The ability to split itself to reproduce

Generating minimal living systems from non-living materials and increasing their evolutionary abilities


Frankly, the longer I stay on these forums, the more I am led to believe that many of those who are critical of evolutionary theory make deliberate choices not to educate themselves on the subject.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What i actually meant to refer to was not microevolution (sorry for that), but evolution on cellular levels/smaller scales (as opposed to evolution within species and between species) Darwin's evolution focuses on outwardly visible adaptations in various species and how species can evolve into other species. He doesn't delve "below the hood" into how the "vital systems" of the various species, and all species in general evolve.

That's understandable, cell biology and developmental biology were in their infancy. It's interesting to note that despite the absence of molecular biology, cell biology, developmental biology, population genetics, paleontology, etc., etc., - fields that are now considered evidential pillars of evolutionary theory - Darwin's theory and the evidence with which he supported it was sufficient to convince the majority of eminent scientists in the Royal Society (most of whom had believed that humans were special creations).

1. how does blood and the vessels that it runs thru, evolve in tandem, since they have to? Blood comes first? or vessels? how is it decided? Of course, there's many other examples of this, but 1 will suffice for now

Seriously? You wrote a book on evolution and yet you think this is still an outstanding question?

2. And another query is how cells came to be.

This is not part of either Darwinian evolution or its successors, which address the diversity of life. It is a separate field of study called Abiogenesis - in which steady progress is being made.

As for your second point, yes I agree, the theory is meant to be grown and expanded. What I wrote there is just for background info on the Theory of evolution. ... Reading your feedback, I think in future additions I would change the "tone" of it to not sound condescending or sarcarstic, which actually wasn't my intention, tho when choosing words like "conflating" and phrases like "include more than intended", I guess it comes across as such.
Though I admit, the title is to attention-grab but the book is meant to be objective without having a bias towards anything.

It's not the tone that is the problem, that section is just wrong - as I already explained.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

Gosh, if only there weren't people researching the origins of how particular biological systems developed.
And if only there weren't people researching how life developed from earlier non-living replicators.
And if only there were literally thousands of research papers published on these topics that are available with a bare handful of terms entered into a search engine.



Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium



The Role of Lipid Membranes in Life’s Origin



Generating minimal living systems from non-living materials and increasing their evolutionary abilities


Frankly, the longer I stay on these forums, the more I am led to believe that many of those who are critical of evolutionary theory make deliberate choices not to educate themselves on the subject.

Thanks for your response. Firstly, I went thru and tried my best to digest the links you provided, but let me reiterate that I'm not a science major and I am, pretty much unable to ascertain the gist of those 3 articles you linked. Frankly, way above my head. Any chance you could summarize the gist of them for the layman to understand?

Secondly, I assume, that those articles are hypotheses? note : not bashing here, since I'm aware that evolution does occur over the span of millions of years, but just want to be sure what the articles are stating, because as mentioned, those articles are way above my head to read in entirety, and understand fully

Again, I would like repeat where I'm coming from. I'm no science major, and therefore ill-equipped to delve too deeply into that arena. My standpoint originates from the logical aspect of things and thus my questions are as such. In school, I recall evolution as being included in the textbooks, but just as broad statements without examples and explanations, or at best, some examples, but inadequate examples to cover the various question that arise. If answers in the broad sense are included there to explain to the general student, I think it would help alot.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

man

Seriously? You wrote a book on evolution and yet you think this is still an outstanding question?

Care to enlighten?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Care to enlighten?

See Gene2Meme's #105.

 

[Gene2memE]

Thanks for your response. Firstly, I went thru and tried my best to digest the links you provided, but let me reiterate that I'm not a science major and I am, pretty much unable to ascertain the gist of those 3 articles you linked. Frankly, way above my head. Any chance you could summarize the gist of them for the layman to understand?

Frankly, no.

If you're not willing to put in the hard cognitive work to understand the basics (and those articles are not particularly difficult, except for some sections of the third) then why should anything you have to say on the subject carry any weight at all.

I understand the bare basics of computer programming, but until I have sufficient expertise I'm not about to weigh in on the best backbone for an operating system, or why Python and Java are better than C++.

What you're doing is similar. You don't even have the scientific understanding and cognitive tools necessary to properly assess the Theory of Evolution, yet you've written a book on it? The mind boggles.

Secondly, I assume, that those articles are hypotheses?

You assumed wrongly. Those articles are (reasonably current) reviews that summaries the available evidence for particular evolutionary and abiogenetic pathways.

Again, I would like repeat where I'm coming from. I'm no science major, and therefore ill-equipped to delve too deeply into that arena.

As is becoming only too apparent.

My standpoint originates from the logical aspect of things and thus my questions are as such. In school, I recall evolution as being included in the textbooks, but just as broad statements without examples and explanations, or at best, some examples, but inadequate examples to cover the various question that arise. If answers in the broad sense are included there to explain to the general student, I think it would help alot.

As is the case with most school level science text books. You could point to almost any school level chemistry, geology, physics or astronomy text and make the same general statement.

None of that invalidates anything to do with the current understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

Frankly, no.

If you're not willing to put in the hard cognitive work to understand the basics (and those articles are not particularly difficult, except for some sections of the third) then why should anything you have to say on the subject carry any weight at all.

I understand the bare basics of computer programming, but until I have sufficient expertise I'm not about to weigh in on the best backbone for an operating system, or why Python and Java are better than C++.

What you're doing is similar. You don't even have the scientific understanding and cognitive tools necessary to properly assess the Theory of Evolution, yet you've written a book on it? The mind boggles.

There's different depths of any subject. Mine tackles the logical aspect of evolution. I am not questioning the in-depth science of evolution, so why would I need to be armed with said expertise? Is it so hard to understand that? There's basic astronomy we learn at school, then something more in-depth at university-level depending on subjects taken, and then even more in-depth at the professional level aswell.

Yes, in your example of questioning the BACKBONE for an OS, naturally you'd need to have expertise AT THAT LEVEL. You're questioning at that level. But if you zoom out and research, say, which OS to buy to use at home, a linux/windows/apple, you could find out the pros and cons of each without knowing programming at all..

As is the case with most school level science text books. You could point to almost any school level chemistry, geology, physics or astronomy text and make the same general statement.

Sure, I'm not bashing this. But there is a difference here. Most if not all material currently in textbooks are on things happening today, observable today. Evolution is educating us on something that happened in the past, and it is an umbrella term which has explanations for multiple things. For example, let's take for example the moon. We can show its revolving around earth because of certain interpretation of evidences (calculations, telescopes, satellites, etc) and so on. These are observable and their interpretation methods(calculations, telescopes, satellites, etc) leave little to assume. We are not asked to assume much, or take leaps of faith. Contrast that with evolution whereby we are told a certain species evolved into another, and one the evidences of this are transitional fossils (which in my opinion are lacking in number to substantiate a convincing enough evidence as having many thousand "random" tries before producing a new species..just one example)..and many many other gaps like these but I can't possibly type them all out here. I know that for people who have accepted evolution, the current interpretation of "evidences" are sufficient for them, but it is not sitting well with me.

Just for the record, tho I may be Catholic, but my interest of this topic has nothing to do with religion or defending religion. Initially I was one of those which just read and accepted evolution as per the textbooks, but along the way was triggered to look more into it. And therefore my book is 100% objective with no Bible references at all..and in fact, as mentioned a few posts up, I wish to change the tone. I simply have no biases in this topic. I just am a person who speaks my mind if something seems amiss.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Contrast that with evolution whereby we are told a certain species evolved into another, and one the evidences of this are transitional fossils (which in my opinion are lacking in number to substantiate a convincing enough evidence as having many thousand "random" tries before producing a new species..just one example)..and many many other gaps like these but I can't possibly type them all out here. I know that for people who have accepted evolution, the current interpretation of "evidences" are sufficient for them, but it is not sitting well with me.

Perhaps if you understood the full context, the multiple lines of evidence for evolution, and how populations evolve over time, rather than considering fossils in isolation, you might see how the fossil evidence reflects this process - it would also help to understand the fossil evidence.

But as I mentioned previously, the fossil evidence is support for the theory that predates its large-scale discovery. The fossil evidence matches what you would expect to find, given the theory. The theory has even been used to successfully predict the existence of previously unknown fossils in strata of a certain age.