what’s nature progressing towards?

[Chriliman]

Nature has a tendency to be efficient. Do you think it’s possible for nature and life to reach a point of 100% efficiency were there’s no waist and no decay/death?

Or are these things part of how nature/life is already 100% efficient?

Maybe another way to pose the question is if it’s possible for nature to get better and better at sustaining life without negative consequences to the point of immortal life?

Or is it inevitable that all life in nature will eventually die out forever?

 

[Brightmoon]

Short answer - No!
Life on this planet evolves because plate tectonics continually moves the continents around so the climate is always continually changing as well. Then you add climate changing processes like the Milankovitch cycles that effect how the planet moves around the sun and through the galaxy . Over long periods living species will either go extinct or evolve . Perfection has nothing to do with it.

 

[Blade]

As long as man is here...no. By its self I think so

 

[Tolworth John]

Nature is not efficient, all life is degrading, rna and dna are in a constant struggle to preserve the contents of the dna.
So left on its own nature will degrade to the lowest common denominator= death.

 

[Brightmoon]

Nature is not efficient, all life is degrading, rna and dna are in a constant struggle to preserve the contents of the dna.
So left on its own nature will degrade to the lowest common denominator= death.

left on its own some organisms go extinct and some evolve. The species either changes into another one or dies . Life isn’t static and never has been

 

[Chriliman]

Short answer - No!
Life on this planet evolves because plate tectonics continually moves the continents around so the climate is always continually changing as well. Then you add climate changing processes like the Milankovitch cycles that effect how the planet moves around the sun and through the galaxy . Over long periods living species will either go extinct or evolve . Perfection has nothing to do with it.

I think perfection does have something to do with it since nature is intrinsically efficient.

Here’s an interesting example.

I’m not sure we should be so against the possibility that nature can make immortal life. I’m just curious what people think. You may be right that it’s impossible.

 

[Brightmoon]

Nature isn’t efficient. That’s certainly not a word I’d use . For example,Human spines show a cobbled together adaptation from pushing a quadruped up on to its hind legs . It works but causes problems for members of the species

 

[Chriliman]

Nature is not efficient, all life is degrading, rna and dna are in a constant struggle to preserve the contents of the dna.
So left on its own nature will degrade to the lowest common denominator= death.

Makes one wonder how life came to be in the first place if death/no life is the lowest common denominator and nature was supposedly already there in the past before life began.

 

[Speedwell]

The death of individual creatures is part of life, not opposite to it.

 

[-57]

Nature is not efficient, all life is degrading, rna and dna are in a constant struggle to preserve the contents of the dna.
So left on its own nature will degrade to the lowest common denominator= death.

Which is one of the reasons as to why evolutionism doesn't work. Very, very few so-called beneficial mutations are said to occur compared to the many, many more harmful mutations.

As for me, I blame it on the fall the Theo-Evo crowd says never happened.

 

[Chriliman]

Nature isn’t efficient. That’s certainly not a word I’d use . For example,Human spines show a cobbled together adaptation from pushing a quadruped up on to its hind legs . It works but causes problems for members of the species

Nature seems to be working toward the easiest/best way of doing things, wouldn't you agree? I mean, after all it made us and we tend to want what's best, although sometimes what's best isn't always what we want.

 

[Tolworth John]

left on its own some organisms go extinct and some evolve. The species either changes into another one or dies . Life isn’t static and never has been

yes creators do die out, but change into other creators.
Sorry there is no scientific evidence for that.

 

[Tolworth John]

Makes one wonder how life came to be in the first place if death/no life is the lowest common denominator and nature was supposedly already there in the past before life began.

Life was created by God.

When one looks at the complexity of dna it is only the unimaganitive you say it happened by chance.

 

[Chriliman]

The death of individual creatures is part of life, not opposite to it.

I think that's true up to a point. That point being when we either have to say the cycle of life and death will go on forever, or life(no death) will go on forever, or death(no life) will go on forever. I think the Christian belief is that death will eventually end, but maybe eternal life will have a certain aspect of death to it?

 

[Brightmoon]

yes creators do die out, but change into other creators.
Sorry there is no scientific evidence for that.

not sure what you meant in the first part of this post but you certainly can watch organisms evolve and you can see them speciate which is macroevolution.

 

[Brightmoon]

Nature seems to be working toward the easiest/best way of doing things, wouldn't you agree? I mean, after all it made us and we tend to want what's best, although sometimes what's best isn't always what we want.

nature works towards what would be the best fit to a local environment for any species. Natural selection!

 

[Brightmoon]

Nature seems to be working toward the easiest/best way of doing things, wouldn't you agree? I mean, after all it made us and we tend to want what's best, although sometimes what's best isn't always what we want.

if this was true you’d see cheetahs rocketing around after deer at the speed of sound . There are limits to how far a trait can progress because there are limitations to the organism’s body that are imposed on it from its ancestors.

 

[Ophiolite]

if this was true you’d see cheetahs rocketing around after deer at the speed of sound . .

Perhaps they have evolved to travel faster than light and that's why we can't see them.
(This could also explain why deer so often look startled. I can see the title of the Nature article now: Possible correlation of perceived astonishment reflex on Cervidae faces with the postulated presence of supra-luminal Felidae )

 

[Brightmoon]

Perhaps they have evolved to travel faster than light and that's why we can't see them.
(This could also explain why deer so often look startled. I can see the title of the Nature article now: Possible correlation of perceived astonishment reflex on Cervidae faces with the postulated presence of supra-luminal Felidae )

doubt it , friction ya know! That’s why I didn’t use light speed

 

[carlv_52]

Nature has a tendency to be efficient. Do you think it’s possible for nature and life to reach a point of 100% efficiency were there’s no waist

I think the Victorians nailed that....