Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why? Thermodynamics is why. There are no feelings involved. There does not need to be a benefit to a chemical. It only has to lower the energy available for work.
Interesting, but it appears that your model has some odd steps to it. Why have descent with modification stop? Why have "emergence" as a separate action?I'll answer you in 2 parts: 1) What I did, 2) What more would need to be done. Further, understand this was a long journey - not just days or weeks, so it's difficult to capture every facet in just a few words.
1) What I did.
I created a list of axioms for biology. I couldn't find such a list anywhere, or at least not a consistent list, so I created my own. Reason: I knew I couldn't take on all of biology at once, so I wanted to focus on just a small part. The part I chose to focus on was self-organization and replication.
I educated myself on the mathematical models used for biology. Again, there wasn't anything standard - models varied widely. I chose to use TAM (Tile Assembly Method). I programmed a TAM model that could self-organize and replicate.
I ran simulations under various conditions. I was able to create systems that demonstrated descent with modification - one commonly accept feature of evolution. One generation would mutate and pass on mutated traits to the next generation. However, under other conditions, descent with modification stopped and was replaced with emergence. New organisms would emerge directly due to transfers. In other words, in one case, through a succession of generations, the simulation produced a succession of modified descendants: A -> B -> C -> D -> E. In the other case, organisms emerged without respect to generation: A -> B, A -> C -> B, A -> D, A -> E -> A ... all kinds of combinations.
But I knew that wasn't good enough. The idea would need actual lab tests. My first thought was DNA computing. Of course DNA computing is meant to be an actual computer, not an organism. However, if the fundamental chemical building blocks of life could replicate my simulations, it would show the possibility of a biological system behaving similarly to my simulations. It would circumvent the ethics issues involved in doing such an experiment on actual life, with the main difference being a matter of complexity and boundary conditions.
If it did succeed, it would give indications of the potential, of what to look for in natural settings, and open discussions of what could possibly be done with something like bacteria or viruses in a lab.
2) What needs to be done
But the experiment never happened. I approached several journals, who confirmed that I needed lab experiments to accompany the simulations before they would publish. I approached several universities, offering to fund an experiment. They said the amount of funding I offered was only sufficient for an undergrad project, and that what I was proposing was beyond an undergrad. They declined to contribute any funding of their own, but suggested I seek to join a university research team to pursue the funding myself. I don't qualify, because I don't have a degree in biology - two master's degrees (engineering & history), but not biology. So, my only recourse was to seek a degree in biology - not a smart move for a mid-career engineer with a family.
In the end, then, it comes back to what I stated in one of my early posts. What would motivate me to pursue this further? Nothing. It remains a hypothesis. Even moreso, as I also indicated earlier, I'm less concerned with the idea being rejected or falsified than I am with the flippant shrug and the remark, "Meh. What you're describing is just another mechanism of evolution." Why? Because I would consider such a reaction either disingenuous or a failure to appreciate what I'm saying ... attitudes that seem in abundance here.
Interesting, but it appears that your model has some odd steps to it. Why have descent with modification stop? Why have "emergence" as a separate action?
What is your source that thermodynamics is an issue?
I've asked this same question a number of times.
You are the first to propose an answer.
How does life lower the amount of energy?
You didn't but according to you your model did:I didn't intentionally intervene to stop descent. Rather, I tested a range of boundary conditions. The result was that some conditions produced descent, some emergence, and some a combination.
You didn't but according to you your model did:
"However, under other conditions, descent with modification stopped and was replaced with emergence. "
My question is why would descent with modification stop?
It's called a summary. Have you never seen an executive statement for a scientific paper? They're usually pretty short, 25 words or less. That is often followed by an abstract, and then the full paper. Or do you consider all that introductory material handwaving?
Nope, not once, ever. I've read hundreds (thousands?) of scientific papers and written a few dozen.
Title
Authors
Abstract
Main Text
References
That's it. No 20ish word "summaries" (abstracts are rarely that short).
This is an incorrect version of how new forms arise. And variation occurs automatically. It would take more energy for there to be no variations than it would take for there to be none. It would help if you understood the concept of "vestigial organs". Creationists such as Kent Hovind get the definition of vestigial organs almost 100% wrong. They are not only organs that no longer have any function. You would be hard pressed to find one that does that. They are organs that no longer do the job that they used to do. For example your ear bones are technically "vestigial organs". In our ancient ancestors they were function bones in the jaw. The evolution of the inner ear is well traced in the fossil record and was the basis of when people tried to say when the "first mammal" arose.I see. I did this years ago, so minute details are fuzzy, but if I recall correctly it came down to a matter of energy. The organism is required to do work (expend energy) in order to create the bonds of a new structure. Each structure also had different benefits, for example, more complex structures benefited from specialization. So it became a matter of an energy balance with the environment and whether that balance favored descent or emergence.
This is an incorrect version of how new forms arise. And variation occurs automatically. It would take more energy for there to be no variations than it would take for there to be none. It would help if you understood the concept of "vestigial organs". Creationists such as Kent Hovind get the definition of vestigial organs almost 100% wrong. They are not only organs that no longer have any function. You would be hard pressed to find one that does that. They are organs that no longer do the job that they used to do. For example your ear bones are technically "vestigial organs". In our ancient ancestors they were function bones in the jaw. The evolution of the inner ear is well traced in the fossil record and was the basis of when people tried to say when the "first mammal" arose.
Your version of evolution is a bit of a creationist strawman. I think that they may have been merely humoring you at the university that you talked to.
Hard to say. I don't know your sources. I would ask for more details from biologists here, but even I as a non-biologist saw those errors.Mmm. Well, they were awfully accommodating as they patronized me. One of them helped me fix an error in the Markov chain I was using in my model. That's typically my approach as well when I'm at work. I don't play armchair quarterback to other people's work. If I suspect an error, I ask to see the calculations and review them. It's only when I can actually pinpoint the error that I offer correction.
Nothing in my model came from a creationist source. All of it came from peer-reviewed biology journals, including the energy balance. Could I have misinterpreted? Or made an error? Sure. But I'll leave it to those who've actually seen the model to point that out.
However, under other conditions, descent with modification stopped and was replaced with emergence. New organisms would emerge directly due to transfers. In other words, in one case, through a succession of generations, the simulation produced a succession of modified descendants: A -> B -> C -> D -> E. In the other case, organisms emerged without respect to generation: A -> B, A -> C -> B, A -> D, A -> E -> A ... all kinds of combinations.
Hard to say. I don't know your sources. I would ask for more details from biologists here, but even I as a non-biologist saw those errors.
When you say transfers are you referring to horizontal DNA transfer? E.g. organisms swapping DNA between them?
I explained your errors. At least in regards to evolution. Changes do not arise in the method that you described in your model.I'm not sure what you think you saw. But you gave your opinion, so, OK.
The theory of relativity is accepted and more theories have come from that and more undersanding.
Macro evolution: one life form changes and becomes a different life form.
Micro evolution: one life form adapts and uses Darwin's theory to survive and become better.
I know we can't make a star in a lab and no one is trying to.
But scientists ARE TRYING to create life in a lab.
Just 4 chemicals, if I remember correctly,,,and yet it cannot be done..BUT ....PER CHANCE...it just kind of happened!
I don't think so,,,but I'm waiting on the results.
I explained your errors.
Something of an aside, but I've amended your list through additions. Longer papers often have an Introduction in which the state of knowledge in the field is extensively reviewed to provide a foundation for the findings presented in the paper.Nope, not once, ever. I've read hundreds (thousands?) of scientific papers and written a few dozen.
Title
Authors
Abstract
Introduction
Main Text
Discussion/Conclusion
References
That's it. No 20ish word "summaries" (abstracts are rarely that short).
You appear to be talking about engineering proposals, or requests for research grants, or projects, and organisation changes within business, not scientific papers.Then I suppose I've been savaged by my industry. Executive summaries are a common thing where I work, and there is an insistence on keeping descriptions to a few sentences along with other details like budget and timeline.
I don't believe in the literal creation week. But scientifically speaking, God is the obvious answer to the Cosmos existing for us to be astounded by.
Psalm 19:1-14
Romans 1:20
Genesis 1:1
Romans 1:19
Amos 5:8
Isaiah 40:26
Psalm 8:3
Psalm 8:1
What story? What are you talking about? The Bible? The Bible is a collection stories. The very word we call it by, "Bible," means "library."My brother, I only write this for cause for reflection for all that read this.
IF we cannot believe what is written at the very beginning of the story as irrefutable truth, how can we accept anything that is written thereafter throughout the rest of the story as absolute truth?
If what is written in the very beginning is not 100% incontestable truth, then NONE of the words written after can be quoted OR TRUSTED as absolute truth.
Either the Scriptures are 100% truth, or they simply constitute a mixture of fairy tales.
Truth is not ala carte.
In the love that is God, and truth, which is Christ,
Lee
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?