Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin

[BADecker]

The problem with this whole idea is, "just the right conditions" is so extremely complex relative to entropy that it will never happen.

[Wilikon]

The problem with this whole idea is, "just the right conditions" is so extremely complex relative to entropy that it will never happen.

Chemical elements do not evolve, they are formed.

Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course...

 

[cryptodevil]

Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course...

You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'.

I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed.

So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon.

Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything!

So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in.

So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as:

Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids.

Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds?

[Wilikon]

Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course...

You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'.

I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed.

So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon.

Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything!

So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in.

So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as:

Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids.

Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds?

Sure. Why not. I am sure everything you say is true...

I don't know why we have a universe who created a set of organic materials and a set of inorganic materials. I am part of this universe, and I am a result of this universe. I don't get a need for the universe to create Evolution. Your position is "there is no need, no intent, just billions of years of random accidents".

As long as I can still wonder your position is fine with me. I never argue with cops...

 

[Tusk]

Increased awareness of the environment is the key to a more successful survival.  Pierre Teilhard

de Chardin said, “Evolution [is] ever more perfect eyes in a world in which there is always more to

see." He called this the Law of Complexity­Consciousness and said, "Evolution proceeds in the

direction  of  increasing  complexity  which  is  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  rise  in

consciousness."

Fractal Evolution

"We are all interdependent hordes of living­on­ and being­lived­on­beings in a great partnership of

evolution together to  share  information  and perception to  create  a  community of  cells.” ­Lewis

Thomas, The Lives of the Cell,

By using the work of cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, former professor at Stanford University, I will

show that the  patterns  of  evolution  are  not  created  by  chance.  They  are  based  upon  a fractal

configuration of nature. Lipton and others, say that evolution is a two­step process going from the

One to the Many.  This progresses in ongoing levels of development: from cell to multi­cellular

organism and into social organizations.  

First Lipton defines  evolution  as  “ the gaining of greater  awareness.  At the most fundamental

physical level of a single cell we can see that awareness is defined by a protein like protuberance

coming  off  the  membrane  called  a  receptor  site.  Receptors  like  sense  organs  are  interfaces

between the outer and inner environments.  They survey the environment  and feed information

back to the rest of the cell.  It lets the organism know that if something is harmful­ move away

from it; or if something is beneficial ­move towards it.  There is only one site for each stimulus in

the environment and they can only exist in a single layer.  The more receptor sites the greater the

awareness of the environment and the more survival is assured.  But there is a limit to the amount

of receptor sites a cell can have, because if the membrane were to get too big it would rip open,

the cytoplasm would pore out and the cell would die.  

There is however an overriding drive in the mechanism of life is to gain more awareness.  But how

could  a  cell  membrane  of  limited  size  increase  awareness?  The  inventive  novelty  of  nature  is

seen in this first steps of evolution, which is a complete departure from Darwinian theory:  Simple

cells,  having  no  internal  structures,  grouped  themselves  together  to  form  colonies  to  increase

their collective awareness.  The naturalist Luther Burbank hinting towards the idea of synergy in

the  early  part  of  the  20th  century  said:  “When  simple  cells  joined  together,  they  exhibited

organizing forces in new directions which were impossible for individual cells.”

The  second  step  in  this  fractal  evolution  was  even  more  revolutionary:  the  many  cells  of  the

colony merged in singularity; the membrane folded inwards to increase receptor capacity. In other

words  the  cells  incorporated.  Different  cells  specialized  in  a  certain  types  of  awareness  and

formed  organelles,  little  organs  inside  the  cell  wall.  Organelles  have  their  own  DNA  and  small

membranes with receptors that encase their operations within their own cell wall.  This created a

new oneness in the form of a complex single cell, known as eukaryotic cells. On the cellular level

the survival of the group became more important than the survival of the individual.

The  next  development  was  to  go  from  a  single  eukaryote  to  many  grouped  together  to  form

another level of complexity; and eventually create the single a multi­cellular organism.  And life

proceeded from many to one to many, etc...

The Earth Membrane and Humanity

"Viewed from  space, the  astonishing thing  about the  earth  is  it  aliveness.  Aloft  and floating,  it

lives beneath a moist gleaming membrane of bright blues swirling whites. It takes a membrane to

be able to hold out against equilibrium, strive against entropy and filter and maintain perception."

~ Lewis Thomas

In  1830,  Francis  Galton,  a  biologist  and  a  relative  of  Charles  Darwin,  wrote:  "Our  part  in  the

universe  may  be  analogous  to  the  cells  in  an  organized  body  and  our  personality  may  be

essentially elements of an immortal and cosmic mind."  In 1993, Lipton said,  “Humans are the

functional equivalent of the glycoproteins [receptors] on the surface of the membrane of this giant

cell  [the  earth].  We  are  the  receptors  and  effectors  that  are  capable  of  responding  to  the

universe's signal and effecting change for the planet.”

I find the above to be insightful and agree we tend to try isolate things and view them as separate islands or silos when in fact everything is deeply connected and is merely varied expressions of complexity.

Here two examples
Firstly: We lead to believe that gravity is constant and now take it for granted when its not.

(Phys.org)—Newton's gravitational constant, G, has been measured about a dozen times over the last 40 years, but the results have varied by much more than would be expected due to random and systematic errors. Now scientists have found that the measured G values oscillate over time like a sine wave with a period of 5.9 years. It's not G itself that is varying by this much, they propose, but more likely something else is affecting the measurements.
As a clue to what this "something else" is, the scientists note that the 5.9-year oscillatory period of the measured G values correlates almost perfectly with the 5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate, as determined by recent Length of Day (LOD) measurements. Although the scientists do not claim to know what causes the G/LOD correlation, they cautiously suggest that the "least unlikely" explanation may involve circulating currents in the Earth's core. The changing currents may modify Earth's rotational inertia, affecting LOD, and be accompanied by density variations, affecting G.
The scientists, John D. Anderson, retired from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and coauthors, have published a paper on the correlation between the measurements of Newton's gravitational constant and the length of day in a recent issue of EPL.
As the scientists explained, the main point of the paper is the finding that, while the measured G values do vary, they do so in a predictable way.
"Once a surprising 5.9-year periodicity is taken into account, most laboratory measurements of G are consistent, and are within one-sigma experimental error limits," Anderson told Phys.org.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

Secondly: Researchers find the genome of the cultivated sweet potato has bacterial DNA

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with members from Belgium, China, Peru and the U.S. has found evidence of bacterial DNA in the genome of the cultivated sweet potato. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes their findings as an example of a naturally occurring transgenic food crop.
In modern times, scientists have created what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), where plants or animals are modified to suit the particular needs of people in a certain region—to allow corn to grow in a dry climate for example. One common method of creating GMOs is to use bacteria that have been found able to modify the genes of a host as a carrier agent. GMOs have been met with suspicion in many parts of the world with some places banning them outright. Now, in this new effort, the researchers have found an example of a natural GMO that people have been eating for thousands of years: the sweet potato.
Sweet potatoes have been growing wild in South America for thousands of years—over time, they were cultivated by people, and have since become a popular food in many parts of the world. But now it appears that a type of bacteria similar to the kind used by modern scientists to create many GMOs found its way naturally to cultivated sweet potatoes many generations ago and modified its DNA. To make this discovery, the researchers collected 291 sweet potato samples from cultivated sources across the globe along with nine wild sources and subjected them all to DNA analysis—they found that all of the cultivated potatoes carried at least two stretches of Agrobacterium DNA, while the wild species carried one. Their findings suggest the transfer of DNA to the potatoes occurred a long time ago, before they were carried to and grown in other parts of the world.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-genome-cultivated-sweet-potato-bacterial.html

Leaving aside the moral efficacy of GMO, the point I want to make is when you really look deeply into the universe everything is connected and evolving where one thing begins or ends is not a so easily distinguishable. The Universe is alive. It is fractal kaleidoscope of emerging cycles all interrelated and influencing one another.

Or as B. Fuller so aptly described it,  

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.

[Wilikon]

Increased awareness of the environment is the key to a more successful survival.  Pierre Teilhard

de Chardin said, “Evolution [is] ever more perfect eyes in a world in which there is always more to

see." He called this the Law of Complexity­Consciousness and said, "Evolution proceeds in the

direction  of  increasing  complexity  which  is  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  rise  in

consciousness."

Fractal Evolution

"We are all interdependent hordes of living­on­ and being­lived­on­beings in a great partnership of

evolution together to  share  information  and perception to  create  a  community of  cells.” ­Lewis

Thomas, The Lives of the Cell,

By using the work of cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, former professor at Stanford University, I will

show that the  patterns  of  evolution  are  not  created  by  chance.  They  are  based  upon  a fractal

configuration of nature. Lipton and others, say that evolution is a two­step process going from the

One to the Many.  This progresses in ongoing levels of development: from cell to multi­cellular

organism and into social organizations.  

First Lipton defines  evolution  as  “ the gaining of greater  awareness.  At the most fundamental

physical level of a single cell we can see that awareness is defined by a protein like protuberance

coming  off  the  membrane  called  a  receptor  site.  Receptors  like  sense  organs  are  interfaces

between the outer and inner environments.  They survey the environment  and feed information

back to the rest of the cell.  It lets the organism know that if something is harmful­ move away

from it; or if something is beneficial ­move towards it.  There is only one site for each stimulus in

the environment and they can only exist in a single layer.  The more receptor sites the greater the

awareness of the environment and the more survival is assured.  But there is a limit to the amount

of receptor sites a cell can have, because if the membrane were to get too big it would rip open,

the cytoplasm would pore out and the cell would die.  

There is however an overriding drive in the mechanism of life is to gain more awareness.  But how

could  a  cell  membrane  of  limited  size  increase  awareness?  The  inventive  novelty  of  nature  is

seen in this first steps of evolution, which is a complete departure from Darwinian theory:  Simple

cells,  having  no  internal  structures,  grouped  themselves  together  to  form  colonies  to  increase

their collective awareness.  The naturalist Luther Burbank hinting towards the idea of synergy in

the  early  part  of  the  20th  century  said:  “When  simple  cells  joined  together,  they  exhibited

organizing forces in new directions which were impossible for individual cells.”

The  second  step  in  this  fractal  evolution  was  even  more  revolutionary:  the  many  cells  of  the

colony merged in singularity; the membrane folded inwards to increase receptor capacity. In other

words  the  cells  incorporated.  Different  cells  specialized  in  a  certain  types  of  awareness  and

formed  organelles,  little  organs  inside  the  cell  wall.  Organelles  have  their  own  DNA  and  small

membranes with receptors that encase their operations within their own cell wall.  This created a

new oneness in the form of a complex single cell, known as eukaryotic cells. On the cellular level

the survival of the group became more important than the survival of the individual.

The  next  development  was  to  go  from  a  single  eukaryote  to  many  grouped  together  to  form

another level of complexity; and eventually create the single a multi­cellular organism.  And life

proceeded from many to one to many, etc...

The Earth Membrane and Humanity

"Viewed from  space, the  astonishing thing  about the  earth  is  it  aliveness.  Aloft  and floating,  it

lives beneath a moist gleaming membrane of bright blues swirling whites. It takes a membrane to

be able to hold out against equilibrium, strive against entropy and filter and maintain perception."

~ Lewis Thomas

In  1830,  Francis  Galton,  a  biologist  and  a  relative  of  Charles  Darwin,  wrote:  "Our  part  in  the

universe  may  be  analogous  to  the  cells  in  an  organized  body  and  our  personality  may  be

essentially elements of an immortal and cosmic mind."  In 1993, Lipton said,  “Humans are the

functional equivalent of the glycoproteins [receptors] on the surface of the membrane of this giant

cell  [the  earth].  We  are  the  receptors  and  effectors  that  are  capable  of  responding  to  the

universe's signal and effecting change for the planet.”

I find the above to be insightful and agree we tend to try isolate things and view them as separate islands or silos when in fact everything is deeply connected and is merely varied expressions of complexity.

Here two examples
Firstly: We lead to believe that gravity is constant and now take it for granted when its not.

(Phys.org)—Newton's gravitational constant, G, has been measured about a dozen times over the last 40 years, but the results have varied by much more than would be expected due to random and systematic errors. Now scientists have found that the measured G values oscillate over time like a sine wave with a period of 5.9 years. It's not G itself that is varying by this much, they propose, but more likely something else is affecting the measurements.
As a clue to what this "something else" is, the scientists note that the 5.9-year oscillatory period of the measured G values correlates almost perfectly with the 5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate, as determined by recent Length of Day (LOD) measurements. Although the scientists do not claim to know what causes the G/LOD correlation, they cautiously suggest that the "least unlikely" explanation may involve circulating currents in the Earth's core. The changing currents may modify Earth's rotational inertia, affecting LOD, and be accompanied by density variations, affecting G.
The scientists, John D. Anderson, retired from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and coauthors, have published a paper on the correlation between the measurements of Newton's gravitational constant and the length of day in a recent issue of EPL.
As the scientists explained, the main point of the paper is the finding that, while the measured G values do vary, they do so in a predictable way.
"Once a surprising 5.9-year periodicity is taken into account, most laboratory measurements of G are consistent, and are within one-sigma experimental error limits," Anderson told Phys.org.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

Secondly: Researchers find the genome of the cultivated sweet potato has bacterial DNA

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with members from Belgium, China, Peru and the U.S. has found evidence of bacterial DNA in the genome of the cultivated sweet potato. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes their findings as an example of a naturally occurring transgenic food crop.
In modern times, scientists have created what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), where plants or animals are modified to suit the particular needs of people in a certain region—to allow corn to grow in a dry climate for example. One common method of creating GMOs is to use bacteria that have been found able to modify the genes of a host as a carrier agent. GMOs have been met with suspicion in many parts of the world with some places banning them outright. Now, in this new effort, the researchers have found an example of a natural GMO that people have been eating for thousands of years: the sweet potato.
Sweet potatoes have been growing wild in South America for thousands of years—over time, they were cultivated by people, and have since become a popular food in many parts of the world. But now it appears that a type of bacteria similar to the kind used by modern scientists to create many GMOs found its way naturally to cultivated sweet potatoes many generations ago and modified its DNA. To make this discovery, the researchers collected 291 sweet potato samples from cultivated sources across the globe along with nine wild sources and subjected them all to DNA analysis—they found that all of the cultivated potatoes carried at least two stretches of Agrobacterium DNA, while the wild species carried one. Their findings suggest the transfer of DNA to the potatoes occurred a long time ago, before they were carried to and grown in other parts of the world.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-genome-cultivated-sweet-potato-bacterial.html

Leaving aside the moral efficacy of GMO, the point I want to make is when you really look deeply into the universe everything is connected and evolving where one thing begins or ends is not a so easily distinguishable. The Universe is alive. It is fractal kaleidoscope of emerging cycles all interrelated and influencing one another.

Or as B. Fuller so aptly described it,  

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.

Rupert Sheldrake on Constants of Nature

[BADecker]

The only thing that Jeremy England might have that is different than before is a lot of chemistry. The whole idea has always been that one way or another "stuff" got together and made life.

So far, in everyday life, we see too much entropy to figure out where the complexity comes from. Nothing has changed with England, except a twist as to how we look at things.

Not only do we NOT know that basic Darwinism happened. But we don't even have a plausible step-by-step method by which it might have been able to have happened. It's all just speculation - just talk.

[BADecker]

....
Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism?
.....

And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. 

Smart Beer!

And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people.

Smart Tomatos!

And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet.  Obviously this is the work of...

Smart Trees!

Funny. Evolution at its finest. Intelligent design. Natural selection.

If we find out that everything is alive, even the inorganics, and that more complex life is only groupings of less complex life, then we will really have to focus on what consciousness is.

[BADecker]

IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of  .

But it is something to do. These folks get paid. Their pay comes from grants made available through taxation of those of us who are trying to enjoy life.

[Wilikon]

IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of  .

But it is something to do. These folks get paid. Their pay comes from grants made available through taxation of those of us who are trying to enjoy life.

Life? Most here are inorganic bots. Some more than others, but with an obvious need of re calibrating their coherent syntax processor, within their grammatical construction sub routine...

 

[cryptodevil]

Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course...

You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'.

I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed.

So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon.

Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything!

So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in.

So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as:

Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids.

Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds?

Sure. Why not. I am sure everything you say is true...

I don't know why we have a universe who created a set of organic materials and a set of inorganic materials. I am part of this universe, and I am a result of this universe. I don't get a need for the universe to create Evolution. Your position is "there is no need, no intent, just billions of years of random accidents".

As long as I can still wonder your position is fine with me. I never argue with cops...

 

Sure, you can wonder all you like, but isn't part of wondering also the satisfaction of understanding?

What I am saying is that there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules, this isn't me saying it is true, it is the scientific process of objectively testing, observing, measuring. The whole point of science is not that you believe what you are told because some guy in a lab-coat tells you to believe it, the point is that ANYONE can independently perform the series of tests and measurements that gave the results which led to an hypothesis becoming a scientific theory.

Multiple fields of study and experimentation then continue to support said theory, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it is always open to new data which may supersede what was previously understood. This is not, as theists like to imply, a weakness, it is the core strength of understanding through independent knowledge, as opposed to theist magical thinking and dogma which is simply pulled out of their almighty imagination.

By the way, "billions of years of random accidents"? No, again your understanding is skewed. There are no 'accidents' because that would imply, again, intent gone awry. There is only action/reaction when it comes to the natural formation of elements and molecules.

To suggest otherwise requires that *you* provide the data to support the notion of 'intent' because, as it currently stands, the natural state of the Universe doesn't require it so you would be electing to introduce something for which there is neither evidence nor need.

As for the intellectually bankrupt BADecker who likes to repeatedly and insistently spout fallacious bullshit as though it were valid assertion, evolution through natural selection is the end result of the statistical survival rates of organisms based on genetic changes which naturally occur as part of the fact that genetic replication is not a flawless process. Copies are not always exact replicas, hence the introduction of new design aspects to the 'child' organism.

What is so hard to understand?

Now, back to the OP, the article begins by dishonestly implying intent, which causes the reader to view evolution the wrong way round, leaving them perceiving it as an intentional adaptation of organisms which, if it were true, would indeed be cause to ask how did the original intent to change come to be. But it isn't an intentional change, the organism doesn't choose to create genes with different structures, they just occur because the replication process is not able to create 100% copies 100% of the time, because of changing environmental conditions and interactions as that process is taking place.

Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment.

The words 'in order to', require intent to be part of the process.

By looking at evolution from the wrong direction, seeing, say bacteria being exposed to hostile conditions which immediately kill off a portion but which, over time, sees the bacteria genetics changing to create new elements to their structure which allow them to not only survive but thrive in the once-hostile environment, it appears as though the bacteria adapted to the new environment, that the evolutionary changes saw it replicating with different elements until a new design was found which stopped it from being killed off by the new environmental conditions it was placed in.

That is how the OP's article needs evolution to be viewed in order to then continue on with the fallacious reasoning which allows it to reach a conclusion which met the researchers needs, namely, being able to crowbar religion into his 'science'.

But the simple fact is, and this isn't me telling you to believe this, this is testable and objectively provable, evolution is the end result, not the beginning. For all the instances of genetic replication erroneously failing to create an identical copy but causing the new genetic design to contain an element which helps the organism to have a better chance of survival long enough to, itself, replicate, there are countless instances of the replication process creating erroneous design changes which do nothing to change the survival rate or, for that matter, serve to actually reduce the chances of the organism surviving long enough to replicate.

The fact that erroneous replication also leads to the creation of genetic designs which are harmful to the organism means that there would be a far higher chance of that organism not surviving and, therefore, that erroneous design change is not continued on.

The bacteria I spoke about previously which some would view as having adapted to its environment is not the same bacteria that started out, it is not one organism. It was the replication process which is constantly taking place which saw the 'old' genetic blueprint, the one which could not survive well in the hostile environment it was exposed to, causing new bacterial cells to be created which either could survive better or could not. The ones that could survive better went on to thrive in the new conditions. It was not one bacterial organism adapting, although when viewed from the wrong direction it might seem like it was.

[Wilikon]

Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course...

You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'.

I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed.

So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon.

Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything!

So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in.

So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as:

Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids.

Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds?

Sure. Why not. I am sure everything you say is true...

I don't know why we have a universe who created a set of organic materials and a set of inorganic materials. I am part of this universe, and I am a result of this universe. I don't get a need for the universe to create Evolution. Your position is "there is no need, no intent, just billions of years of random accidents".

As long as I can still wonder your position is fine with me. I never argue with cops...

 

Sure, you can wonder all you like, but isn't part of wondering also the satisfaction of understanding?

What I am saying is that there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules, this isn't me saying it is true, it is the scientific process of objectively testing, observing, measuring. The whole point of science is not that you believe what you are told because some guy in a lab-coat tells you to believe it, the point is that ANYONE can independently perform the series of tests and measurements that gave the results which led to an hypothesis becoming a scientific theory.

Multiple fields of study and experimentation then continue to support said theory, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it is always open to new data which may supersede what was previously understood. This is not, as theists like to imply, a weakness, it is the core strength of understanding through independent knowledge, as opposed to theist magical thinking and dogma which is simply pulled out of their almighty imagination.

By the way, "billions of years of random accidents"? No, again your understanding is skewed. There are no 'accidents' because that would imply, again, intent gone awry. There is only action/reaction when it comes to the natural formation of elements and molecules.

To suggest otherwise requires that *you* provide the data to support the notion of 'intent' because, as it currently stands, the natural state of the Universe doesn't require it so you would be electing to introduce something for which there is neither evidence nor need.

As for the intellectually bankrupt BADecker who likes to repeatedly and insistently spout fallacious bullshit as though it were valid assertion, evolution through natural selection is the end result of the statistical survival rates of organisms based on genetic changes which naturally occur as part of the fact that genetic replication is not a flawless process. Copies are not always exact replicas, hence the introduction of new design aspects to the 'child' organism.

What is so hard to understand?

Now, back to the OP, the article begins by dishonestly implying intent, which causes the reader to view evolution the wrong way round, leaving them perceiving it as an intentional adaptation of organisms which, if it were true, would indeed be cause to ask how did the original intent to change come to be. But it isn't an intentional change, the organism doesn't choose to create genes with different structures, they just occur because the replication process is not able to create 100% copies 100% of the time, because of changing environmental conditions and interactions as that process is taking place.

Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment.

The words 'in order to', require intent to be part of the process.

By looking at evolution from the wrong direction, seeing, say bacteria being exposed to hostile conditions which immediately kill off a portion but which, over time, sees the bacteria genetics changing to create new elements to their structure which allow them to not only survive but thrive in the once-hostile environment, it appears as though the bacteria adapted to the new environment, that the evolutionary changes saw it replicating with different elements until a new design was found which stopped it from being killed off by the new environmental conditions it was placed in.

That is how the OP's article needs evolution to be viewed in order to then continue on with the fallacious reasoning which allows it to reach a conclusion which met the researchers needs, namely, being able to crowbar religion into his 'science'.

But the simple fact is, and this isn't me telling you to believe this, this is testable and objectively provable, evolution is the end result, not the beginning. For all the instances of genetic replication erroneously failing to create an identical copy but causing the new genetic design to contain an element which helps the organism to have a better chance of survival long enough to, itself, replicate, there are countless instances of the replication process creating erroneous design changes which do nothing to change the survival rate or, for that matter, serve to actually reduce the chances of the organism surviving long enough to replicate.

The fact that erroneous replication also leads to the creation of genetic designs which are harmful to the organism means that there would be a far higher chance of that organism not surviving and, therefore, that erroneous design change is not continued on.

The bacteria I spoke about previously which some would view as having adapted to its environment is not the same bacteria that started out, it is not one organism. It was the replication process which is constantly taking place which saw the 'old' genetic blueprint, the one which could not survive well in the hostile environment it was exposed to, causing new bacterial cells to be created which either could survive better or could not. The ones that could survive better went on to thrive in the new conditions. It was not one bacterial organism adapting, although when viewed from the wrong direction it might seem like it was.

Sure, you can wonder all you like, but isn't part of wondering also the satisfaction of understanding?


Yes.

What I am saying is that there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules, this isn't me saying it is true, it is the scientific process of objectively testing, observing, measuring. The whole point of science is not that you believe what you are told because some guy in a lab-coat tells you to believe it, the point is that ANYONE can independently perform the series of tests and measurements that gave the results which led to an hypothesis becoming a scientific theory.


Ok. I still do not have the satisfaction of understanding why "there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules..."

The scientific answer is "because it is what it is". But why make more complex stuff when you can be 'happy' standing still and just be, just as in the state of the first 1/1000000000 second of the creation? Why evolve?

That is why I was wondering if consciousness was just a byproduct of the fundamental forces or... If there was another force, maybe infinitely weaker than the forces we already know, that 'pushes and pushes' stuff to organized themselves into more and more complex stuff...

The universe as a consciousness building machine that is powered by a fundamental I would call the Ineluctable Force...

[Tusk]

Rupert Sheldrake on Constants of Nature

Yes a most refreshing, i'm not sure if you saw "Richard Dawkins Comes to Call"
http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/richard-dawkins-comes-to-call
It clearly demonstrates how MSM has clear objectives in following its own beliefs rather than science

If we only look under the same rocks we are only going to see the same bugs

Mainstream Science/Media seems to suffer from some sort of schizophrenia,

It will happily believes in the BIG BANG, yet fail to validate how the universe could have expanded in the fraction of a second defying the speed of light.

"Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest. ."

Terence McKenna

It will comfortably claim there is dark energy that is undetectable yet deny the possibility of Psi, despite evidence being put forward by Dean Radin.

Isaac Newton having having written principia mathematica (mathematical principles of natural philosophy), devoted pretty much the rest of his time to Alchemy.

I think it is safe to say that consciousness is the frontier of biological evolution. Up until recently collective consciousness was massaged and controlled in a hierarchical fashion but now that man and technology have merged, our collective consciousness is untethered to evolve in a fractal fashion, IMO a superior evolutionary process that is more aligned to nature. As long as we can maintain its independence. Through  social media and the added power of crypto we have something that will hopefully evolve our individual and collective behaviour to becoming mature enough to handle the power we wield. What I find refreshing is that individuals tend to act responsibly and are able to adapt more readily to change, its sadly governments and institutions that tend to be the problem.

Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is a lot that mainstream science has accomplished, but my biggest criticism is its too scared to look under new rocks preferring to stick to what it knows. Without failure nothing is learned, if you stop learning you stop growing and anything that is not growing is dying. As always dogma remains our biggest enemy.

I'm encouraged by the ThunderboltsProject (the electric Universe)Thunderbolts of the Gods | Official Movie, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA

Its bringing a much needed multidisciplinary approach to cosmology that is helping expand our view of the universe.

Some interesting aspects are The Electrochemistry of Comets with Dr. Franklin Anariba https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_NPKeE_afc
And the series of videos on Rosetta Mission are refreshing
Rosetta Mission Update | First Science Papers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Wc1b-ONc
Rosetta Mission Update | 67P's Mysterious Water Production https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW7TZNP6fIA

[Wilikon]

gene. They then watched as the cells aged prematurely, and found that the reason they became older so quickly had to do with how their DNA was packaged.

In order to function properly, DNA is tightly twisted and wound into chromosomes that resemble a rope in the nucleus of cells. Only when the cell is ready to divide does the DNA unwrap itself, and even then, only in small segments at a time. In patients with Werner syndrome, the chromosomes are slightly messier, more loosely stuffed into the nuclei, and that leads to instability that pushes the cell to age more quickly. Belmonte discovered that the Werner gene regulates this chromosome stability. When he allowed the embryonic stem cells that were missing this gene to grow into cells that go on to become bone, muscle and more, he saw that these cells aged more quickly.

“It’s clear that when you have alterations in [chromosome stability], the process of aging goes so quickly and so fast that it’s tempting to say, yes, this is the key process for driving aging,” says Belmonte.

Even more exciting, when he analyzed a population of stem cells taken from the dental pulp of both younger and older people, he found that the older individuals, aged 58 to 72 years, had fewer genetic markers for the chromosome instability while the younger people aged seven to 26 years showed higher levels of these indicators.

“What this study means is that this protein does not only work in a particular genetic disease, it works in all humans,” says Belmonte. “This mechanism is general for aging process.”

Before it can be considered as the Fountain of Youth, however, Belmonte says new and better techniques need to be developed that can more specifically and safely alter the Werner gene in people, not just a culture dish of human cells. He also stresses that there may be other processes contributing to aging, and it’s not clear yet how important chromosome stability is compared to those factors. But, he says. “having technologies like this will allow us to determine how important each of these parameters are for aging.” And if the findings hold up, they could be first step toward finding a way to help cells, and eventually people, live longer.


http://time.com/3841620/scientists-discover-the-secret-to-keeping-cells-young/