Hi Bertvan. I've been lurking for some time (and learning a lot!) but
always with the intention of eventually contributing so here's my first.
In many ways, you and I are similar. I am not a student or a faculty
member at the U. of Oregon. I work in the Admissions Office and I would
categorize myself as an interested party who tries to keep up with science
as best I can. In an earlier post you mentioned that some of the posts
were scientifically over your head. I'm in the same boat and I enjoy the
research and mental stretching this entails.
>I prefer to leave the question of whether or not life evolved naturally in
>the same category as the nature of the designer or what caused the big
bang.
>Could be, but hoping doesn't make it true.
>As to how to implement evolution, I wouldn't change a thing. Some might
>think speeding up the process might improve it. However, I can think of no
>reason why fast should be better than slow. As far as we know the only
>purpose of life is to do what it obviously does - grow. (as individuals and
>as biospheres)
Some interesting thoughts here, particularly in that last sentence. It
seems you are talking in ID terms here, saying life has a purpose. Do you
feel this purpose comes from outside of life or is part of life itself?
If a living organism dies, did it die because it lost its purpose? Is there
a purpose to the "purpose"? (I can see my questions are getting murkier
and murkier--even to me!). I'm just curious about how you see this purpose
working. Or can we just say: "Life has a purpose--but so what?"
>Some people have criticized God for his numerous "imperfections". We've
>discovered astonishing designs in nature, but the first sign of perfection
>would have stopped evolution in its tracks. (no room for growth.) It had
to
>be a plan that continually moves toward perfection without actually reaching
>it. Death and extinction were also necessary additions to allow growth.
I want to check on my understanding of evolution here. As I said, I'm no
expert. My understanding is that evolution is not climbing a ladder from
some crude, barely-works animal form to a "perfect" animal form at the top
of the ladder. If there were a "perfectly evolved" animal, it would be
perfect only in the sense that it perfectly filled its ecological niche.
And as soon as its environment changed, that "perfect" animal would no longer
be "perfect" so some other animal, better suited to the changed conditions,
could take its place. Is this an essentially correct reading of current
evolution thought or do you understand it differently?
The last sentence again intrigues me. You say death and extinction (that
seems to be the same thing) were "necessary additions"(?). Christian
thought says that the world was initially created without death, which
came into the world as a result of sin. Is this the "addition" you're
referring to? Or are you simply saying that life has to die at some point
to make room for new life? The concept of life without death has always
seemed quite foreign to me, probably because that cycle is all I've ever
seen. (I've often wondered what Adam did about the mosquitoes before
death came into the world!). There is some interesting work being done
on *why* we die. Built-in obsolescence and accumulated accidents are
the two I've read about most often. If we attain immortality, will we
cease to be alive?
>A few other things had to be added that hadn't existed before. Adding some
>measure of intelligence to life probably wasn't enough to make it grow.
>Motivation was needed for the system to do its own growing. Choice, free
>will, spontaneity, creativity, consciousness and emotions were probably all
>necessary new ingredients. They seem to distinguish life from non life.
>(You'll never find any of them in a computer.)
These things hadn't existed before life started, you mean? Christians
would disagree with you, I think, since they feel God (who presumably has
all these things) has always existed. I'm not sure I'm ready to say (as
you seem to be saying) that all life (if it is to be classified as life)
has choice, free will, etc. It's a little scary to think of the millions
of bacteria roaming on and inside of me as having free will, creativity
and emotions! By the way (in your last sentence again!), I'd be careful
of that word "never". I think it was Yogi Berra (?) who said something
like: "Predictions are hard, especially when they're about the future".
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 02:23:19 EDT