Confronting Friends and Family

[Aractus]

Well could be worse, my beliefs could have been funny! I've had my little rant, I like to think I've made you experience enlightenment, against your will (ROFL).

[Kirbmarc]

I will answer to your other claims later, but for now let me just answer to this.

We're given a universe with the correct laws of chemistry to support life. Not just chemistry either, we have the correct laws of physics - whatever they are - that allow life to self-start as well; as impossible as it seems. We were given an Earth at exactly the right time for life to begin. And then add to that, we have a universe that has the correct laws of physics that give rise to the law of evolution that allows complexity to be downhill - the path of least resistance - a universe that not just allows, but demands (requires) diversity in life, and great complexity as well.

This is the infamous anthropic principle, and it's a fallacy. This universe is not built for life to happen, life is built to happen in this universe. Without Earth, life would have started somewhere else. With different laws of phyisics (assuming that different laws of physics are even possible), there wouldn't probably be a place for carbon-based life, but there will probably be something else.

And even the fine-tuning part is really questionable. Victor Stenger and fred Adams, for example, have shown that changing some of the parameters still allows for stars to exist, and therefore for organic material to exist. Read this.

---

Survival of what? The species?

Survival of the individuals. Natural selection applies only to the individuals.

Penguins are known for their ability to huddle together to keep warm, yet the individual penguins rotate their position and all, selflessly, spend exactly the same amount of time on the outside as each other.

Penguins don't die because of this. If a behavior doesn't kill the individual, it is not against the evolutionary interests of the individual. Feeling cold for a while doesn't prevent the penguins from reproducing.

On the other hand, if a few penguins were always left in the cold, there'd probably be more fights, and more penguins will die, including the ones on the inside, and less penguins would reproduce. Penguin societies who never rotate probably faced a quick extinction.

Thus you can't find all the answers you're looking for in the components only of the system; the functions run through the larger system but are not found in the individual components. It's the reductionist's nightmare.

Not at all. Reductionism isn't just based on the analysis of the individual components, it's also based on the analysis of how these components interact.

You've understated convergence. In fact convergence is a requirement of Evolution, if you couldn't observe convergence then you wouldn't be able to prove, at all, that complex structures can develop from simple rules in the world of biology. Convergence is in a sense predicted by the theory of Evolution, just as Einstein's theory of General Relativity "predicts" the existence of Black Holes.

Good. And it is observed. But there's no need to include a design into the theory to explain it.

Then explain to me specifically how Evolution works in such a manner that will be produce predictions that I can test. You can't.

You don't even need genetics to produce testable predictions of the theory of evolution. See here.

That's because you don't know how evolution works - you don't even know the exact relationship between "creature" and "dna".

Correction: We know how evolution works at the level of the individuals. We still have to fully explain how genetics works.

Let me explain this another way. If you were to blindfold a child from birth for the first three years of their life, they would never, ever, be able to see anything - they would be permanently blind, forever.

The environment can inhibit the expression of the genotype. How is that evidence of a design?

"Natural selection" is just a function, it is not the overarching law that governs how evolution behaves.

You are looking for an "overarching law" that doesn't exist. Biology is a kind of chemistry, which is of course of kind of physics. Thereis no need for "overarching laws" of biology, because natural selectionis the result of the laws of physics.

[Aractus]

This is the infamous anthropic principle, and it's a fallacy. This universe is not built for life to happen, life is built to happen in this universe. Without Earth, life would have started somewhere else. With different laws of phyisics (assuming that different laws of physics are even possible), there wouldn't probably be a place for carbon-based life, but there will probably be something else.

I partly agree, but only partly. Carbon is the only atom that is capable of producing life. It is the rudimentary building block of life as we know it. No other atom can be used so diversely, and have such an influence over the laws of chemistry. We don't just need carbon, we don't just need the correct laws of chemistry to govern it, but we also need an abundance of carbon, we need a mechanism for it to be created and fill the universe. If we had Carbon, but it was less abundant, we still couldn't have life.

The other thing is that reductionism assumes that only one set of rules can give rise to the features and functions of the system. But in fact I do believe that different underlying rules have the ability to converge and produce similar if not identical results. In your example, taking out carbon, and replacing it with something else. But this is not possible with everything.

The "simple" high-level observable rules come from such a convoluted and complicated inner working of the supposed fundamental laws of the universe (are these laws really that important anyway?); worse still they're built layer upon layer. My argument isn't that you can't create life with a different set of rules, my argument is that this universe is designed specifically for us, if it wasn't then life may exist, but we would expect the universe to be more hostile to it than ours is to us. Ours is fundamentally hospitable to life.

[Kirbmarc]

My argument isn't that you can't create life with a different set of rules, my argument is that this universe is designed specifically for us, if it wasn't then life may exist, but we would expect the universe to be more hostile to it than ours is to us. Ours is fundamentally hospitable to life.

To life as we know it. It might be highly inhospitable to different forms of life. And not all the universe is hospitable to life: the inner regions of the Milky Way might not be as hospitable as its outer regions.

A different universe could be even more hospitable to life (for example, it could produce stars whose life circle leads to the production of even more carbon, or a different gravitation pull could create more Earth-like planets).

Finally, you're once again assuming that the universe is specifically made for us. The truth is that we're specifically made for this universe.

[Aractus]

Survival of the individuals. Natural selection applies only to the individuals.

Well then I think you've missed the evidence. Penguins don't selfishly huddle in the middle and let the other individuals of their species freeze to death!

Penguins don't die because of this. If a behavior doesn't kill the individual, it is not against the evolutionary interests of the individual. Feeling cold for a while doesn't prevent the penguins from reproducing.

You've missed the point. The huddle is a feature of the system, not of the individuals. Show me a penguin that can do it on its own! It's not something that's a part of the individual at all, it's a group behaviour, it's a feature of a larger system! You seem to think they came to this behaviour through "trial and error", that's nonsensical. Their behaviour converged because of a force of attraction working though the system.

Correction: We know how evolution works at the level of the individuals. We still have to fully explain how genetics works.

Well that's incorrect, because Evolution isn't concerned with individuals!

You are looking for an "overarching law" that doesn't exist. Biology is a kind of chemistry, which is of course of kind of physics. Thereis no need for "overarching laws" of biology, because natural selectionis the result of the laws of physics.

Actually, I'm certain that it exists, I just don't know what it is. But, that said, I know what it does. It develops life and populations, and behaviours.

---

Finally, you're once again assuming that the universe is specifically made for us. The truth is that we're specifically made for this universe.

Even if you don't take the view that the universe is made for us specifically, it is still made for life. Life isn't "made for the universe", you can't just take an arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws and expect life designed for that universe to suddenly pop up.. and even if it does, it would probably die again just as quickly.

[Kirbmarc]

You seem to think they came to this behaviour through "trial and error", that's nonsensical.

Why, exactly? The penguins in the communities where individuals fought for the warm places died. The penguins in the communities where individuals rotate survived. How is this nonsensical?

Well that's incorrect, because Evolution isn't concerned with individuals!

Individuals are the core of the theory of evolution. The transmission of ereditary characters depends on individuals reproducing or not.

Actually, I'm certain that it exists, I just don't know what it is. But, that said, I know what it does. It develops life and populations, and behaviours.

There's no need for a mysterious overarching law to develop life, populations and behaviors. Natural selection and the transmission of ereditary characters explain their development in a coherent, simple way.

Life isn't "made for the universe", you can't just take an arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws and expect life designed for that universe to suddenly pop up.. and even if it does, it would probably die again just as quickly.

You're thinking about what would happen to carbon-based "life" in a different universe. But another kind of "life" (whatever it is: life is a very ill-defined concept: are virus alive? and if so, why aren't crystals alive?) might as well develop. Life is "made for the universe" in that it is made according to the rules of that specific universe.

[KichigaiNeko]

Well could be worse, my beliefs could have been funny! I've had my little rant, I like to think I've made you experience enlightenment, against your will (ROFL).

I am not here to educate you mate.

Do that in your own time.... I'm busy.

[Aractus]

Why, exactly? The penguins in the communities where individuals fought for the warm places died. The penguins in the communities where individuals rotate survived. How is this nonsensical?

Because different species compete against each other in nature, they don't compete against themselves.

There's no need for a mysterious overarching law to develop life, populations and behaviors. Natural selection and the transmission of ereditary characters explain their development in a coherent, simple way.

Right, well with that attitude we never would have found out what a fractal is even though we'd been looking at them and calling them "organic shapes" for eons.

You're thinking about what would happen to carbon-based "life" in a different universe. But another kind of "life" (whatever it is: life is a very ill-defined concept: are virus alive? and if so, why aren't crystals alive?) might as well develop. Life is "made for the universe" in that it is made according to the rules of that specific universe.

You still need a chemical as versatile as Carbon. And carbon is incredibly versatile. As for viruses and crystals, crystals are non-organic, and viruses are simply something that replicates using organic matter - that is, they start from a life form and do something contrary to the interests of the life form.

[Kirbmarc]

Because different species compete against each other in nature, they don't compete against themselves.

Wrong. Populations compete against themselves, as do individuals and species. In the end, howerver, competition doesn't matter. What matters is who lives long enough to have offsprings and who doesn't.

Right, well with that attitude we never would have found out what a fractal is even though we'd been looking at them and calling them "organic shapes" for eons.

Why not? I've simply stated how evolution works in general. The specific details probably need to studied more.

You need to produce detailed, relevant evidence that this "mysterious force" exists before we start taking it seriously. What you have done so far is present some supposed "flaws" of the theory of evolution that have been explained several times by scientists far more successful and qualified than you or me.

You still need a chemical as versatile as Carbon. And carbon is incredibly versatile.

In our universe. In an universe with different physical laws maybe another elements would be as versatile as carbon.

I'm not saying that life (or a substitute thereof) would pop up in any possible universe, I'm just saying that our universe is not as special as you think it is.

[downbeatplumb]

NASA has discovered a new life form, a bacteria called GFAJ-1 that is unlike anything currently living in planet Earth. It's capable of using arsenic to build its DNA, RNA, proteins, and cell membranes. This changes everything.

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

Silicon life would probably be based on Silicones, polymers of alternating silicon and oxygen. While in general silicones are less stable than hydrocarbons, they would have an advantage in certain environments. In particular, in an atmosphere or environment where sulfuric acid was common, silicones would have greater resilience than carbon-based molecules.

Silicones do run into some troubles, however. Namely, silicon that gets exposed to oxygen often forms silicon dioxide. Since it would be the analog of carbon dioxide, there's reason to believe such life would exhale it as part of respiration - breathing out dust and sand. Silicon dioxide is a solid at most temperatures, and not water-soluble, so you'd have problems removing this waste from cells, recycling biological material, etc. Now, "life may find a way", and in the case of silicone-life it's possible the solution would be ammonia. See Ammonia as Biological Solvent for a discussion of how it might work.

So, the environments most friendly to Silicon-based life are rich in ammonia and sulfuric acid. Ammonia's boiling point is below water's freezing point, so the planet would either be very cold or have extreme pressure (because at higher pressures, the boiling point of ammonia is much higher) - say, 60 atmospheres. Ice Giants and places like Titan, moon of Saturn might be viable habitats for silicon-based life. In other words, any planet likely to be hospitable to silicon life isn't going to be nice for humans. Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to get around that by having a Cloud Planet scenario - a layered Gas Giant that has some breathable earth-atmosphere at the high altitudes and a high-pressure silicone-ammonia environment further down. The notion of shared environments is iffy, to say the least.Silicon life would probably be based on Silicones, polymers of alternating silicon and oxygen. While in general silicones are less stable than hydrocarbons, they would have an advantage in certain environments. In particular, in an atmosphere or environment where sulfuric acid was common, silicones would have greater resilience than carbon-based molecules.

Silicones do run into some troubles, however. Namely, silicon that gets exposed to oxygen often forms silicon dioxide. Since it would be the analog of carbon dioxide, there's reason to believe such life would exhale it as part of respiration - breathing out dust and sand. Silicon dioxide is a solid at most temperatures, and not water-soluble, so you'd have problems removing this waste from cells, recycling biological material, etc. Now, "life may find a way", and in the case of silicone-life it's possible the solution would be ammonia. See Ammonia as Biological Solvent for a discussion of how it might work.

So, the environments most friendly to Silicon-based life are rich in ammonia and sulfuric acid. Ammonia's boiling point is below water's freezing point, so the planet would either be very cold or have extreme pressure (because at higher pressures, the boiling point of ammonia is much higher) - say, 60 atmospheres. Ice Giants and places like Titan, moon of Saturn might be viable habitats for silicon-based life. In other words, any planet likely to be hospitable to silicon life isn't going to be nice for humans. Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to get around that by having a Cloud Planet scenario - a layered Gas Giant that has some breathable earth-atmosphere at the high altitudes and a high-pressure silicone-ammonia environment further down. The notion of shared environments is iffy, to say the least.

http://arcana.wikidot.com/silicon-based-life

Life does not need to limit itself to what you understand to be possible.