the Fermi paradox and the Great Filter

[phuckphace]

quick rundown of both: the Fermi paradox is the paradox that arises from the apparent lack of extraterrestrial life despite support of statistical probability. The Great Filter is whatever has prevented extraterrestrial intelligent life, if it exists, from expanding and colonizing the galaxy or otherwise making its presence obvious. the Filter has some implications for our own destiny, namely that if no other civilization managed to reach the Star Wars stage of technological development despite billions of years of opportunity since the Big Bang, it doesn't bode well for our chances either.

I gotta keep this short since I'm posting on my phone, but basically I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on the topic and what you think the most likely explanation is.

[Vlerchan]

It seems insanely improbable that we and another species would reach star-wars tier or close [we're close - relatively speaking] at the same time. Just consider both the length of time the universe has been in existence and the length of time we have been an intelligent species in contrast.

Presumably - also - when a species becomes so advanced becoming post-materialist and transcendencing the bounded nature of our universe becomes a temptation.

[dxcxdzv]

There has been a LOT of theories concerning the Fermi paradox (we are unique in the Universe, they are here but somehow we can't communicate, they are here and already communicated with some of us... etc.).

Thing is we clearly lack of data on this subject, exoplanets weren't observed before recently. Keep in mind that Humanity is a Type 0 civilization, which means we've got a - somewhat - primitive level.
Even though we tend to become a Type I this would have taken roughly 200 000 years.
Once again, we can't compare due to a lack of data, perhaps our evolution until there has been really quick, perhaps really slow.

Our Solar system has been created 4.5 billion years ago and Earth roughly appeared in the same time (at this point life wasn't really possible). Which means the Earth "appeared" roughly 9 billion years after the Big Bang (according to our present knowledge about the Universe).
Water on our planet appeared 4.4 billion years ago due to a "meteor rain" (theory).
Such an event could be responsible of the presence of water on other planets, I wouldn't be surprised if such a "meteor rain" had reached other Solar systems in the same time. Therefore it would be kind of logic that life appeared on other planets in the same time as on Earth.

[phuckphace]

my opinion: intelligent ET civilizations or something analogous to them might possibly exist or have existed in the past, but we'll never encounter them. reasons being:

the universe is staggeringly large, the laws of physics put a constraint on how far we can explore and observe, and the same would apply to any ET life finding us. faster-than-light travel is impossible, and even travel at or near 0.99c is effectively motionless on a cosmological scale. time dilation would also make exploration and civilization-building difficult if not impossible to coordinate, not to mention the speed of communication (it takes 6 hours for a radio signal from Earth to even reach Pluto. just imagine the Internet ping - you're trying to debate a Holocaust denier in ROTW but by the time your post finally reaches the server he's already been banned).

I think once a civilization reaches its space-exploration stage, colonization is practically limited to the home star system. that's not very far when ET life could easily be way the hell over in another galaxy cluster entirely. all these reasons and more are part of why I think the UFO/alien abduction people are totally fucking insane.

probably just as well, too. Obama and Merkel's alien amnesty is bad enough

[Vlerchan]

[...] the laws of physics put a constraint on how far we can explore and observe [...]
See Wormholes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole) for what I think will actually happen, being as FTL-travel is most likely impossible.

[dxcxdzv]

the universe is staggeringly large, the laws of physics put a constraint on how far we can explore and observe, and the same would apply to any ET life finding us.
The Universe is effectively extremely large, at least at our scale. But that doesn't make interstellar travel impossible, we're still pretty much at the stage of theory but some solutions to encounter physic laws do exist.
To be honest I don't really think that the problem resides in the distance to perform but rather in the lifespan of living beings traveling.

faster-than-light travel is impossible, and even travel at or near 0.99c is effectively motionless on a cosmological scale.
Once again some solutions are proposed concerning c, another problem is that at such a speed living beings - like the human body - are more or less disintegrated by the hydrogen radiations.

time dilation would also make exploration and civilization-building difficult if not impossible to coordinate
This is certainly the most interesting point. Some people (and by some people I mean bullshits I saw in a documentary 5 years ago) think that due to such an issue a living being can only spread itself, solar system per solar system without being able to properly establish a interstellar civilization as a whole.
Even with the ability to go really quickly from a planet to another I'm pretty sure each of them will end by being independent from each other.

not to mention the speed of communication (it takes 6 hours for a radio signal from Earth to even reach Pluto. just imagine the Internet ping - you're trying to debate a Holocaust denier in ROTW but by the time your post finally reaches the server he's already been banned).

Tachyons will fix it.

I think once a civilization reaches its space-exploration stage, colonization is practically limited to the home star system. that's not very far when ET life could easily be way the hell over in another galaxy cluster entirely. all these reasons and more are part of why I think the UFO/alien abduction people are totally fucking insane.
They pretty much are, I difficultly imagine a highly advanced civilization landing on a planet as ours just like that.
Still, we don't know how far we will progress in science, perhaps what we find kinda ridiculous today (interstellar travel) would me made possible one day.

[sqishy]

My response to the Fermi Paradox and its Great Filter is that there is a combination of factors going on here.

We have been closely observing comparatively extremely few exoplanets and their parent stars, compared to the number that exists in the galaxy. Also, most of the observations we do take the form of large sets of data such that very little is seen 'up-close and personal', which is why there have been times when the astronomers have released the data to the public for this being one of the reasons. It's one thing to have algorithms or ranges of variables that suggest a planet/star should be looked at more, and another to be aware of the sheer complexity of our planet's biosphere alone.

We've been doing the above for comparatively an extremely short period of time too.

We have a subconscious presumption that alien organisms will have the same or similar biochemistry. Therefore, we'll be presuming that a water-rich and/or nitrogen-oxygen-rich planet is what we should be concentrating our efforts in searching for.

We presume that alien organisations (psychological/social/cultural/political/etc) will take an effectively same or similar form as our own. For example, many people think there is an absence of alien civilisations with comparable complexity as ours, just because there is an absence of otherwise-unexplained radio signals.

We also presume that the number of possible aliens and their organisations means that they will occur sufficiently nearby for at least one of them to observe the others, but also at the same time. We have a far higher chance in detecting the prelude or aftermath of aliens and/or their organisations, rather than the actual thing itself.

In addition to all of this, we either have an amazingly complex powerful 'toolbox' for observing the universe, or we have a really crude one (depending on how we see ourselves). Either way, we could do so much more - perhaps there is still all around us that we simply cannot find unless with fast sweeps unless you do it slow and look closer. People did not think of diseases being spread through tiny objects all around them, and they had no way of knowing for a while either, even if they went with the idea.

We also have not personally even traveled to another planet, and our furthest space probe is only leaving our star system. We've done quite well with our view of the world taking us sort of being stuck in one spot in it, but moving around will only help us expand our abilities and chances.


I could go further, but I suggest that a response to the fermi paradox will be that we should take the whole subject, in theory and practice, through the lens of information theory, entropy and order, and so on. Want to find civilisations? Don't look for examples like ours initially, but rather ask yourself what forms highly ordered and/or self-ordering entities can take, and then look for them. The world is much more complex than we think.

Of course, all of this depends on how we define exo-life/aliens and their civilisations. This should not be the harder part of this project, but it is necessary for getting somewhere with positives and negatives.


Finally, most of the use of this has being behind it the aggressive rejection of the view that the aliens have already been detected and/or are already here (UFOs and so on). We can still do all of the above if the aliens are already here and that, of course, but this is important to say.



Interesting that I am typing this as I listen to the radio with a topic of 'what does life look like?' right now, basically looking for life out there :P .



Tachyons will fix it.


Good luck controlling them, if you find them.

See Wormholes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole) for what I think will actually happen, being as FTL-travel is most likely impossible.

We can only get closer if we play around with negative energies like with the casimir effect, one thing is finding something and another is controlling it - nothing is impossible anyway. This I feel is more possible than local FTL (those tachyons).

[phuckphace]

it's my impression that traversable wormholes are as squarely in the realm of scifi fantasy as FTL travel. even if not, there's also the problem of how to place the "exit" end at the desired destination which of course would require centuries of travel at sublight speed. I can't see it happening.

Paraxiom - I agree that we're obviously biased toward Earth analogues, but I think there's a good reason for that. we know that extraterrestrial life is certainly possible given our own existence, but we don't know how improbable it really is. we may be unique or we may be typical of all life in the Universe. but it's one clue at least.

[dxcxdzv]

Paraxiom : As you said, we can't say that ET life would be like us. Nonetheless we can speculate some general characteristics like:


Optimal planet characteristics - Even though it wouldn't be clever to deny that Life can appear in different conditions that on our planet we can assume that the presence of liquid water, optimal global temperature, optimal light etc increases the probability of Life appearing. It has been empirically demonstrated on our own planet.

Physical characteristics - It wouldn't be surprising that a intelligent species is more likely to be mobile - thus, can move - and possesses senses at least similar to ours (vision or hearing for example) and that the organs in charge of those senses are close to some sort of nervous center.

Philosophical concepts - I assume some basic philosophical concepts can easily be formulated regardless of the civilization's context. Like the concept of Unit.


And don't worry for the tachyons. I'm on it! (not really but, meh)

https://media.giphy.com/media/c20UV66B7zCWA/giphy.gif

[Vlerchan]

it's my impression that traversable wormholes are as squarely in the realm of scifi fantasy as FTL travel.
Wormholes are feasible and I'm quite sure it's also feasible to open a wormhole from one side on a unilateral basis thus avoiding the issue raised. Being feasible though doesn't mean we're close.

[sqishy]

it's my impression that traversable wormholes are as squarely in the realm of scifi fantasy as FTL travel. even if not, there's also the problem of how to place the "exit" end at the desired destination which of course would require centuries of travel at sublight speed. I can't see it happening.

Local FTL seems to be purely sci-fi yes, but non-local FTL is different. It's possible we can use negative energy (or better still mass) to keep open a wormhole found, and then find a way to move the mass-energy which will then make the associated wormhole move as well. It's basically like how 'normal' gravity fields move with their source mass-energy.

Of course things are more complex as it's quite a special kind of dimensional warping and I can only guess some extreme maths, but GR is open to it, we got the computing ability at least partly, and we have already found a form of negative energy.

Getting the wormhole in the first place will be comparatively hard, so I wouldn't be surprised if it would take some charity-giving like in Interstellar, but that film also illustrates that even interplanetary-scale wormholes are extremely useful. The hauling of the ends will be the final hurdle, so to speak, but we could send out a probe to do that with the far end if we are confident.



I agree that we're obviously biased toward Earth analogues, but I think there's a good reason for that. we know that extraterrestrial life is certainly possible given our own existence, but we don't know how improbable it really is. we may be unique or we may be typical of all life in the Universe. but it's one clue at least.

Our presumption is a good one in itself because it would be easier for us to find planets like our own. I pointed it out though because it will discourage us from looking at other possibilities too, for example some more complex planetary-scale analogues of hydrogen-breathing or uranium-harnessing organisms here (they do exist, even if in traces). Perhaps more investigation into their biochemistry can give us some ideas on what large-scale conditions would harbour them.

On the question of how probable life is, we can only make guesses, but educated ones. I feel the question of if there is any other life is not work asking really though, because estimates say there are more than 10^24 planets in our observable universe (by our standards of what a planet is or is not).

>10^24 = >1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

We have found more than 2000 exoplanets so far, which is comparatively negligible.

Are we justified in even considering if we are 'alone in the universe' at this point? By argument of numbers alone, I say no.

Is our life unique? I'm very confident that every asteroid, planet, star, etc in the universe is unlike nothing else, and the vast majority of other planets/etc are different to our own, but extremely many are probably very similar to our own. So Nigel Farage and Donald Trump may be unique in the universe, but the sort of air they breathe probably isn't. Difference is everywhere, similarity is far-between but still prevalent, and identity is probably unique. I bet that our biochemistry is out there much more than our societies/etc with that biochemistry.

Of course, still only educated guesses, but we try.




Optimal planet characteristics - Even though it wouldn't be clever to deny that Life can appear in different conditions that on our planet we can assume that the presence of liquid water, optimal global temperature, optimal light etc increases the probability of Life appearing. It has been empirically demonstrated on our own planet.

It's a good starting point, yes.



Physical characteristics - It wouldn't be surprising that a intelligent species is more likely to be mobile - thus, can move - and possesses senses at least similar to ours (vision or hearing for example) and that the organs in charge of those senses are close to some sort of nervous center.

It is also a good starting point to think that complex inter-organism organisation will be (much) more likely if the organisms can move relative to each other and their surroundings in some way, but it could be possible that some don't move and only information from their 'mental organs' moves, something like the plant system's surface network on Pandora in Avatar.

Some analogue or similarity to neurobiology I feel is necessary for consciousness, as I see such systems being essential for allowing certain flow patterns of information that allow consciousness to work. Then again, I may be wrong, but I'm more confident with that.



Philosophical concepts - I assume some basic philosophical concepts can easily be formulated regardless of the civilization's context. Like the concept of Unit.

Concepts of 'unit' will need some analogue of mathematics, which may need some specific kind(s) of cognition. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that some form of philosophy that we know of (or do not know of) will be at least a possibility taking some more complex form of consciousness that does awareness on itself like we do.



And don't worry for the tachyons. I'm on it! (not really but, meh)

image (https://media.giphy.com/media/c20UV66B7zCWA/giphy.gif)

Sounds like desperation if FTL is the only way to escape that damned kryptonite :P .



Being feasible though doesn't mean we're close.

That's something I feel we have a lot of going on that relates to, least in the political realm.

[Arkansasguy]

what you think the most likely explanation is.

That probabilistic metaphysics are nonsense?

The chances that life generally, or intelligent life specifically, will arise naturally are zero. So there's no paradox in our non-observation of alien life. It just limits the number of miracles that need to be posited.

[sqishy]

That probabilistic metaphysics are nonsense?

I'm not sure what you mean here so reiteration would help, but I'm wondering what's wrong with indeterminacy here and there.



The chances that life generally, or intelligent life specifically, will arise naturally are zero. So there's no paradox in our non-observation of alien life. It just limits the number of miracles that need to be posited.

Exactly zero? Why is that?

[phuckphace]

Exactly zero? Why is that?

he's saying God did it.

[StoppingTom]

I think it's highly unlikely that another civilization would reach Star Wars tier at the same time as us, and the "Ant on a highway" idea appeals to me. Basically, we're an ant on a highway created by beings that have advanced ahead of us, and we cannot grasp the concept of their existance because it is so far advanced. Meanwhile, extraterrestrial life is so far behind us that it is, at best, bacteria (which we haven't found) or something even lesser than that.

[sqishy]

he's saying God did it.

(Yeah I got the idea, but I prefer to do it the thorough way.)



I think it's highly unlikely that another civilization would reach Star Wars tier at the same time as us, and the "Ant on a highway" idea appeals to me. Basically, we're an ant on a highway created by beings that have advanced ahead of us, and we cannot grasp the concept of their existance because it is so far advanced.

Could be so.



Meanwhile, extraterrestrial life is so far behind us that it is, at best, bacteria (which we haven't found) or something even lesser than that.

I'm guessing you mean this other ET life is different to the 'beings' you speak of (which are also ET).

________________

EDIT: Some recent news has come with a paper on how unlikely it is that we are 'alone'; it includes the Drake Equation which is one good conceptualisation of the whole topic.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/ast.2015.1418

I'm not saying it is the last word on this, only that it's some direct material to work with in this thread if needed.

[phuckphace]

the chances of complex life arising spontaneously are nil, but the chances of simple life arising and then evolving further complexity isn't so far-fetched. it just takes a lot of time and fortuitous conditions.

I've got no idea how probable it is that complex life can evolve intelligence, but to say that it's for sure zero isn't something I'd be willing to claim with that much certainty unless I had just returned from a trillion-year tour of the Universe visiting every terrestrial planet and turning over every rock.

in any case I sorta agree with Giygas that ET life is more likely to resemble simple cellular life like bacteria, or maybe plants.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm not sure what you mean here so reiteration would help, but I'm wondering what's wrong with indeterminacy here and there.

Indeterminacy here and there isn't an issue. What's nonsense is treating everything as a probabilistic matter.

Exactly zero? Why is that?

Because lesser things can give rise to greater things of their own accord, unless they possess the power to do so by nature.

the chances of complex life arising spontaneously are nil, but the chances of simple life arising and then evolving further complexity isn't so far-fetched. it just takes a lot of time and fortuitous conditions.

I've got no idea how probable it is that complex life can evolve intelligence, but to say that it's for sure zero isn't something I'd be willing to claim with that much certainty unless I had just returned from a trillion-year tour of the Universe visiting every terrestrial planet and turning over every rock.

in any case I sorta agree with Giygas that ET life is more likely to resemble simple cellular life like bacteria, or maybe plants.

You're assuming reductionist and probabilistic metaphysics here. The realist answer is that it is not possible for life to arise from non-life, and certainly not intelligence from animal life.

[phuckphace]

The realist answer is that it is not possible for life to arise from non-life, and certainly not intelligence from animal life.

but we are animals, dude. I don't mean to sound fedora here but although we are uniquely endowed with the trait of higher intelligence and the distinguishing characteristics thereof, our ancestral relationship with the lower animals and specifically primates is obvious nonetheless, both in physiology and genetics-wise.

we're unique in that the development of higher intelligence caused what I would describe as an epiphany of sorts - we built complex cultures, civilizations and religious belief systems as a hedge against the soulless death-race of evolution so it's not really surprising that we attribute our uniqueness to the supernatural.

in any case I'm inclined to nod along with the religious tendency to elevate humanity even though I believe in strictly naturalistic explanations for our development, since the alternative doesn't sound very fun.

[Arkansasguy]

but we are animals, dude.

Correct, but I meant unintelligent animal life.

our ancestral relationship with the lower animals and specifically primates is obvious

If it were obvious then someone prior to the last two hundred years would have noticed it.

If you don't accept reductionism, then you're forced to look for other explanations for things like genetic similarity. Of course if you start about by assuming that reductionism is correct, then it will seem obvious that monkeys (yeah, I know) are our relatives, but that hardly seems like a reasonable assumption.

[Vlerchan]

Arkansasguy:

Do you believe that the current scientific consensus surrounding the theory of evolution is correct?

In other words, do you believe in evolution?

[Arkansasguy]

Arkansasguy:

Do you believe that the current scientific consensus surrounding the theory of evolution is correct?

In other words, do you believe in evolution?

Evolution isn't really a scientific theory. It's a historical theory closely tied to a metaphysical view.

I reject both.

[dxcxdzv]

Some analogue or similarity to neurobiology I feel is necessary for consciousness, as I see such systems being essential for allowing certain flow patterns of information that allow consciousness to work. Then again, I may be wrong, but I'm more confident with that.
The best argument is that if there is a large number of neurons needed (or whatever system could reproduce it) they're more likely to be condensed this to allow faster transition of the information. Of course on Earth the nervous systems use a mix of electric signals within each neuron and neuron-transmitters between each neuron, perhaps it can be done otherwise. But I got difficulties to imagine a "highly" developed organic system without such a thing.
That's more or less why I don't think an ET intelligent organism can have a "diffused" neuronal system - thus, no real nervous center - because Nature simply wouldn't allow it.

Concepts of 'unit' will need some analogue of mathematics, which may need some specific kind(s) of cognition. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that some form of philosophy that we know of (or do not know of) will be at least a possibility taking some more complex form of consciousness that does awareness on itself like we do.
Yes, perhaps it seems obvious to us but as the concept of Unit is a concrete one I assume it would be a starting base for more abstracts concepts like mathematics etc.

If it were obvious then someone prior to the last two hundred years would have noticed it.
Charles Darwin?
I don't really see what you mean, btw.

Furthermore the use of probabilities is not non-sense, widely use in quantum mechanics it has permitted to make a lot of progress in science.

EDIT:
Arkansasguy : If you're trying to refute the Evolution theory you gonna need some pretty serious evidences.

[Vlerchan]

Evolution isn't really a scientific theory. It's a historical theory closely tied to a metaphysical view.

I reject both.
Ok. Thank you for clarifying your position.

[Arkansasguy]

If you're trying to refute the Evolution theory you gonna need some pretty serious evidences.

Evolution isn't a scientific theory, and therefore isn't a matter of empirical evidence.

[dxcxdzv]

Evolution isn't a scientific theory, and therefore isn't a matter of empirical evidence.
This is not a serious evidence.

One thing is sure, your reasoning is far from being scientific.

[Vlerchan]

Evolution isn't a scientific theory, and therefore isn't a matter of empirical evidence.
What about artificial selection?

Or mutations of the genome?

Do you believe that modern evolutionary theory makes any valid insights, and if so, what?

Would you also mind explaining your beliefs with regards to emergence of the homo sapiens, in particular vis-a-vis the process of artificial selection borne from mutations in the genome?

---

If this seems like a lot, I apologise. I'm just hoping to make what you actually believe clearer, as it's going otherwise unstated.

[Arkansasguy]

What about artificial selection?

Or mutations of the genome?

Do you believe that modern evolutionary theory makes any valid insights, and if so, what?

Would you also mind explaining your beliefs with regards to emergence of the homo sapiens, in particular vis-a-vis the process of artificial selection borne from mutations in the genome?

---

If this seems like a lot, I apologise. I'm just hoping to make what you actually believe clearer, as it's going otherwise unstated.

First of all, I'm assuming that by "artificial selection", you mean "natural selection". I've never heard of artificial selection.

Asking if evolution has any valid insights is like asking the same of psychology. Yes some of the things asserted in conjunction with it are plausible, but that's often used to obfusicate. The part of it which I'm saying is nonsense is evolution specifically, the idea that it's naturally possible for one type of creature to transform into another over generations.

It's a bit of a tangent, but once reductionist metaphysics are set aside, it's necessary to posit that humanity was created miraculously. I of course have more specific beliefs than that, but bringing in revealed truth will definitely divert the topic.

[sqishy]

Lots been going on since I was here!

What's nonsense is treating everything as a probabilistic matter.

I'm not aware of anyone here treating everything as probabilistic.



Because lesser things can[not] give rise to greater things of their own accord, unless they possess the power to do so by nature.

(I assume you meant 'cannot' here.)

If you mean 'lesser' and 'greater' by amount of order in an entity, then I cannot see why 'inherently' entities with less order cannot give rise to entities with greater order, taking some form of interaction either within itself or between itself and similar entities.

I'm also not getting how you either have 'lesser cannot give rise to greater of their own accord' or that they can but through nature. If they are in nature, then there's no difference, right?



The realist answer is that it is not possible for life to arise from non-life, and certainly not intelligence from animal life.

(I assume you mean what is realistic as opposed to the system of realism.)

Why is it not possible for life to arise from non-life (taking our common views of what biology is), and not possible for a presence of intelligence to arise from the absence of intelligence?

I offer counterexample to the former that in realistic theory by standards of chemistry and biology, we can construct a single-celled organism from less-ordered chemicals (e.g. DNA and so on).

For the latter, babies' minds are a physical state that permits intelligence, whereas a year previous whatever matter that will make up the baby's brain did not permit this at that time. Another example would be how the intelligence of a 1-day old baby is not much compared to the intelligence of a 10-year old. If the degree of intelligence alters so much, is it an issue to say that the degree of intelligence alters from absence of it to presence of it?

Imagine we had some scale of intelligence (for the sake of argument). You're okay with a change from 2 to 3, but not from 0 to 1?

________________

The best argument is that if there is a large number of neurons needed (or whatever system could reproduce it) they're more likely to be condensed this to allow faster transition of the information. Of course on Earth the nervous systems use a mix of electric signals within each neuron and neuron-transmitters between each neuron, perhaps it can be done otherwise. But I got difficulties to imagine a "highly" developed organic system without such a thing.

When I meant similarity to neurochemistry, I mean that there is no reason why there cannot be other physical systems that allow for the flow of information such that is in our minds; perhaps it would be a different set of chemicals that do similar sorts of electrical signalling, or something else even like ferromagnetism or whatever. We can theoretically build a mechanistic computer out of ping pong balls, and in theory build other computers with similar performance to the 'average' one today but not with electricity that does the energy transfers needed to store and manipulate information.

Sure, it might be hard to imagine, but we don't have reasons against such a thing happening. My view is that similar or the same kinds of more complex systems can arise out of different kinds of less complex systems. Sound travels both through solids and fluids.


Yes, perhaps it seems obvious to us but as the concept of Unit is a concrete one I assume it would be a starting base for more abstracts concepts like mathematics etc.

If mathematics is to be the imagining and thought-experimenting of quantity as an abstract thing (not too bad as a definition, but ad-hoc I know), then some reference quantities will sort of be needed to go anywhere with it, yes (like knowing where you are on a map, as crude analogy).



Furthermore the use of probabilities is not non-sense, widely use in quantum mechanics it has permitted to make a lot of progress in science.


Quantum mechanics itself still have determinism in aspects of it - degrees of probabilities can be found with near-certainty given enough data as example, and mostly deterministic 'classical' mechanics arises out of the quantum at large scales, least it appears reasonable to assume it does.

________________


I'm just hoping to make what you actually believe clearer, as it's going otherwise unstated.

Arkansasguy

This is why I am asking so many questions, to get clarity as to what I am seeing here, before I can go further.


[...]it's necessary to posit that humanity was created miraculously. I of course have more specific beliefs than that, but bringing in revealed truth will definitely divert the topic.

I don't want to diverge from the topic of this thread, so I will indirectly respond to your view of humanity's 'miraculous creation' by asking what purpose would more than billions of galaxies, stars, planets, etc be for us if we are the only intelligent organisms created by God, and why it would be that the light speed be such as to have most of what we see be unreachable since what is 'really' out there is millions/billions of years advanced in physics than it appears.

The rest of what I have said I hope is seen as integrated into this I ask of you.

[Vlerchan]

First of all, I'm assuming that by "artificial selection", you mean "natural selection". I've never heard of artificial selection.
Yes. That's what I meant, apologies.

For whatever reason, artificial selection - which refers to selective breeding - came into my mind whilst I typed.

The part of it which I'm saying is nonsense is evolution specifically, the idea that it's naturally possible for one type of creature to transform into another over generations.
OK. I'm still interested in whether you believe that [1] the process of natural selection, borne from [2] mutations of the genome, is true

If you believe in one, and not the other, I would appreciate if that was specified.

Thank you.

[...] but once reductionist metaphysics are set aside [...]
Would you mind clarifying what exactly is supposed by 'reductionist metaphysics' within the context of this discussion.

I am presuming genetics, but I can't be sure, and it's difficult to proceed without understanding what seems the fundamental concept here.

---

I'm not aware of anyone here treating everything as probabilistic.
I do.

[sqishy]

I do.

Who? (I hope you don't see it as me.)

[Vlerchan]

Who? (I hope you don't see it as me.)
I mean, I personally treat all observations in terms of probabilities.

[sqishy]

I mean, I personally treat all observations in terms of probabilities.

So you're saying you are the one here who is treating everything as probabilistic in this topic? (just clarifying)

I was going to add after me saying that I was not aware of anyone doing this, that I wouldn't see it as a bad thing anyway, but didn't because I did not expect it to come up.

No harm done :D .

[phuckphace]

Evolution isn't a scientific theory, and therefore isn't a matter of empirical evidence.

alright.

I don't like arguing about creationism because it's one of those things that must be accepted on faith, which puts it outside the scope of this topic. so, stalemate I guess.

[Arkansasguy]

If you mean 'lesser' and 'greater' by amount of order in an entity, then I cannot see why 'inherently' entities with less order cannot give rise to entities with greater order, taking some form of interaction either within itself or between itself and similar entities.

I'm also not getting how you either have 'lesser cannot give rise to greater of their own accord' or that they can but through nature. If they are in nature, then there's no difference, right?

It's an extension of the principle that something can't come from nothing. In order for one thing to create another, it must at least virtually possess the ability to do so, lest you would have the problem of an uncaused thing.

(I assume you mean what is realistic as opposed to the system of realism.)

Why is it not possible for life to arise from non-life (taking our common views of what biology is), and not possible for a presence of intelligence to arise from the absence of intelligence?

I offer counterexample to the former that in realistic theory by standards of chemistry and biology, we can construct a single-celled organism from less-ordered chemicals (e.g. DNA and so on).

I mean realism.

See above.

That's not a valid counterexample because we cannot in fact do that.

For the latter, babies' minds are a physical state that permits intelligence, whereas a year previous whatever matter that will make up the baby's brain did not permit this at that time. Another example would be how the intelligence of a 1-day old baby is not much compared to the intelligence of a 10-year old. If the degree of intelligence alters so much, is it an issue to say that the degree of intelligence alters from absence of it to presence of it?

Imagine we had some scale of intelligence (for the sake of argument). You're okay with a change from 2 to 3, but not from 0 to 1?

Babies by nature turn into adults, whereas there is nothing in the nature of a bacteria that makes it turn into a man.


I don't want to diverge from the topic of this thread, so I will indirectly respond to your view of humanity's 'miraculous creation' by asking what purpose would more than billions of galaxies, stars, planets, etc be for us if we are the only intelligent organisms created by God, and why it would be that the light speed be such as to have most of what we see be unreachable since what is 'really' out there is millions/billions of years advanced in physics than it appears.

The rest of what I have said I hope is seen as integrated into this I ask of you.

I don't purport to know the mind of God. But in any case, the question of whether God created other life is separate from the question of how life comes about.

OK. I'm still interested in whether you believe that [1] the process of natural selection, borne from [2] mutations of the genome, is true

If you believe in one, and not the other, I would appreciate if that was specified.

Thank you.

It's true that genetic mutations occur, and that subspecies that are better at surviving and reproducing are more likely to survive. What I dispute is that unlimited genetic mutation can be beneficial.

Would you mind clarifying what exactly is supposed by 'reductionist metaphysics' within the context of this discussion.

I am presuming genetics, but I can't be sure, and it's difficult to proceed without understanding what seems the fundamental concept here.

Reductionism means the idea that things are essentially reducible to their component parts. So for example, the idea that say, bacteria and humans are ultimately the same type of thing, and thus capable of transitioning from one to the other.

alright.

I don't like arguing about creationism because it's one of those things that must be accepted on faith, which puts it outside the scope of this topic. so, stalemate I guess.

My arguments against evolution are entirely based on natural reason. I do not reference faith-based arguments here.

[Vlerchan]

What I dispute is that unlimited genetic mutation can be beneficial.
I would appreciate if this could be expanded on. On what basis is this dispute formed?

Furthermore answer me: If mutations of the genome result in differences in the endowment of traits - and differences in traits result in different likelihoods of survival and thus different likelihoods in these traits being passed on - it would seem at first instance as if genetic mutations would be cumulative - No?.

There's no claim that this must be a beneficial process. But it is possible?

---

I also presume what's being referred to here is macroevoloution. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reductionism means the idea that things are essentially reducible to their component parts.
Just to continue in this mission for clarification: Is this intended to infer that purely genetic explanations of man are - in I imagine too crude a term - bunk?

In that case is there also spiritual content that must be accounted for? Or what are such explanations missing?

[dxcxdzv]

Jeez. I can't believe we started from the Fermi Paradox and the appearance of ET intelligent life forms to end on wether or not the theory of evolution is true.

[Arkansasguy]

I would appreciate if this could be expanded on. On what basis is this dispute formed?

Reality. If you (for example) replaced a human embryo's DNA with that of a bacteria, it wouldn't live as a bacteria, it'd just die.

Evolution says that if you take long enough, you'll get the opposite result.

Furthermore answer me: If mutations of the genome result in differences in the endowment of traits - and differences in traits result in different likelihoods of survival and thus different likelihoods in these traits being passed on - it would seem at first instance as if genetic mutations would be cumulative - No?.

There's no claim that this must be a beneficial process. But it is possible?

Sure. But that only works if the genome stays consistent with the creature's nature. If it gets too far off, it won't be beneficial.

I'm using "beneficial" to mean that it increases the creature'so propensity for surviving and reproducing.

I also presume what's being referred to here is macroevoloution. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct.

Just to continue in this mission for clarification: Is this intended to infer that purely genetic explanations of man are - in I imagine too crude a term - bunk?

In that case is there also spiritual content that must be accounted for? Or what are such explanations missing?

Yes but the spiritual aspect isn't the point, as this argument applies to other living things too.

[sqishy]

It's an extension of the principle that something can't come from nothing. In order for one thing to create another, it must at least virtually possess the ability to do so, lest you would have the problem of an uncaused thing.

It's an unjustified leap of using that principle, if I may say so. It's one thing to say total absence of any existence cannot give presence of any existence (one way of saying the principle), but another to say that no particular kind of any existence can give rise to any other kind of existence.

With that, you also seem to go with my view that certain entities can only 'give rise' to other entities, so I'm not sure what is going on here overall.



I mean realism.

That the world is mind-independent? I'm not seeing it to be relevant.


That's not a valid counterexample because we cannot in fact do that.

We're already close to it, and have made DNA and analogues thereof (after some quick research into it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell

"In the area of synthetic biology, a "living" artificial cell has been defined as a completely synthetically made cell that can capture energy, maintain ion gradients, contain macromolecules as well as store information and have the ability to mutate. Such a cell is not technically feasible yet, but a variation of an artificial cell has been created in which a completely synthetic genome was introduced to genomically emptied host cells. Although not completely artificial because the cytoplasmic components as well as the membrane from the host cell are kept, the engineered cell is under control of a synthetic genome and is able to replicate."

I'm not much of a fan of doing discussion just with references from other places, but I needed to show this.



Babies by nature turn into adults, whereas there is nothing in the nature of a bacteria that makes it turn into a man.

Babies by nature turn into adults but only if you give them certain nutrients, which are certain types of material (food). It's conditional on what comes from the environment.

When someone dies, a lot of their body's matter goes into bacteria. I suggest that extending the 'nature' of an entity will show you how many different things it can turn into.

The nature of an entity is dependent on the environment as much as it is dependent on its own structure, it is not only the latter.



I don't purport to know the mind of God. But in any case, the question of whether God created other life is separate from the question of how life comes about.

That simplifies things.


I do not reference faith-based arguments here.

So are you a deist? (Wondering.)


If you (for example) replaced a human embryo's DNA with that of a bacteria, it wouldn't live as a bacteria, it'd just die.


Nuclear information of a cell from most species won't be compatible with a given cell of a certain species -most, not all.

So some instances are theoretically compatible, as in the cell will not die. Even more than just being theoretical, whatever about the ethical/moral aspects of cats with DNA from bioluminescent organisms, it has been done.

________________

Jeez. I can't believe we started from the Fermi Paradox and the appearance of ET intelligent life forms to end on wether or not the theory of evolution is true.

I'm trying to keep it relevant to the debate on the possibility of life arising from non-life, which is basically debating the existence of the Fermi Paradox.
If needed we can always start another thread on theories of evolution and related things.

[Arkansasguy]

It's an unjustified leap of using that principle, if I may say so. It's one thing to say total absence of any existence cannot give presence of any existence (one way of saying the principle), but another to say that no particular kind of any existence can give rise to any other kind of existence.

With that, you also seem to go with my view that certain entities can only 'give rise' to other entities, so I'm not sure what is going on here overall.

Something can't arise from nothing because contingent facts (such as a given thing's existence) require a cause. In order to be a cause of something, a thing must possess the power to cause said other thing.


That the world is mind-independent? I'm not seeing it to be relevant.

Not realism as opposed to idealism. Realism (also called essentialism) as opposed to nominalism.

We're already close to it, and have made DNA and analogues thereof (after some quick research into it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell

"In the area of synthetic biology, a "living" artificial cell has been defined as a completely synthetically made cell that can capture energy, maintain ion gradients, contain macromolecules as well as store information and have the ability to mutate. Such a cell is not technically feasible yet, but a variation of an artificial cell has been created in which a completely synthetic genome was introduced to genomically emptied host cells. Although not completely artificial because the cytoplasmic components as well as the membrane from the host cell are kept, the engineered cell is under control of a synthetic genome and is able to replicate."

I'm not much of a fan of doing discussion just with references from other places, but I needed to show this.

That's not an artificial cell. It's a natural cell with one artificial component.

Babies by nature turn into adults but only if you give them certain nutrients, which are certain types of material (food). It's conditional on what comes from the environment.

Not relevant.

When someone dies, a lot of their body's matter goes into bacteria. I suggest that extending the 'nature' of an entity will show you how many different things it can turn into.

Yes, bacteria consume corpses. This is because of the nature of bacteria. It's not as if a sterilized corpse would generate bacteria automatically.

So are you a deist? (Wondering.)

No.

Nuclear information of a cell from most species won't be compatible with a given cell of a certain species -most, not all.

So some instances are theoretically compatible, as in the cell will not die. Even more than just being theoretical, whatever about the ethical/moral aspects of cats with DNA from bioluminescent organisms, it has been done.

That a cat can survive a gene-altering disease is besides the point. A cat embryo could not survive (for example) the entire replacement of its genome with that of a jellyfish (or even half for that matter).

[sqishy]

Something can't arise from nothing because contingent facts (such as a given thing's existence) require a cause. In order to be a cause of something, a thing must possess the power to cause said other thing.

Well yes.



That's not an artificial cell. It's a natural cell with one artificial component.

My point is that it is theoretically possible, with no theory that goes against it being possible, so just because we cannot do it now does not mean we never will and that it 'proves' life cannot arise out of non-life.



No.

You are confident that you can argue for the existence of God and how life could not arise without it with only appealing to reason without faith, yes?

- - - - - - - -


Not realism as opposed to idealism. Realism (also called essentialism) as opposed to nominalism.

Ah, Platonic Realism. Apologies.



Not relevant.

Why not?



Yes, bacteria consume corpses. This is because of the nature of bacteria. It's not as if a sterilized corpse would generate bacteria automatically.

I will point out that we depend upon bacteria for our body's functioning (in the intestines).

We cannot isolate a certain system from its usual environment and expect it to still have its inherent nature to it - it would die.



That a cat can survive a gene-altering disease is besides the point. A cat embryo could not survive (for example) the entire replacement of its genome with that of a jellyfish (or even half for that matter).

I separate the last four quotes I have here so that I can try to unify them back to what you see as an impossibility for life to arise out of non-life.

You say that life cannot have its causes from non-life. However, life cannot be sustained without non-life. We can create a conceptual division from life and non-life; if life needs some form of non-life to be sustained, then we are left just with the topic of the initiation of some form of life from the absence of it.

You also say that certain simpler things cannot give rise to more complex things unless they possess the power to do so. For greater complexity to arise from lesser complexity, some certain interaction needs to be going on between the less-complex things such that a greater complexity or large-scale thing results. The less-complex things cannot spontaneously make themselves interact in such ways, they do it only at certain instances, and these instances are dependent on the environment the things are in.

If life inherently can get more complex without input from its environment, then it would not matter what was in its environment as it would keep on 'living' itself anyway.

[phuckphace]

My arguments against evolution are entirely based on natural reason. I do not reference faith-based arguments here.

come on now mate, it's fairly obvious that your preference for the revealed truth of your faith is the basis of your skepticism toward the naturalistic explanation. which is understandable since its tenets would break down in a universe where we happened by accident and nothing really means anything *tips fedora*

but if we're really arguing without a basis in faith then there's no real reason why it can't be accepted that simple life arose from non-life and then evolved greater complexity, as is inferred from a preponderance of evidence.

question: I presume you're in disagreement with the Church's stance on scientific findings? (i.e. that science and revealed truth aren't in conflict?)

[Vlerchan]

Reality. If you (for example) replaced a human embryo's DNA with that of a bacteria, it wouldn't live as a bacteria, it'd just die.

Evolution says that if you take long enough, you'll get the opposite result.
You're misunderstanding reality.

The embryo requires a specific environment be provided in order for it to develop. The mother lays mRNA and protein signals into her egg, and she has evolved to offer the specific cocktail that her species requires. The bacteria is too distant genetically for it to be nurtured by this specific cocktail.

I had this clarified with a friend doing a BSc in biology (I believe it's with a specialization in genetics), and he added to this that:
An e-nucleated egg of a human cell could have a fertilized egg of another species inserted into it, and it would develop into a brown embryo of that species, provided that species was relatively closely related to humans. This is, however, illegal.
You couldn't put insert it into an embryo, though, as an embryo is too far along the development pathway already.
The example of bacteria is also a non-starter, because a human embryo would never allow bacteria to grow into bacteria, as the bacteria would just sit there an colonize it.
In other words, the mother has evolved so that the genes that make up eggs for the mother are developed specifically for her own species, but can also host close-genetic relatives. In the long-run, it's possible for species to diverge, because species develop correspondingly to allow them to host different genetic makeups, i.e., there's reproductive adaptions.

[Arkansasguy]

come on now mate, it's fairly obvious that your preference for the revealed truth of your faith is the basis of your skepticism toward the naturalistic explanation. which is understandable since its tenets would break down in a universe where we happened by accident and nothing really means anything *tips fedora*

This is an ad hominem fallacy. What subjectively motivates me isn't relevant to what the truth is or to the validity of the arguments I've put forth.

but if we're really arguing without a basis in faith then there's no real reason why it can't be accepted that simple life arose from non-life and then evolved greater complexity, as is inferred from a preponderance of evidence.

Except for the metaphysical arguments I've set forth.

question: I presume you're in disagreement with the Church's stance on scientific findings? (i.e. that science and revealed truth aren't in conflict?)

No. Rejecting science premised on a particular metaphysical viewpoint does not equate to rejecting science in general.

Though again, I didn't come to reject evolution because it's contrary to the faith (it isn't as far as I can tell, in much the same way that "12007 is not a prime number" is not contrary to the faith). I came to reject it because it doesn't agree with philosophical realism (as in essentialism).

You're misunderstanding reality.

The embryo requires a specific environment be provided in order for it to develop. The mother lays mRNA and protein signals into her egg, and she has evolved to offer the specific cocktail that her species requires. The bacteria is too distant genetically for it to be nurtured by this specific cocktail.

I had this clarified with a friend doing a BSc in biology (I believe it's with a specialization in genetics), and he added to this that:
An e-nucleated egg of a human cell could have a fertilized egg of another species inserted into it, and it would develop into a brown embryo of that species, provided that species was relatively closely related to humans. This is, however, illegal.
You couldn't put insert it into an embryo, though, as an embryo is too far along the development pathway already.
The example of bacteria is also a non-starter, because a human embryo would never allow bacteria to grow into bacteria, as the bacteria would just sit there an colonize it.
In other words, the mother has evolved so that the genes that make up eggs for the mother are developed specifically for her own species, but can also host close-genetic relatives. In the long-run, it's possible for species to diverge, because species develop correspondingly to allow them to host different genetic makeups, i.e., there's reproductive adaptions.

I should have been more clear, when I referred to an embryo, I meant specifically at the single-cell stage, immediately after fertilization.

And I don't mean inserting a full cell of another species, I mean just replacing the human DNA with non-human DNA. That wouldn't work even if it were placed in an environment habitable to the creature the DNA came from (e.g. Removing an (single-celled) embryo's DNA and replacing it with bacterial DNA wouldn't result in it functioning as a bacteria even if it was placed in a bacteria-friendly environment.

P.S. What do you mean by a brown embryo?

[Vlerchan]

And I don't mean inserting a full cell of another species, I mean just replacing the human DNA with non-human DNA. That wouldn't work even if it were placed in an environment habitable to the creature the DNA came from (e.g. Removing an (single-celled) embryo's DNA and replacing it with bacterial DNA wouldn't result in it functioning as a bacteria even if it was placed in a bacteria-friendly environment.
Yes, I understand you don't mean replacing the full egg.

What I addressed is a scenario where we replace the human-DNA with non-human-DNA.

To repeat and perhaps elaborate, the process described above involves scraping out the human-DNA and creating an e-nucleated egg [hereafter: egg] and then inserting the non-Human DNA into this egg. In other words, you are replacing the DNA within a preset environment. This egg is the environment in which the embryo develops, and prior to fertilization the mother has coded specific mRNA and protein signals into this egg, to aid development.

The issue with bacterial DNA is that bacteria is too distant genetically and requires a different set of signals. Thus, it can't develop.

---

I also believe my friend's referring referring to cytoplasmic hybrids, but I'll seek clarification.

[dxcxdzv]

Hey guys, you know that in the theory of evolution we are talking about spontaneous SMALL changes between a generation and another. Plus this change doesn't need to appear in multiple individuals' DNA but just to be beneficial to the "modified" individual to the point where its descendants will potentially become a new species or just to spread to other individuals.
This is proved, it's called mutation (*revelation*) and examples do exist on humans.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe.
Paraxiom : Yeah a dedicated subject would be nice, although I'm afraid it'll become a troll hole.

No. Rejecting science premised on a particular metaphysical viewpoint does not equate to rejecting science in general.
Nice philosophic bullshit, sciences like genetics are pretty accurate and do not really need any "alternative philosophical point of view". There are simply facts and theories based on them.
And concerning the above and the speech on realism I'd invite Judean Zealot to take part of the conversation. Because I have no clear idea of what you mean there.

[sqishy]

Yeah a dedicated subject would be nice, although I'm afraid it'll become a troll hole.

We can steer the topic enough to have the thread not fall into the metaphorical ditch of off-topic territory :P .

Also, I feel that perhaps we should be starting threads on certain topics that come up as being irrelevant or close in other threads, such was with the Nihilism one.


Nice philosophic bullshit, sciences like genetics are pretty accurate and do not really need any "alternative philosophical point of view". There are simply facts and theories based on them.


Personally I prefer theories that have more 'material' that can go with it, other than those that are more speculative. If we're going to debate on truth or falsehood of certain things, it's better to go with theories that have a better chance at being seen as one or the other, rather than neither.

Then again, philosophy deals more with the outlying regions and edges of the world as it appears to us - this is why debates here are less common when in the realm of science (what science is meant for), because clearer conclusions are reached more often by people.

I also think that both philosophy and science don't do well at trying to do what the other does - scientism is not great and pretty dogmatic as example, and philosophy doesn't do experiments in labs. The fuzzy region between the two is sort of like a minefield for what people think should be used to justify certain things, a mess of metaphilosophy being thrown in with 'facts' and the like. I like to think of it as the intellectual example of trying to either set fire to, or drink, a mix of oil and water. It won't go well.


I came to reject [evolution] because it doesn't agree with philosophical realism (as in essentialism).


I don't understand why we should reject one theory for another, if the latter involves entities that are 'further' from clear up-front investigation than the former.

I am not advocating that science is better than philosophy or similar, I only suggest that when dealing with a certain topic, a theory which involves 'closer' entities and processes to us, should have automatically a better standing point with regard to our opinion of it. Theories that describe more accessible phenomena that are not seen as false through relevant investigation, have an arguable stronger truth for us than other theories that are harder to investigate and/or harder to falsify.

If there are two competing theories relevant to a shared topic, and one is argued to be true with evidence, it doesn't mean that the other one is false automatically if it hasn't been investigated enough yet. Rather, it means that for the time being, we go with the one we have a better grip of finality with.

I hope this makes sense.

________________

I also hope that Judean Zealot returns to the recent threads, even if he doesn't find this one much for him, his absence in the others is noted. Come back! :P

________________

Do you all think I should start a thread on Essentialism, Synergy and its origin, or not?

I feel we've been discussing stuff behind an argued conclusion that the Fermi Paradox is not a paradox because of a god, but this stuff is not relevant as such compared to discussing the possibility of alien life (which I feel most of us have done already).

[Judean Zealot]

Paraxiom

Honestly, the subject of extraterrestrial life doesn't interest me in the slightest. I see no additional scientific, philosophical, or theological insight coming out of the resolution of this subject. Moreover, my view of evolution as providentially ordained removes to a large degree the only vaguely interesting element of the discussion: that of probability.

------

I might add that philosophy, like
mathematics, is a discipline that operates, in principle, with a different set of rules than the natural sciences. That it doesn't fit some Popperian conception of 'scientific' in no way discredits metaphysics. Science and philosophy fill two separate yet complementary functions, neither can be complete without the other. The origin of species most definitely falls under the aegis of the natural sciences.

Edit:
You are confident that you can argue for the existence of God and how life could not arise without it with only appealing to reason without faith, yes?

Yes. Not that I don't believe in evolution, just that the discussion of the two issues don't intersect.

P.S. Don't start a new thread. It just makes it harder to keep up.

Arkansasguy

Essentialism only poses a problem to evolution insofar as you presume that essences are divided along specie lines. While Plato and Aristotle express it so, I don't believe that is necessary. I would posit a more broadly constructed set of forms, which our crude terrestrial approximations fluctuate between. I would understand the true essences more as qualities of being than as objects.

[sqishy]

Honestly, the subject of extraterrestrial life doesn't interest me in the slightest. I see no additional scientific, philosophical, or theological insight coming out of the resolution of this subject. Moreover, my view of evolution as providentially ordained removes to a large degree the only vaguely interesting element of the discussion: that of probability.

I guessed this was not a topic of your interest, which is fine, just wanted to get your angle on the injection of god etc into this, which you're doing below.



I might add that philosophy, like
mathematics, is a discipline that operates, in principle, with a different set of rules than the natural sciences. That it doesn't fit some Popperian conception of 'scientific' in no way discredits metaphysics. Science and philosophy fill two separate yet complementary functions, neither can be complete without the other. The origin of species most definitely falls under the aegis of the natural sciences.

Agreed.



Yes. Not that I don't believe in evolution, just that the discussion of the two issues don't intersect.

P.S. Don't start a new thread. It just makes it harder to keep up.

I don't see the intersection either.

I won't then.



Essentialism only poses a problem to evolution insofar as you presume that essences are divided along specie lines. While Plato and Aristotle express it so, I don't believe that is necessary. I would posit a more broadly constructed set of forms, which our crude terrestrial approximations fluctuate between. I would understand the true essences more as qualities of being than as objects.

I know this isn't for me, but I am agreeing in that the essentialism looks to be treated in the same ways as our categorisation of objects, that our categories of stuff equates to essences of stuff.

[Arkansasguy]

Yes, I understand you don't mean replacing the full egg.

What I addressed is a scenario where we replace the human-DNA with non-human-DNA.

To repeat and perhaps elaborate, the process described above involves scraping out the human-DNA and creating an e-nucleated egg [hereafter: egg] and then inserting the non-Human DNA into this egg. In other words, you are replacing the DNA within a preset environment. This egg is the environment in which the embryo develops, and prior to fertilization the mother has coded specific mRNA and protein signals into this egg, to aid development.

The issue with bacterial DNA is that bacteria is too distant genetically and requires a different set of signals. Thus, it can't develop.

---

I also believe my friend's referring referring to cytoplasmic hybrids, but I'll seek clarification.

Has anyone ever actually successfully done this process?

I don't understand why we should reject one theory for another, if the latter involves entities that are 'further' from clear up-front investigation than the former.

Metaphysics is more immediately present to our intellects than pre-history, so your argument aids my position.

Essentialism only poses a problem to evolution insofar as you presume that essences are divided along specie lines

It requires only that there are essences more specific than "living things" for the two to be contrary.

While Plato and Aristotle express it so, I don't believe that is necessary. I would posit a more broadly constructed set of forms, which our crude terrestrial approximations fluctuate between. I would understand the true essences more as qualities of being than as objects.

What does this even mean? If you're saying that we can't comprehend universals at all, I fail to see how that's practically different from nominalism.

[Vlerchan]

Has anyone ever actually successfully done this process?
Being as it's illegal, if someone has, it hasn't been reported*.

Nonetheless, the point remains, that your argument fails to recognise basic theory, i.e., that the embryo requires a certain cocktail of mRNA and protein signals to develop, and the mother has evolved to offer a certain set that is only applicable to those within a certain genetic distance. The reason that evolution operates through small adaptions between generations but is capable of producing divergent species in the long-run, is because of that mechanism.

---

Edit: * The process, nonetheless, is similar to that of therapeutic cloning. Here, the nucleus is extracted to create an e-neucleated egg and the nucleus from a somatic cell is inserted in-place. That's the manner in which Dolly-the-sheep was created.

I also checked, and it's legal to produce cytoplasmic hybrids, that are 99.9% human and 0.1% non-human, provided these are destroyed within 14 days, before the development of a brain and spinal-cord.

[Arkansasguy]

Being as it's illegal, if someone has, it hasn't been reported*.

Nonetheless, the point remains, that your argument fails to recognise basic theory, i.e., that the embryo requires a certain cocktail of mRNA and protein signals to develop, and the mother has evolved to offer a certain set that is only applicable to those within a certain genetic distance. The reason that evolution operates through small adaptions between generations but is capable of producing divergent species in the long-run, is because of that mechanism.

---

Edit: * The process, nonetheless, is similar to that of therapeutic cloning. Here, the nucleus is extracted to create an e-neucleated egg and the nucleus from a somatic cell is inserted in-place. That's the manner in which Dolly-the-sheep was created.

I also checked, and it's legal to produce cytoplasmic hybrids, that are 99.9% human and 0.1% non-human, provided these are destroyed within 14 days, before the development of a brain and spinal-cord.

Has anyone ever successfully done this process inter-specially with any two animals? AFAIK, it's only illegal with humans.

[sqishy]

Metaphysics is more immediately present to our intellects than pre-history, so your argument aids my position.


Metaphysics concerning what is 'beyond' space and time, as opposed to what happens within it?

I say 'happens', because theories of evolution describe ongoing processes as well as past ones.

[Vlerchan]

Has anyone ever successfully done this process inter-specially with any two animals? AFAIK, it's only illegal with humans.

Taken together, these data suggest that enucleated pig oocytes may be used as a universal cytoplast for production of transgenic cattle, mice, and chicken embryos by iSCNT. Furthermore, xenogenic transfer of mitochondria to the recipient cytoplast may not be the cause for poor embryonic development of cattle–pig iSCNT embryos.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cell.2012.0074

There's examples where the animal is taken to term, eg: Hwang et al. (2013) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23217630), but it seems that ethical concerns tends to lead to early-termination in most cases.

Through this method, it's also possible to revive formally extinct species, though in this example the gaur foetus was terminated before birth.

The gaur nuclei were shown to direct normal fetal development, with differentiation into complex tissue and organs, even though the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) within all the tissue types evaluated was derived exclusively from the recipient bovine oocytes. These results suggest that somatic cell cloning methods could be used to restore endangered, or even extinct, species and populations.

http://media.longnow.org/files/2/REVIVE/Cloning%20of%20an%20Endangered%20Species.pdf

[Judean Zealot]

It requires only that there are essences more specific than "living things" for the two to be contrary.

The thing is that you're assuming that 'dogness' or 'catness' are essences in and of themselves. I think specie differentiations are any more than arbitrary classifications based on certain shifting accidental qualities. I don't believe each specie to have it's own unique form.


What does this even mean? If you're saying that we can't comprehend universals at all, I fail to see how that's practically different from nominalism.

We can access the forms, but they are not predicated on species. They are predicated on modes of being, such as beauty, extension, function, intellect, and so on (to employ religious allegory, the archangels as opposed to the lesser angels of accidental divisions of being), and all creations partake in their own particular combination of qualities.

[Arkansasguy]

The thing is that you're assuming that 'dogness' or 'catness' are essences in and of themselves. I think specie differentiations are any more than arbitrary classifications based on certain shifting accidental qualities. I don't believe each specie to have it's own unique form.




We can access the forms, but they are not predicated on species. They are predicated on modes of being, such as beauty, extension, function, intellect, and so on (to employ religious allegory, the archangels as opposed to the lesser angels of accidental divisions of being), and all creations partake in their own particular combination of qualities.

So . . . nominalism.

Offhand I can't really provide a rigorous refutation of nominalism, other than the fact that it leads to people saying silly things like that dogs and cats are the same type of animal.

[Arkansasguy]

Taken together, these data suggest that enucleated pig oocytes may be used as a universal cytoplast for production of transgenic cattle, mice, and chicken embryos by iSCNT. Furthermore, xenogenic transfer of mitochondria to the recipient cytoplast may not be the cause for poor embryonic development of cattle–pig iSCNT embryos.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cell.2012.0074

There's examples where the animal is taken to term, eg: Hwang et al. (2013) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23217630), but it seems that ethical concerns tends to lead to early-termination in most cases.

Through this method, it's also possible to revive formally extinct species, though in this example the gaur foetus was terminated before birth.

The gaur nuclei were shown to direct normal fetal development, with differentiation into complex tissue and organs, even though the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) within all the tissue types evaluated was derived exclusively from the recipient bovine oocytes. These results suggest that somatic cell cloning methods could be used to restore endangered, or even extinct, species and populations.

http://media.longnow.org/files/2/REVIVE/Cloning%20of%20an%20Endangered%20Species.pdf

Dogs and coyotes (for example) aren't different kinds of animals. That that process is possible with them doesn't show anything.

[Judean Zealot]

So . . . nominalism.

Offhand I can't really provide a rigorous refutation of nominalism, other than the fact that it leads to people saying silly things like that dogs and cats are the same type of animal.

I'm not nominalist in the sense that I do believe that there are true distinctions and forms, only that their manifestations are not as clear cut as by genus/species. It's like what you would say about different breeds of dog, just applied to nature more generally.

[Vlerchan]

Dogs and coyotes (for example) aren't different kinds of animals. That that process is possible with them doesn't show anything.
Dogs and Coyotes are different species. Both belong to the genus canis, but differ at about 6.5% in terms of their DNA (Wayne and Ostrander 1999: 249 (http://allthingscanid.org/Origin,%20genetic%20diversity,%20and%20genome%20structure%20of%20the%20domestic% 20dog.pdf)).

For reference, humans and chimps differ by about 5% in terms of their DNA (Britten 2002 (http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13633.full)), as Creation Ministries International, publisher of the Journal of Creation, also report (http://creation.com/greater-than-98-chimp-human-dna-similarity-not-any-more).

Nonetheless, your decision to just focus on what you considered the weakest of the evidence I provided, fails to address the other articles of evidence which suggest that animals can develop without abnormalities through iSCNT. Furthermore, this side-track does not address at all the reasoning I outlined in refutation of the original point.

I guess, though, we can also look at Lee et al. (http://www.sens.org/outreach/conferences/interspecies-somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-establishing-embryonic-stem-cells) of Sens Research which managed to insert mouse-DNA into an e-nucleated bovine egg, and have these eggs successfully carried to term.

[dxcxdzv]

The definition of a species is quite obscure though.
It's considered as a human concept.
The only absolute border put in science on that point is that a species is a group of population able to naturally procreates viable descendants.
We can easily say that the notion of chromosomes is primordial, the differentiation between a wolf and a dog is therefore purely artificial even though the fact that they mostly constitute separated populations (through centuries of domestication) can be used as a secondary fact to differentiate the two species (Canus Lupus and Canus Lupus Familiaris, the fact that breeds exist within the "dog" species is also purely artificial).

[phuckphace]

just to reiterate I don't think the Paradox is real. I think those who look out at the Universe expecting to see flying saucers and Dyson spheres have been reading too much science fiction - in my view the Paradox is resolved by the laws of physics and the sheer size of the Universe itself.

I also agree with Judean Zealot that this subject is really not all that important or worth thinking about too much. I just personally find it interesting.

[sqishy]

just to reiterate I don't think the Paradox is real. [...]in my view the Paradox is resolved by the laws of physics and the sheer size of the Universe itself.


I should have clarified my stance on the debate of the recent half of this thread being on if the paradox was a thing or not. I think most/all of us don't see the paradox being a thing, but it was whether it was because of a god or not.

I agree that sheer size is already good enough an explanation.