robyn hill wrote:ok Al, i am back and want to take a stab at your stabs:
First question...
1. why did the first cell have a desire to replicate itself?
your response:
The first cell would not have "desires". It would have the machinery to replicate its heritable material. Science is uncertain what, exactly, the first proto-cell looked like, though there are many hypotheses all of which are testable and that enjoy varying degrees of support. One model has small sequences of RNA incorporated into microspheres (small lipid bilayer cells). The RNA sequences would be variable from cell to cell (variation is needed for selection to act) and RNA can actually catalyze its own replication. So you have variation and heredity - the 2 things needed for natural selection to act; and presumably it did act favoring those that were better able to replicate compared to other RNA strands. Does this make sense?
My response:
I definitely used the wrong verbage there. Instead of desire, let me rephrase the question to state, why did the first cell have machinery to replicate itself? Why, since the earliest cells, are organisms programmed to live and survive. Not how, but why?
There is a difference, Robyn, in abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis does indeed have problems in the models and quite a large specualtion behind the models.
Sciecne cannot really examine the why, abiogenesis is solely concerned with whether it could have happened, not why it happened.
robyn wrote:
2. Why are all animals, except humans, still hunter gatherers? Doesn't this go against the evolution theory?
Your response:
Well, all animals are not technically hunter gatherers - this is a phrase usually reserved for humans. All animals are heterotrophs and must procure their own food, and they have a variety of mechanisms to do so.
My response:
I, again, used the wrong wording since you corrected me that animals aren't hunter gatherers.(although,I'd argue that if not for simple syntax) My question is since humans have advanced to find a more efficient means of survival, wouldn't it seem due time that animals might be working on a system that would save their place in the food chain?
Could you elaborate on this? Are you menaing that they would suddenly become man-eaters? CHange their niche? Not sure what "working on a system that would save their place in the food chain" means, not to mention that evolution is no, properly speaking, somehting that "works on a system to save something". By definition, the organism that fits the envoronment best with regards to reproducing and survivaL will be that system that works.
And again, by definition, this would not be something we could observe in a lifetime.
robyn wrote:
3. Why is it that you get an amazing orgasm after sex? How did nature come up with that one?
Your response:
I assume you mean an orgasm which is the climax to intercourse... There has been lots done in this field, and I am no expert. The general answer is that it serves to maximize delivery of the sperm. That's very general, I know. But there's a whole chapter in
My response:
I understand that it encourages sperm production, but once again I am stuck asking why this inherant need to reproduce and live?
Again, a difference between the why and the how.
Why did sexual reproduciton evolve? That is a tough question: Sexual organisms essentially dilute with another organim, risking the genes. Evolutionists have somewhat of an answer, although I still find it frustrating. Sexual reproduction allows for more diversity. But this to me is still very unsatisying: it's not as if the asexual single cell organisms knew that meiosis would allow for more diversity. IT still must be placed in language of selection. Organims that traded genes were more successful than their counterparts and thus the process of sexual reproduction was maintained in the population. In the langaugae of evolution, sexual reproduction came to be because it was solution that worked.
How did the process of meiosis evolve? Also tough, some tentative lins of evidence in the protists and fungi.
But if you are asking why did reproduction occur, if you are asking more to the philosophy, science can't answer that.
robyn wrote:
4.Why are we the only mammal that laughs or cries and how does science theorize the need for laughter?
No response:
my response:
Still not clear on this one but might google it in a sec.
I actually had a class in undergrad taught by a prof who studied this! Most of our laughter is in social context, more in social cues (nervousness, to engage in conversation, flirting, etc).
I think humor is very muich related to our high intelligence. Most jokes are successful because we are incredibly attuned to serach for what we expect to come next and when that surprise punchline comes, we laugh. (Take my wife...please)
robyn wrote:
5.How come we are the only mammal that is finely tuned right in the middle of everything for use on this earth?
Your response:
I'm not sure I understand the question. We aren't really finely tuned ... can you rephrase your question/
My response:
See above corny poem. It does make me wonder.
6.What a crazy coincidence that our earth had all the materials on it to build the complex technology today?
Your response:
I didn't hear from you on this one. Even the remains of dinosaur helps us to drive cars.It continues to amaze me that we are on this earth with such amazing technology and it all came from the same molecules we had from day one!
7.If evolutionists believe that we evolve to a more complex level, why don't they believe in a more complex intelligent being such as God?Especially if the universe has been around as long as it has.
Your response:
That's not really what evolutionists believe. Complexity is a really tough term to define, but even by the most general definition, there is no reason to believe that evolution directs organisms to increasing complexity.
My response:
Ok so I decided to go to a evolutionist website to make sure I was clear on the definition and here is what I cut and pasted:What is Evolution?
Evolutionists say that:
Evolution is a naturally occurring process of change which produces increasing complexity in the universe. Evolutionists believe that life began billions of years ago with simple forms of life which became more complex through time. In other words, single-celled creatures evolved into multicellular creatures and ultimately into fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
So back to my original question, if things evolve in complexity, why would an evolutionist even argue this idea of a complex entity, it almost seems to support the evolution theory. We only use about 30% of our minds, maybe there is an entity which has evolved to use it all over billions of years. Imagine the enlightenment, I'm just saying.
8. Question, We have several systems that are irreducibly complex. All parts work together and accomplish one purpose. Like how a watch tells time as long as all gears, hands, and screws work together. We see this in our gravity, if we were tilted more, we would not be able to live. Our water system works because of our set atmosphere. The tides are set so that the moon's pull is just right. I know there is a theory that we are just living in a lottery winning where things just so happen to be adjusted to sustain life. I would buy that if it were one irreducibly complex system. But life as we know it, down to the dna in our bodies, and the complexity of our cells, is as if we have won many lotteries at once. The odds of winning one lottery are astronomical, but many at the same time, that should recon some serious questioning.
Your response:
Really? I am unaware of any. Perhaps you could name a few. I don't mean this in any mean-spirited way; just that from everything I have read, there have been many structures claimed to be IC, but that scientific explanations that explain their existence through naturalistic means exist. But maybe you know of some examples I haven't read about.
My response:
We have several systems that are irreducibly complex. All parts work together and accomplish one function and if one part doesn't work, the system fails. If we agree on this definition there are many such systems:
The eye
Sillia
All internal systems, digestive, circulatory etc.
pituitary system
solar system
water cycle
moon and tide cycle...I am not sure if the idea that tides were once larger refutes this?
The list goes on...
Some might say these systems just randomly came to be and we simply evolved around them. I still say if this is all random...we have won so many lotteries, it is uncomprehensible! They all seem to have to be in place in order to form one function...sustaining life.
WELL, as to the system, be careful here, because plenty of prgansims have simpler digestive systems. What do we define as irreducible? The question ultimately comes down to whether or not these can come about htrough the cahnges. I knwo that there has been a large defense to the idea of IC from scientists, a flurry of activity to come up with pathways to explain how the parts were borrowed from other functions, exaptations, etc. These are great ideas, but they are still locked in the past and we really say they are anything but stories. It still remains whether mutations/random events could account for those pathways.
Of course, I have come to not really panic about these things. As soon as why say "God had to do it this way, or God couldn't have done it that way" or "we don't understand it, therefore it had to be GOd" we place ourselves in a very dangerous position. God of the Gaps is never a good philosophy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate whether somethins happened in a certain way, we sould simply be wary of our motivcation.
