Evolution (in brief)
Dan Fake
---
Excerpt from "Intimate Universe: The Human Body
(TLC Adventures for Your Mind)", by Anthony Smith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
"Evolutionary changes are alterations of something that
already exists. Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-
like object for maintaining buoyancy, became lungs for
the later air-breathers, for whom buoyancy was no longer
an issue but obtaining oxygen from gaseous air was crucial.
So too for the limbs of four-footed animals. The original
pentadactyl (five-digit) form evolved into the feet of birds
and bats, and the clever, manipulative hands of humans
(along with our relatively clumsy feet). As somebody once
put it, nature started with a bicycle and produced a sewing
machine."
---
-Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
Jonathan
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:846utg$kts$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Seems logical to me.
--
The best cure for christianity is reading the Bible
-- Mark Twain
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I
have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common
sense.
- Buddha.
The people that know the least, seem to scream the loudest.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Stage/2482/
ICQ 21982971
Atheist #1712
Bonz
<dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
<846utg$kts$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> :
>Crosspost: atheism, agnosticism, origins
>
>---
>
>Excerpt from "Intimate Universe: The Human Body
>(TLC Adventures for Your Mind)", by Anthony Smith
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
>
>"Evolutionary changes are alterations of something that
>already exists. Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-
>like object for maintaining buoyancy, became lungs for
>the later air-breathers, for whom buoyancy was no longer
>an issue but obtaining oxygen from gaseous air was crucial.
I think he has this one back-asswards. Lungs led to swim
bladders, not vice-versa.
い
Bonz alt.atheism #1497
Please deSPAM before sending Email
い
Boikat
Actually, it was lung to swim bladders. One of
the FAQ's mentions that too. It might be the
transitional fossil FAQ, and either Wesley Elsbury
or Andrew MacRae (Apologies, if is misspelled
either one of those names) had a piece that also
mentioned it.
Boikat
Budikka
"Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-like object for maintaining buoyancy,
became lungs for the later air-breathers"
I think Bonz and Boikat have it right and Anthony Smith has it wrong. My
authority is Stephen Gould, who, in "Eight Little Piggies" (W.W. Norton & Co,
1993) seems to refute both of Smith's points!
In essay 7, "Full of Hot Air", Gould says, "So lungs must have evolved from
swim bladders, right? Wrong, dead wrong. Swim bladders evolved from lungs."
and then goes on to explain his position over about eight pages.
In the eponymous essay 4, Gould details how primitive animals such as
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega had as many as eight digits on their limbs, and
we reached our five by pruning away the excess. Some animals such as the horse
went even further along this route and effectively pruned them down to one.
Note to the creationists:
This debate about the details of evolution in no way casts any doubt whatsoever
on the fact of evolution.
Budikka - creationism: the science of lying
danfake
> Bonz wrote:
> >
> > On 27 Dec 1999 00:55:08 -0500, "Dan Fake"
> > <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > <846utg$kts$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> :
> >
> > >Crosspost: atheism, agnosticism, origins
> > >
> > >---
> > >
> > >Excerpt from "Intimate Universe: The Human Body
> > >(TLC Adventures for Your Mind)", by Anthony Smith
> > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
> > >
> > >"Evolutionary changes are alterations of something that
> > >like object for maintaining buoyancy, became lungs for
> > >an issue but obtaining oxygen from gaseous air was crucial.
> >
> > I think he has this one back-asswards. Lungs led to swim
> > bladders, not vice-versa.
>
> Actually, it was lung to swim bladders. One of
> the FAQ's mentions that too. It might be the
> transitional fossil FAQ, and either Wesley Elsbury
> or Andrew MacRae (Apologies, if is misspelled
> either one of those names) had a piece that also
> mentioned it.
Thanks for the feedback, Bonz & Boikat. At the following
website, support is offered for the book's interpretation
of the swim bladder to lung transition...
Vertebrate Evolution - Fish
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160/19_verts1.html
Excerpt: "(from The Rise of Fishes, John Long) ... One
of the secrets of the success of the 'bony fishes' lies
in their swim-bladder, an internal organ of buoyancy,
which was to become modified into the lungs of land
animals."
---
Which came first, the swim bladder or the lung? Perhaps,
opinions vary or our interpretations of the material are
missing key details - if you have any generally agreed
concensus as to fish/vertebrate evolution which clears
up this point (? to swim bladder to lung), please
enlighten us.
Thanks in advance,
-Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist#2b2
>
> Boikat
>
> >
> > Bonz alt.atheism #1497
> > Please deSPAM before sending Email
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
mel turner
wrote...
>
>"Dan Fake" dan...@worldnet.att.net posts:
>
>"Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-like object for maintaining
buoyancy,
>became lungs for the later air-breathers"
>
>I think Bonz and Boikat have it right and Anthony Smith has it wrong. My
>authority is Stephen Gould, who, in "Eight Little Piggies" (W.W. Norton &
>
>In essay 7, "Full of Hot Air", Gould says, "So lungs must have evolved from
>swim bladders, right? Wrong, dead wrong. Swim bladders evolved from
>lungs." and then goes on to explain his position over about eight pages.
No, not "dead wrong". This seems to me to be more a semantic/definitional
issue than a substantive one. The precursor structures in the early bony fish
were presumably both lunglike and swimbladder-like, and might have functioned
partly as both. [This does still change the Darwin's (or Smith's)
shift-in-function argument a bit...]
Earlier comments on this same point:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=285891925&fmt=text
http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=285834193
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=285824936
http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=440448170
http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=440454110
<http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=441619137.2>:
"This is arguably a semantic argument: the precursor structures present in
the common ancestors of lungfish and teleosts were undoubtedly physostomous,
but whether they are called "swim bladders" or "primitive lungs" is perhaps
moot. No doubt they served both functions [respiration and buoyancy] to some
extent."
<http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=491043393>:
"Partly a semantics/terminology distinction, I think the precursor organ that
Darwin had called a 'swim bladder' might well be called 'a primitive lung' by
a more recent worker".
[(restored):
"So too for the limbs of four-footed animals. The original
pentadactyl (five-digit) form evolved into the feet of birds
and bats, and the clever, manipulative hands of humans
(along with our relatively clumsy feet). "]
>In the eponymous essay 4, Gould details how primitive animals such as
>Acanthostega and Ichthyostega had as many as eight digits on their limbs,
>and we reached our five by pruning away the excess.
True, but one could still agree with Smith that the original version of the
pentadactyl condition was achieved very early in the common ancestors of the
extant tetrapods, and later modified just as he describes.
> Some animals such as the horse
>went even further along this route and effectively pruned them down to one.
Or down to none, as in snakes.
>Note to the creationists:
>This debate about the details of evolution in no way casts any doubt
whatsoever
>on the fact of evolution.
Ah, but it must! If two "evolutionist" scientists seem to disagree [even on
minor points of terminology/semantics, not facts] it clearly proves they are
all wrong about everything... ;-)
>Budikka - creationism: the science of lying
cheers
Dan Fake
Thanks, Mel Turner and Budikka for those most excellent posts.
I have one more bit of information to add on the subject. From
The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric
Creatures : A Visual Who's Who of Prehistoric Life, by Douglas
Palmer, Barry Cox (Editor), R. J. G. Savage, Brian Gardiner,
Douglas Dixon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684864118
...Accompanying these changes in the shape of the tail and the
weight and extent of scales, bony fishes were also developing
a more efficient means of controlling their position in the water.
Even the earliest bony fishes possessed paired air sacs on the
underside of their bodies. By pumping gases in or out of these
sacs, the fishes became able to alter its buoyancy and change
its level in the water.
In the ray-finned fishes, the air sacs evolved into a single swim
bladder, placed above the throat, but in the advanced perchlike
forms the connection is broken, and the swim bladder functions
independently as a sophisticated buoyancy device, secreting and
absorbing its own gas.
In the lungfishes, the air sacs evolved into proper air-breathing
lungs connected to the blood system, as they are in land-living
animals. The walls of the lungs became highly convoluted to
increase the uptake of oxygen. Living lungfishes, as well as
having gills, can breathe air, and the African species can even
exist for long periods out of water, curled up in a burrow in
the muddy riverbank.
---
In a pictorial to the side of the text...
Evolution of Lungs and Swim Bladder
Three pictures appear, with the gut in all three pictures
running from the fish mouth area horizontally through
the middle of the fish down to an exit along the fish
bottom roughly 3/4ths of the way towards the rear (tail)
of the fish:
- Top picture is a Lobe-Finned Fish (Dipnoan), showing
lungs on the bottom half of the fish towards the front,
connected to the bottom of the gut.
- Middle picture is a Primitive Bony Fish (Palaeoniscid),
showing two side-by-side air sacs on the bottom half of
the fish towards the middle, connected to the bottom of
the gut.
- Bottom picture is a Ray-Finned Fish (Teleosts), showing
a swim bladder on the top half of the fish towards the
front, connected to the top of the gut
Caption for the picture: The earliest bony fishes (the
palaeoniscids), with thick, heavy scales, had paired air
sacs connected to the gut. These could be inflated with
air to buoy the fishes up in the water.
As evolution progressed, the bony fishes split into two
lines. The lungfishes developed air-breathing lungs (while
retaining gills), their tissues infolded to increase oxygen
uptake. The teleosts, the majority of today's fishes,
developed a swim bladder above the throat, to control
buoyancy. In the most advanced teleosts, the swim
bladder is disconnected from the throat, and is able to
secrete and absorb its own gases.
---
One comment: So, air sacs evolving into lungs and air sacs
evolving into swim bladders would be the most accurate
description of the evolutionary details.
It would appear the confusion is that some see air sacs and
want to label them lungs, others see air sacs and want to
label them swim bladders.
It would seem that calling the earliest form "air sacs" (as is
done in the book excerpts above) would be the most clear
and accurate way to eliminate/avoid confusion.
Anyone want to propose an update to the talk.origins
FAQ: Part 1A?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
Excerpt: "Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More
advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The
Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the
massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally
dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder."
---
Luke Parrish
Dan Fake wrote:
> Crosspost: atheism, agnosticism, origins
>
> ---
>
> Excerpt from "Intimate Universe: The Human Body
> (TLC Adventures for Your Mind)", by Anthony Smith
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
>
> "Evolutionary changes are alterations of something that
> already exists. Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-
> like object for maintaining buoyancy, became lungs for
> the later air-breathers, for whom buoyancy was no longer
> an issue but obtaining oxygen from gaseous air was crucial.
>
> So too for the limbs of four-footed animals. The original
> pentadactyl (five-digit) form evolved into the feet of birds
> and bats, and the clever, manipulative hands of humans
> (along with our relatively clumsy feet). As somebody once
> put it, nature started with a bicycle and produced a sewing
> machine."
>
> ---
>
> -Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
Who is nature? Where'd she get a bycicle?
*Hemidactylus*
--
Scott Chase
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dan Fake
>
>Dan Fake wrote:
>
>> Crosspost: atheism, agnosticism, origins
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Excerpt from "Intimate Universe: The Human Body
>> (TLC Adventures for Your Mind)", by Anthony Smith
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
>>
>> "Evolutionary changes are alterations of something that
>> already exists. Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-
>> like object for maintaining buoyancy, became lungs for
>> the later air-breathers, for whom buoyancy was no longer
>> an issue but obtaining oxygen from gaseous air was crucial.
As previously mentioned in this thread, the earliest fishes had
air sacs which evolved into swim-bladders in one line (bony
fishes) and into lungs in another line (lungfishes).
>>
>> So too for the limbs of four-footed animals. The original
>> pentadactyl (five-digit) form evolved into the feet of birds
>> and bats, and the clever, manipulative hands of humans
>> (along with our relatively clumsy feet). As somebody once
>> put it, nature started with a bicycle and produced a sewing
>> machine."
>>
>> ---
>>
>> -Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
>
>Who is nature? Where'd she get a bicycle?
Perhaps you meant to say what is nature? The natural world,
explainable and understandable and explorable based on
logic, reason, and science, ever open to wonder, awe, and
discovery.
The bicycle analogy started with a fish.
Of course, the fish was itself a descendant of a group including
the Pikaia, small eel-like creatures which were descendants of
soft-bodied worms which were descendants of soft-bodied
organisms (Ediacarans) which were descendants of Eukaryotes
which were descendants of Prokaryotes which were descendants
of chemical and biological processes taking place in planet-building
conditions of massive meteor/asteroid/comet impacts, volcanic
eruptions, massive flooding, and temperature/air pressure extremes
difficult to conceive, given the relative stability of conditions in our
modern world.
Such is life.
PZ Myers
<dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Luke Parrish wrote in message <386AFA1D...@rocketship.com>...
>>
>>Dan Fake wrote:
>>
>>> Crosspost: atheism, agnosticism, origins
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Excerpt from "Intimate Universe: The Human Body
>>> (TLC Adventures for Your Mind)", by Anthony Smith
>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
>>>
>>> "Evolutionary changes are alterations of something that
>>> already exists. Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-
>>> like object for maintaining buoyancy, became lungs for
>>> the later air-breathers, for whom buoyancy was no longer
>>> an issue but obtaining oxygen from gaseous air was crucial.
>
>As previously mentioned in this thread, the earliest fishes had
>air sacs which evolved into swim-bladders in one line (bony
>fishes) and into lungs in another line (lungfishes).
And before that, these air sacs evolved from diverticula of the gut.
This is a problem with the creationist claims that nothing new ever
evolves: how do we define "new"? Are exaptations "new" or not?
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
Luke Parrish
Dan Fake wrote:
> Luke Parrish wrote in message <386AFA1D...@rocketship.com>...
> >
> >Dan Fake wrote:
> >
> >> Crosspost: atheism, agnosticism, origins
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Excerpt from "Intimate Universe: The Human Body
> >> (TLC Adventures for Your Mind)", by Anthony Smith
> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
> >>
> >> "Evolutionary changes are alterations of something that
> >> already exists. Thus the fish's swim-bladder, a balloon-
> >> like object for maintaining buoyancy, became lungs for
> >> the later air-breathers, for whom buoyancy was no longer
> >> an issue but obtaining oxygen from gaseous air was crucial.
>
> As previously mentioned in this thread, the earliest fishes had
> air sacs which evolved into swim-bladders in one line (bony
> fishes) and into lungs in another line (lungfishes).
>
> >>
> >> So too for the limbs of four-footed animals. The original
> >> pentadactyl (five-digit) form evolved into the feet of birds
> >> and bats, and the clever, manipulative hands of humans
> >> (along with our relatively clumsy feet). As somebody once
> >> put it, nature started with a bicycle and produced a sewing
> >> machine."
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> -Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
> >
> >Who is nature? Where'd she get a bicycle?
>
> Perhaps you meant to say what is nature? The natural world,
> explainable and understandable and explorable based on
> logic, reason, and science, ever open to wonder, awe, and
> discovery.
And totally impersonal and unintelligent?
>
>
> The bicycle analogy started with a fish.
Fish are designed to survive, reproduce, and adapt. Bicycles are not.
>
>
> Of course, the fish was itself a descendant of a group including
> the Pikaia, small eel-like creatures which were descendants of
> soft-bodied worms which were descendants of soft-bodied
> organisms (Ediacarans) which were descendants of Eukaryotes
> which were descendants of Prokaryotes which were descendants
> of chemical and biological processes taking place in planet-building
> conditions of massive meteor/asteroid/comet impacts, volcanic
> eruptions, massive flooding, and temperature/air pressure extremes
> difficult to conceive, given the relative stability of conditions in our
> modern world.
Sounds more destructive than constructive.
>
>
> Such is life.
>
> ---
>
> -Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
Luke
Dan Fake
Our intelligence comes from a natural process. We're
sharing that intelligence with each other during this
conversation. Imagining invisible and silent deities
does not endow you with a personal and intelligent
friend. It endows you with delusion and an imaginary
friend ... if imaginary friends are your game, I'd suggest
you come up with some that are a bit more constructive.
Actually, the truth would be a better idea, don't you
think?
>>
>> The bicycle analogy started with a fish.
>
>Fish are designed to survive, reproduce, and adapt. Bicycles
>are not.
Fish and bicycle - hey, it's just one analogy in a most
excellent book - I doubt Anthony Smith meant to confuse
you and most just take analogies with "hmmmmmm-I can
see that" (i.e., they usually, due to their intelligence, are
able to interpret them and understand them as intended
by the writer).
>>
>> Of course, the fish was itself a descendant of a group including
>> the Pikaia, small eel-like creatures which were descendants of
>> soft-bodied worms which were descendants of soft-bodied
>> organisms (Ediacarans) which were descendants of Eukaryotes
>> which were descendants of Prokaryotes which were descendants
>> of chemical and biological processes taking place in planet-
>> building conditions of massive meteor/asteroid/comet impacts,
>> volcanic eruptions, massive flooding, and temperature/air pres-
>> sure extremes difficult to conceive, given the relative stability
>> of conditions in our modern world.
>
>Sounds more destructive than constructive.
So are you saying god is flawed for having "designed" you in
such a destructive way -or- are you saying a lengthy and complex
process of natural evolution is far more likely than an inefficient
and destructive deity thingie?
Are you saying that after all this time, nature keeps on keeping
on, resulting in various matter-responding entities in natural sym-
biotic processes -or- are you saying that your deity thingie *still*
hasn't got a clue and based on what you've seen on earth, you
have serious doubts that your deity thingie's heaven will be the
"perfect" design humans imagine it to be?
---
-Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
>>
Luke Parrish
Dan Fake wrote:
Of course, everything is a natural process but what does that say about
it's origins? Internal combustion engines work on natural processes but
that doesn't tell us how they originate. Since intelligence comes from a
natural process and since natural processes presumably are infinite and
have been around forever, why shouldn't there already be an infinite
intelligence?
>
> >>
> >> The bicycle analogy started with a fish.
> >
> >Fish are designed to survive, reproduce, and adapt. Bicycles
> >are not.
>
> Fish and bicycle - hey, it's just one analogy in a most
> excellent book - I doubt Anthony Smith meant to confuse
> you and most just take analogies with "hmmmmmm-I can
> see that" (i.e., they usually, due to their intelligence, are
> able to interpret them and understand them as intended
> by the writer).
>
It sounded a bit like he was attributing an order of intelligence to
nature. If nature is intelligent enough to cause life to form, why
shouldn't it be able to love us and hold us accountable for sins?
>
> >>
> >> Of course, the fish was itself a descendant of a group including
> >> the Pikaia, small eel-like creatures which were descendants of
> >> soft-bodied worms which were descendants of soft-bodied
> >> organisms (Ediacarans) which were descendants of Eukaryotes
> >> which were descendants of Prokaryotes which were descendants
> >> of chemical and biological processes taking place in planet-
> >> building conditions of massive meteor/asteroid/comet impacts,
> >> volcanic eruptions, massive flooding, and temperature/air pres-
> >> sure extremes difficult to conceive, given the relative stability
> >> of conditions in our modern world.
> >
> >Sounds more destructive than constructive.
>
> So are you saying god is flawed for having "designed" you in
> such a destructive way -or- are you saying a lengthy and complex
> process of natural evolution is far more likely than an inefficient
> and destructive deity thingie?
>
> Are you saying that after all this time, nature keeps on keeping
> on, resulting in various matter-responding entities in natural sym-
> biotic processes -or- are you saying that your deity thingie *still*
> hasn't got a clue and based on what you've seen on earth, you
> have serious doubts that your deity thingie's heaven will be the
> "perfect" design humans imagine it to be?
Actually I was thinking of the planet-building conditions that you say
created life. If there's a lot of heat, air pressure, and electricity,
only the most tenacious life will survive. And it seems to me that the
most simple life forms in existance (RNA strands) are quite weak.
Luke
maff91
wrote:
It works by artificial processes.
>that doesn't tell us how they originate. Since intelligence comes from a
>natural process and since natural processes presumably are infinite and
>have been around forever, why shouldn't there already be an infinite
>intelligence?
It isn't necessary.
Abiogenesis
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=550898599
Biopoiesis
http://search.britannica.com/bcom/search/results/metaindex/1,5845,1117229+biopoiesis,00.html
Book of life: Chapter one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F545000/545008.stm
Is life just genes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_556000/556958.stm
Scientists look for molecular 'meaning of life'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_556000/556984.stm
Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists
http://entropy.me.usouthal.edu/harbinger/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
The Origin of Cellular life
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
Evolution of intelligence
<http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=565107838.2>
>> >> The bicycle analogy started with a fish.
>> >
>> >Fish are designed to survive, reproduce, and adapt. Bicycles
>> >are not.
>>
>> Fish and bicycle - hey, it's just one analogy in a most
>> excellent book - I doubt Anthony Smith meant to confuse
>> you and most just take analogies with "hmmmmmm-I can
>> see that" (i.e., they usually, due to their intelligence, are
>> able to interpret them and understand them as intended
>> by the writer).
>>
>
>It sounded a bit like he was attributing an order of intelligence to
>nature. If nature is intelligent enough to cause life to form, why
>shouldn't it be able to love us and hold us accountable for sins?
Who said that nature was intelligent?
Try http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/nsf-bmt120899.html
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep98_1.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/nasa-le011499.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/nasa-pia031699.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_399000/399972.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F53000/53602.stm
>
>Luke
--
Design refuted
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://x33.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519544184
http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=517183921
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=241590474
A Designer Universe? by STEVEN WEINBERG
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19991021046F
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
Dan Fake
>Since intelligence comes from a natural process and since
>natural processes presumably are infinite and have been around
>forever, why shouldn't there already be an infinite intelligence?
Natural processes (i.e., the laws of physics under which natural
processes operate) do, on an ultimate scale, have a rather infinite
quality about them. However, the nature of most of the natural
processes in this particular universe in which we reside seem to
have been around for close to ~12 billion years.
>>
>> >>
>> >> The bicycle analogy started with a fish.
>> >
>> >Fish are designed to survive, reproduce, and adapt. Bicycles
>> >are not.
>>
>> Fish and bicycle - hey, it's just one analogy in a most
>> excellent book - I doubt Anthony Smith meant to confuse
>> you and most just take analogies with "hmmmmmm-I can
>> see that" (i.e., they usually, due to their intelligence, are
>> able to interpret them and understand them as intended
>> by the writer).
>>
>
>It sounded a bit like he was attributing an order of intelligence to
>nature. If nature is intelligent enough to cause life to form, why
>shouldn't it be able to love us and hold us accountable for sins?
Ascribing intelligence to nature is unnatural (or supernatural if
you will). You'd have to call it unnaturalnature or supernaturalnature
to ascribe something to nature which does not, in fact, exist.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the fish was itself a descendant of a group including
>> >> the Pikaia, small eel-like creatures which were descendants of
>> >> soft-bodied worms which were descendants of soft-bodied
>> >> organisms (Ediacarans) which were descendants of Eukaryotes
>> >> which were descendants of Prokaryotes which were descendants
>> >> of chemical and biological processes taking place in planet-
>> >> building conditions of massive meteor/asteroid/comet impacts,
>> >> volcanic eruptions, massive flooding, and temperature/air pres-
>> >> sure extremes difficult to conceive, given the relative stability
>> >> of conditions in our modern world.
>> >
>> >Sounds more destructive than constructive.
>>
>> So are you saying god is flawed for having "designed" you in
>> such a destructive way -or- are you saying a lengthy and complex
>> process of natural evolution is far more likely than an inefficient
>> and destructive deity thingie?
>>
>> Are you saying that after all this time, nature keeps on keeping
>> on, resulting in various matter-responding entities in natural sym-
>> biotic processes -or- are you saying that your deity thingie *still*
>> hasn't got a clue and based on what you've seen on earth, you
>> have serious doubts that your deity thingie's heaven will be the
>> "perfect" design humans imagine it to be?
>
>Actually I was thinking of the planet-building conditions that you
>say created life. If there's a lot of heat, air pressure, and electricity,
>only the most tenacious life will survive. And it seems to me that the
>most simple life forms in existence (RNA strands) are quite weak.
Actually, the conditions in which replicating matter took hold
would not, strictly speaking, be a creation but instead would
be a continuation of natural processes which resulted in
replicating matter.
>
>Luke
>
Origins of life?
No god required or desired.
For details on one possibility, see the following article from
the July, 1999, issue of Scientific American.
Life's Far-Flung Raw Materials - Life may owe its start to
complex organic molecules manufactured in the icy heart
of an interstellar cloud, by Max P. Bernstein, Scott A.
Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0799issue/0799bernstein.html
Illustrations/excerpts from this article:
Complex Organic Molecules
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0799issue/0799bernsteinbox1.html
"... some like those found in living things--abound in dark
parts of interstellar clouds. More than four billion years ago
one such cloud collapsed into a swirling disk that spawned
the sun and planets. Some of the fragile molecules survived
the violent heat of solar system formation by sticking together
in comets at the disk's frigid fringe. Later the comets and
other cloud remnants carried the molecules to Earth."
Quinones From Space
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0799issue/0799bernsteinbox2.html
"... have structures nearly identical to those that help
chlorophyll molecules transfer light energy from one part
of a plant cell to another."
Comets and Asteroids
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0799issue/0799bernsteinbox3.html
"... heavily bombarded Earth until about four billion years ago.
Even now the planet sweeps up hundreds of tons of dust and
meteorites from these objects every day. Many of the dust
particles --most only a thousandth of a millimeter across--are
rich in organic molecules fabricated in the dark cloud that
spawned the solar system. The voids in the particle below
presumably once contained ice that evaporated when the
dust escaped its parent comet."
Laboratory Simulations
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0799issue/0799bernsteinbox4.html
"... mimic what happens in the cold parts of interstellar
clouds such as the Eagle Nebula (above). Inside a shoebox-
size metal chamber (below), a special refrigerator and pump
generate the subzero vacuum of space. A mist of simple gas
molecules sprayed from a copper tube freezes onto a salt
disk, which acts as the silicate core of an ice grain in space (1).
An ultraviolet lamp bathes the newly formed ice in a potent
dose of starlike radiation (2). Infrared light, also emitted by
stars, is later projected through the ice to determine what
molecules are frozen inside (3). Comparison of infrared
absorption spectra reveals that the composition of the
laboratory ice is strikingly similar to that of ice in the clouds."
Interstellar Ice
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0799issue/0799bernsteinbox5.html
"... begins to form when molecules such as water, methanol
and hydrocarbon freeze to sandlike granules of silicate
drifting in dense interstellar clouds (1). Ultraviolet radiation
from nearby stars breaks some of the chemical bonds of the
frozen compounds as the ice grain grows to no bigger than
about one ten-thousandth of a millimeter across (2). Broken
molecules recombine into structures such as quinones, which
would never form if the fragments were free to float away (3)."
---
How did life evolve?
Excerpt from a recent BBC special, Hopeful Monsters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
"...in a matter of weeks, they performed a series of
experiments that was to blow apart the world of genetics,
and crack open the mysteries of the developing embryo
and the secrets of how we and all other animals came to
be the way we are. Through their work it is now known
that humans share the same gene inventory as the goldfish,
the dinosaur, the sparrow and the beetle. Instead of millions
of genes doing different things in different animals, there is
a basic toolkit of genes used over and over again throughout
the animal kingdom.
The human baby in the womb is being sculpted by exactly
the same genes that shape the developing fly.
This toolkit, known as the homeobox genes, is the key to
how nature has produced the staggering diversity within
the 4 billion species that have existed on Earth since life
began, and it is leading to a new understanding of the
mechanism of evolution itself. The tiniest mutation in
the toolkit genes can result in rapid and dramatic changes
in the animal, as it triggers a cascade of inevitable
consequences."
Excerpt from a key segment in the detailed transcript
from the show:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsterstran.shtml
"NARRATOR - Not knowing whether their 8 control genes
were unique to just the fly, they went critter hunting. Bill and
his wife, Nadine, fished in the streams around Basel for other
interesting creatures in which to look for Hox genes. They
even visited fishing tackle shops for worms and maggots,
eventually amassing an impressive array of creatures.
The fact that they had proved that just 8 powerful Hox control
genes shaped a creature like the fruit fly was extraordinary
enough. But this experiment was running counter to all the
accepted theories. Each type of animal was thought to have
unique genes, so looking for fruit fly control genes even in
closely related species seemed a wild goose chase. (Indeed)
they were quite cavalier in the creatures they chose. Amongst
the samples from worms and insects they had included one
from a cow - and two from human friends.
BILL McGINNIS - I remember running the gel and er taking
the probe that Mike gave me and hybridising this blot,
so I er, put into the film cassette, left it overnight, and
I remember it there was a lot of anticipation over that night,
you know, wanting early, you know to get up early the next
morning and see what the result was. Their sense of antici-
pation was enormous and er taking the film cassette out of
the minus 80 freezer and waiting for it to warm up a little bit,
and then developing the film to see what the result would be.
MIKE LEVENE - When Bill came out of the darkroom
showing us bands of signals from human DNA and mouse
DNA it was really just too fantastic to believe.
NARRATOR - In every one of the samples the same 8 tell
tale bands had emerged, in primitive worms, in other insects
but, most amazing, in their human samples. From insects to
ourselves they had discovered an underlying genetic unity
across the whole animal kingdom that absolutely no one had
expected. They showed the same Hox control genes to be
structuring all living things. We are all running on literally the
same genetic software."
---
Excerpt from the "Discovery of the Molecular Basis
of Evolution":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_222000/222096.stm
"They may have found out what actually happens to an
organism's genes that enables its offspring to adapt and
change - that is to evolve into new types of living creatures.
The researchers at the University of Chicago say that
although an organism's DNA is changing over time, many
of the individual, small genetic variations just accumulate
and only become noticeable when that organism is under
environmental stress. You can look at it this way: while an
animal may be perfectly adapted to its environment, behind
the scenes redundant copies of its genes are mutating."