You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Is biological evolution a ball rolling up a hill all by itself?

in #evolution7 years ago

is.jpg
Image source microsoft
I also was a science teacher and was also a working biologist. Evolution of the species by natural selection is pretty much a given for biologists. Bacterial evolution can be seen within a few days and I doubt that many people infected with MRSA would say, "No give me that old time Penicillin. What was good for my grandfather is good for me."

The origin of life is NOT part of 'the theory of evolution thru natural selection.'

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.not.html

Non-biological evolution also occurs, the 'robot' revolution taking place right now is a direct result of 'machine learning.' No one is trying to actually WRITE the code for a self-driving car. The code evolves.

The origins of life is another subject entirely. The chemical origins of life is a rich field of study that is producing many examples of chemical evoution.
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/AST248/lecture_13.pdf
https://www.nature.com/subjects/origin-of-life

Two important points to contemplate are:

  1. The immense span of time it took for self-replication to arise.
  2. Living things are only JUST good enough to survive and replicate. After billions of years they are pretty good at it but it is still only just good enough.There is still lots of room for improvement.
Sort:  

Fascinating post. Regarding the 2 "important points" in the comment, they reminded me of a brief but brilliant, thought-provoking quote by the philosopher Ken Wilber. He once stated something to the effect, "From amoeba to man, from man to what?"

Another time, Wilber wrote, "If man and woman have come up from amoebas, then they are ultimately on their way to God." (Although I prefer to use the term "divinity," which does not have all the baggage of terms such as "god" or "allah" or "krishna.")

Looked at in that light, there's plenty of room for improvement and lots of time for improvement. Like, a few billion years.

Implicit in Wilber's thought is the understanding that man is not the be-all and end-all of evolution. To assume that we have evolved this far (from amoeba) and that's the end of evolution is absurd.

Another point to consider is the fact that (our) evolution is speeding up. Of course, there are plenty of obstacles, there are many factors holding us back, and there will be plenty of regression (devolution). But a cursory look at any history makes it quite clear that our evolution is becoming increasingly rapid.

Onwards, and full steem ahead. (pun unintended)

No thing can evolve to "God" if by "God" is meant that which exists without limit. Evolution is movement. For that which is without limit there can be no movement. Evolution is ultimately just movement.

Surely, evolution is more than "just movement." Evolution is growth and progress, as evident in the change from amoeba to man.

Compared to amoeba, reptiles or even certain mammals, mankind is an intellectual wonder. And as this "movement / evolution" continues, mankind will transcend our current status to .... who knows what.

As for the assertion that nothing can evolve to "God," that raises a very relevant point. For all its advances and development and evolution, mankind remains a very limited being.

Therefore, the mystics may be right when they state that we are evolving towards the divine. Maybe we will transcend our current biological, temporal, and spatial limits.

That will most likely take a very long time, and it might take forever. On the other hand, it might just take a movement out of time.

Yes that is the crux. Implicit in the notion of evolution is that things are getting better. They are not. You cannot evolve to your cause. Evolution is just going uphill. Step back and look at the rise and fall of species, of empires, of you and me. Everything rises and falls.

As JC is supposed to have said "dust to dust" or as it says in the Tao Te Ching, "the Self watches as the Ten Thousand Things rise and fall". Or another of JC's "Before Abraham was I am"

Not denying the state of Enlightenment, God, i.e. realising the cause. Simply that the notion of a limit becoming limitless is impossible.

very long comments LOL... Sorry, jsut wanted to react here...

thank you for reading. I am glad these postings did not devolve (lol) into a creationist rant.

follow me and keep upvoting

only if you post something