Is this philosophy or only pure logic? First there is matter, then there is life - the transition from lifeless matter to matter based life is the big question. Some answer it by inventing a creator, some with the Theory of Evolution and some don't. Introducing a creator only starts a recursive search for the creator of the creator.
So my question is: can someone imagine any other way of how life (including the chain of possible creators) started except by Evolution?
Re:Start of Life or how can the recursion possibly start ?
« Reply #1 on: 2003-09-29 21:22:16 »
You are looking for Chaos Theory.
To recast the question of life in less emotionally charged terms, you are asking how complex forms can spontaneously emerge without design in a simple system. The answer is that this can happen in any system which (a) contains information and (b) is subject to iterative processing, e.g. a mathematical operation is performed on the system, then the result of the operation replaces the original system, and the operation is performed again. Lather, rinse, repeat until interesting.
The universe is such a system, since it (a) contains information which (b) is modified over an interval of time by various relatively simple momentum and force operations to create a "new" universe which takes the place of the old one, hence to undergo yet another transforming moment of time.
Such systems can be amazingly simple. The system that draws the Mandelbrot Fractal consists of two lines of code, yet creates so much detail that it is literally explored like an alien world. To get a feel for how this works get a fractal-drawing program like Fractint and just play with it. After awhile the emergence of life won't seem so miraculous or hard to explain any more.
I was impressed by Mandelbrot Fractals as well, but I more and more come to the conclusion that mathematics is a world on its own, and not a mirror of reality, and so Fractals only show how complex the man invented space of complex numbers are.
So my question still is: is they any other imaginable way how life initialy started?
"So my question is: can someone imagine any other way of how life (including the chain of possible creators) started except by Evolution?"
My answer is: Yes, but that's a muddled question. Evolution isn't relevant to how life started; it can only occur after "life" - that is, self-replication - has started, since evolution really just means a change in allele frequencies over time (evolution is also not a proper noun, and doesn't require special capitalization).
The answer must lie in the field of chemistry, as life in its most basic form of self-replication is a chemical process. The recursion doesn't really seem very mathematically exciting to me: In some way or another, chemicals must have become arranged in such a way that they replicated themselves. Woo hoo. There have been lots of attempts to explain the origins of self-replicators chemically, but no consensus on which is right. I'm no chemist, so I won't try to describe any of them myself.
On a side note, I hope you won't be offended to read that your question is frequently used as an argument against the theory of evolution, despite the fact (stated above) that it's not germane to the subject. Used that way, it's either a shot at evolution that misses its target altogether or it's a shot at science in general, in which case it simply fails to impress.
No, evolution is what happens after self-replication starts. Chaos is how you get systems complex enough to self-replicate from a simple system.
Fractals aren't about complex numbers, and you can generate the Mandelbrot Set without even mentioning them -- you can do it all in terms of X and Y. The point behind chaos theory is that it shows how a simple system driven by simple rules can create complex forms. Even if the "real" system is different, that's what you need to start the ball rolling; once you've got a form complex enough to self-replicate evolution does the rest.
<No, evolution is what happens after self-replication starts. Chaos is how you get systems complex enough to self-replicate from a simple system.>
Evolution is random change and selection. That clearly applies to the very first molecules which randomly formed the first DNA and where selected because they replicated. Whether chaos is neccessary to let this happen - I don't know, but it doesn't change it from the point of view of Evolution; jet it could effect the randomness to a point where it could be seen as inevitable that chaos yields the first DNA. But I doubt that. It would kind of imply that there is an imprint (call it attractor) in matter that directly leads to DNA. This of course would raise the question: where does this attractor come from, only leading to a new recursion in the question of creation. It is a little bit like the creationist argument that life is woven into matter, so I stick to randomness in a complex system.
You are right about compley numbers, what I meant was real numbers, and that they provide a huge space. Well, the universe is really complex, given the number of atoms and the huge scale of things and interactions. Here I agree with you.
Hi Epistaxis,
Well, Evolution is also a noun, and you can capitalize words when they are the main topic or very important to the discussion. I think it is the greatest insight mankind ever gained.
As I said in my answer to localroger that Evolution also covers the coming into existence (let's for a moment avoid the word creation, although it is valid) of the first DNA, and it is not restricted to the alleles (which weren't even known by then), the definition covers a much broader field. Whether it's chaos theory or chemistry, which affects this random and extremly rare moment could be interesting as a side note, but is irrelevant to Evolution. To Evolution it is just randomness.
The Theory of Evolution also applies to the coming into existence of some fantasy photon creatures inside the sun, it also will apply to self-replicating robots living on silicon and steel.
I am not offended :-). But I am very astonished that some of the contributers here try to restrict Evolution to alleles and biology and don't even see the generality of the idea, which in my view not only qualifies it as science, but also a philosphical wisdom, and even the only one ever gained. So my question is not a shot at something, it is really a question I ask myself:
Even if I had a lot of phantasy and tried real hard, could I imagine something other than Evolution as the sole source of life?
Re:Start of Life or how can the recursion possibly start ?
« Reply #6 on: 2003-10-01 16:23:17 »
A collection of appropriate atoms, under the right circumstances will form molecules. This follows from the nature of physics and atoms, and should not be surprising. So for example, few gasses are found in monoatomic form. Intead we expect to find e.g. Hydrogen in the form of H2 molecules.
In the same way, natural forces govern the fact that molecules will combine to minimize the energy state between them, forming clusters or crystals. Again, no surprises here. For example, a hypercooled, supersaturated salt solution, will, given one crystal of salt added to it, rapidly "condense" to form a much larger crystal (and release heat), minimising the energy in the solution.
Given a suitable mix of molecules and a source of energy, the results can be unexpectedly complex. In the famous "Miller experiment", an electric discharge (as we would see from lightening) was applied to a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen (molecules that would have been present in abundance in the atmosphere of prebiotic Earth). Within two weeks, a vast number of molecules had formed in this experiment, including "biochemically significant" compounds such as amino acids, hydroxy acids, and urea.
Now consider that this was a pair of flasks with a capacity of a few hundred ml, not a planetary volume. And consider that it the period involved was a few weeks, not a geological era. Given a significant number of molecules, energy and time, rather than unlikely (even if the chance for any one to form is minute), the formation of a large number of "self-replicating" molecules is inevitable. Even if the odds were say, 1 in a billion (109) against it happening in a year (and we know that in a small flask, two weeks is enough time to form amino acids, the building blocks of DNA), so the odds are much better), with trillions (1012)of molecules and millions (106) of years involved, the odds would be good that billions (109) of such molecules would form. And of course, once the first self replicating molecule forms, it would replicate itself until it ran out of material or energy, or some disaster occurred which would wipe it and its descendents out. But with this happening in millions of locations, sooner or later, replicators would meet, compete, swap molecules, and evolve. What we would call evolution.
But the replication started under the chaotic* conditions before evolution began. Of course, life on earth may not have happened this way, viable replicators from elsewhere may have arrived on a comet or meoteorite (not impossible). But if that happened, then those replicators could have formed this way.
Is this what you were asking about?
Hermit
*Noise is a condition where nothing is predictable as there are no rules governing interaction. Brownian motion, thermal noise and particle creation and evaporation are examples of true noise. In a system where there are constraints placed on the noise, even very simple "rules" can produce very complex, results which show a clear tendency towards certain trends (known as strange-attractors). For example, Robert May's population growth model is the following simple equation:
yt + 1 = ryt(1 - yt)
Where:
yt= population at time t yt + 1 = population at time t + 1 r = population growth factor (reproductive rate)
In the graph below, for values of r < 3, the graph shows a single steady state population. For values of 3 < r < 3.57 the population alternates between 2 or more values. When r > 3.57 chaotic population levels result.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
many thanks for your scientific explanation. You describe that chance could have formed the first self-replicating molecule thus starting Evolution. This is the common scientific theory and I think it is true.
What I am searching for is a different theory, where life doesn't start by chance and selection and I think nobody has ever come up with one. What I'm really up to is to show that Evolution is the only thinkable way life could have started.
What I am searching for is a different theory, where life doesn't start by chance and selection and I think nobody has ever come up with one. What I'm really up to is to show that Evolution is the only thinkable way life could have started.
Well, you could go the Intelligent Design route where a godlike figure determined everything. Certain ID thinkers try to be sympathetic to Darwinian models and instead of using terms like chance or selection would say that these events are when aforementioned godlike figure gets involved.
If you concede that there is a god, or the possibility for a god, then this model helps out a bit, as the difference between Intelligent Design and Evolution is the same old philosophical debate of whether there's chance or if we're controlled by fate.
Re:Start of Life or how can the recursion possibly start ?
« Reply #9 on: 2003-10-29 09:59:33 »
Wonko,
It might be helpful if you download some good "Conway's Game of Life" software, and play a bit without reading much about it.
Then read about gliders, eaters, etc... and play with those. I know that there are actually some implementations of Universal Turing Machines that run on that substrate, made up of those simpler components as well.
This may be catalytic in developing a fuller appreciation for the dynamics mentioned above by Hermit.
Many thanks for the link to life32, David, and many thanks for your website!
I programmed the game of life on a Osborne Z80 computer in assembler some 25 years ago, it is quite funny.
Referent, I think I appreciate the dynamics involved, although I still don't see them as the main reason for Life. I still think chaos and attractors are other words for chance and partial stability within chaos. Chaos is necessary for Evulotion, but these a re two very different things: Chaos provides for chance and limited stability, Evolution creates something new.
Many thanks for the link to life32, David, and many thanks for your website!
I programmed the game of life on a Osborne Z80 computer in assembler some 25 years ago, it is quite funny.
The first time I saw game of life was on a friend's TRS-80 model 1 (also with a Z80 processor) in 1979. I remember thinking it was the stupidest game I'd ever seen
It would be interesting to see a game of life which is really worth this name, that is, which is based on Evolution. But I'm sure the complexity of its rules must be very much higher to get something working.
It would be interesting to see a game of life which is really worth this name, that is, which is based on Evolution. But I'm sure the complexity of its rules must be very much higher to get something working.
You may be interested to check out Tom Ray's Tierra. I haven't followed it for awhile but I see v6.01 was just released last month. It is good to see ongoing devleopment.
Author
Logged
