Friday, December 7, 2012

Evolution and environment creating life

Many people believe that the earth is a suitable environment for life on the basis of the presence of water.  This is because water is necessary for cellular structures and since all living things on Earth have cells as the basis for form, this is a necessity for life, on Earth.  However, the notion that life sprang from evolutionary process whereby species adapt to the environment seems incongruent.  If survival requires adaptation, then how did the initial life spring forth such that adaptation could begin?  The system is either always inherently adaptive or it is not.  If it is selective, then the system must be aware of the need and that requires conscious choice by the system.  In addition, the notion that random probability is the key to the creation of cellular structure defies the theory of evolutionary adaptation because even now, all living things are cellular structures.  Before cellular structures existed, the understanding is that only non-living molecular structures existed, which means for adaptation to occur, the non-living molecular structures (rocks, water, air, etc.) must somehow "evolve" to living cellular structures.

From the fact that scientists believe they have not discovered life outside of a watery system (cellular), the belief is that only cellular life is possible.  Assuming this is true, the question still remains, how could a complex structure such as a cell come about?  Even a simple single cell is not simple, and the notion that life sprang from a vast pool of components flies in the face of logic.  If I took a stew and let it sit for a long time (millions of years?) would it create life?  A dead thing (no longer living) will decay.  It will not spring back to life, even if I left it for millions of years.  If I had a vat of primordial components, and it was stirred constantly for millions of years, does anyone actually believe it would coalesce into a cellular structure and start its process of being a single celled living organism?  Remember, these primordial components are believed to be without life to begin with.  How does a living thing come from a dead thing?  For one thing, molecules in such an environment would automatically go to a steady state condition (the planet had to already be non-living rock, and water, etc., which is in a steady state, before life can even come into existence on the planet) and it would not be in a life giving state, unless you're arguing that the environment is what gives cellular molecules life.  Introducing energy would not necessarily spark a reorganization of molecules (breaking apart a molecule would only form a new molecule if that molecular structure was more natural). On top of that, a single cell has many individual and independent structures within the cell that have specialized functions.  Random chance could never form such independent structures within a structure because each step must be create by random chance as well (the beginning of the process cannot be the only random condition in a truly random system.  In a probability system, the ideal condition must occur at the beginning of the process because once the probabilities turns into realities, those other probabilities are no longer probable for that specific condition).  That's like saying given a pile of dirt and the perfect environmental condition, the iron would form itself into steel beams which then ordered itself into a building skeleton and the components of concrete would coalesce and form concrete sheets that skinned the building all by itself.  This argument requires that the energy available in the system was great enough to break apart existing atomic bonds without destroying the environment itself and somehow forced the right components together or life was created from the moment the planet was created from the unformed vat of primordial substance.

To argue sequential development of structures (rocks, then water, then plants, etc.) means the environment would have to adapt to create these different structures at the right times in the right sequence.  In a random system, the probability of a correct order is statistically impossible given the number of ordered steps at the atomic level to get to a simple single cell.  Even at a microscopic scale, this kind of ordered structure could never occur by random chance.  Look at how even an electron exists.  It has structure and behavior, concepts that are again things of the mental reality.  What aspect of evolution or environment could create something like the electron (not to mention the quantum behaviors that defy classical Newtonian physics) that is supposed to have been the source of creation itself ("the big bang")?  If the odds of pulling 6 specific numbers randomly from a pool of 52 numbers run in the hundreds of millions, how much higher the odds when the number of components is larger and it must form a specific sequence (not only building the structure, but which substructure is formed and when).  But even if the odds were in favor of random chance, what is it about this form or structure that gives it life?  If there is no life in the components, as most people believe, then what specifically about the new form would kick-start life?  Consider the fact that life requires energy.  Even a single cell requires food to operate, which is behavior.  Where in the structure would such purpose be inscribed and how did chance form this coding as the initial behavior, not a learned or evolutionary transition (if it didn't start this way, how did the first organism survive long enough to reproduce, let alone evolve towards this behavior since evolution would prune the organism from the very beginning due to lack of ability to gather energy or reproduce)?

Nothing I have said should be misconstrued to suggest that evolution does not occur.  The point of contention isn't whether evolutionary processes exist, but rather the assumption as fact that "random chance" is the cause of the mutations.  There is no evidence to suggest randomness is the cause of mutations.  It is merely speculation without any other "reasonable" explanation in materialistic terms.  But this is where the notion of a directed or intelligent control can exist as an alternative explanation for the mutations.  The problem, as I mentioned in the last paragraph, with random chance as the cause of mutation is the high improbability for complex structures to form from simple mutations, especially beginning with a simple structure.

Now at this point, many will argue that I'm pointing towards a "God" as the source of life.  That is not the case (I wrote previously that *we* as non-physical entities created physical reality as a means for us to experience this "dream" world).  All I'm saying is that the belief that random chance creates life based strictly on environment and evolution makes no sense at all.  This is not to say neither has a role in development, but that they are neither unguided nor random chance.

Also, I am not proposing that my argument is based on "irreducible complexity" as that is merely trying to understand our current condition going backwards.  Instead, my argument is that in order to go forward, what we think of as "random" mutations are not random.  Random just means you do not have enough information to know the cause, but you can never have anything truly random.  In this system of reality, something triggers something else due to cause and effect of atomic interactions.  But what happens beyond the atomic level?  What kind of interactions exist at the quantum level?  If quantum effects are without any known cause, then the rules of existence can no longer apply, since at the quantum level, there are forces that do not adhere to the laws we observe at the macro level.  And yet, we live in a world of laws, so how can this be without cause and effect?  Random means there is no conscious cause, but the problem there is the question of origin: what is the prime cause.  I argue that the prime cause is always in effect at each moment (not just at some starting point) from the quantum level (actually beyond, but we have not discovered the beyond yet), and that it is not without consciousness, thus we have the observable reality of objective laws from the unobservable reality of subjective probabilities.

Here's a website that is making a similar argument regarding the improbability of life through environment and evolution (although the site has a religiously oriented viewpoint, the article itself stays away from that perspective): Simple cells.

Here's an interesting discussion on "energetic matter" as the source of all existence.  In essence, it discusses his theory of energy as the basis of all reality: Wave Theory

I've already stated my belief on where life comes from (the constant and indestructible energy that exists in all matter and non-matter, which I believe is also the source of consciousness).  If matter "comes from" energy, then only energy is necessary for matter.  All matter is living and conscious, though they vary widely in degrees.  While a rock may seem unconscious and non-living to the living, it is only "non-living" in relation to what is normally considered alive purely on an observational basis.  But if you consider consciousness as the source of behavior, then a rock is conscious and living because it maintains its form and function, even though you cannot see any signs of consciousness.  All living matter maintains its form at the atomic level, just as rocks do.  This form comes about because of the laws of atomic bonds (you might be arguing that it's chemical bonds creating form, but think a bit deeper about that regarding how a process such as electrostatic combinations are even possible - what does "charge" even mean other than how we experience it?).

The fact that these laws exist point to awareness of itself, the laws know it exists (all thoughts and emotions are manifested energy, including "us")!  You must understand that nothing can exist, not even thought, without its awareness of itself, just as you exist because you are aware of yourself (and thus work to maintain that form both physically due to the rules of the system - eating, sleeping, exercising - and non-physically in terms of the energy required to continually create the form itself).  That is the nature of consciousness.  Everything started out as a non-physical concept, born out of consciousness, just as consciousness is a concept.  A thought is aware of itself, and thus it exists as a thought ("I think, therefore I am" - put another way, "I know I think - therefore I know I exist").  If it was not aware of itself, it could not be in existence because nothing acknowledges it.  This is another way of describing the Schrodinger paradox.  Nothing can become reality without being observed (a probability cannot be actualized without an observer), thus even consciousness cannot exist without it knowing itself, which is to observe itself.  This is the concept of infinity, whereby you have something creating itself through awareness of itself, never to be destroyed.  That is also why you can have the first law of thermodynamics, whereby energy is neither created nor destroyed in a closed system (the rules of the physical system makes it appear to be a closed system, but no reality is closed as that would mean no communications could exist between the physical and non-physical such as the body and the mind).

You might be thinking "But I am separate from my thought, so I make my thoughts real by my observation of my thoughts".  But consider where "I" and your thought exists.  Where does thought come from relative to you?  In fact, your thoughts "come" from you, and thus are the same.  If all is energy, then only energy exists, and the recognition of "I", and what you observe as thoughts are from the same source.  That means you ARE your thoughts and your thoughts ARE you.  Because of this, everything is thought and that thought forms whatever we think of as being "real" because it represents symbolically that thought.  The thought concept of "I" is you in physical form.

No comments: