Absolute Evolution?
Offline I have always been a big believer in biological evolution. I saw unlimited evidence in in everyday life, and for me, it just made sense. I always thought of evolution on a micro and macro scale. From microscopic bacteria and viruses to dinosaurs and humans, everything evolves. Until recently, I never tried to use evolution to explain creation. I did not understand at what point the non-living became living. I was reading more about abiogenesis and deludedgod's lectures on molecular evolution, and at some point I had an epiphany.
My interpretation (whether it was meant this way or not) is that atoms and molecules will continue to connect (making bonds or compounds) and grow into any structure they can. If the natural environment around them allows for this continued process, that structure will become dominant. If the environment is detremental to the structures existance, it will break apart and re-connect as a different structure. An example of this on earth would be that our oceans are water instead of a number of other possible elements or chemicals (such as the nitrogen oceans of other moons). Water had the right qualities to keep from freezing or evaporating due to the environment of the earth. While this is not "evolution" in a classical sense, it demonstrates that water is better adapted for it's environment, therefore it became a dominant structure (at least in it's own niche).
If this process continues, it is almost nullifies the question of how life began, and only leaves us with the question of when life becomes more than just a well adapted chemical.
Taking this process even one step smaller, would it also be possible that the atom itself evolves? In a way, atoms have different levels of "evolution" as we see them today. Helium is an evolved form of hydrogen, more in the sense that it is another species than a different kingdom. If hydrogen had the capability of existing everywhere, there would be no need for helium. Helium evolves inside of stars, then gets blasted out and recollects, repeats, then we get more evolved elements that can collect and "live" on their own.
Taking this process even one step smaller, would it also be possible that the atom itself is an evolved structure? We know of subatomic particles that make up an atom. Perhaps there were many configurations of subatomic particles that just did not survive before the atom became what it is today.
I am not promoting this idea as the truth, but as something that I believe deserves some serious thought and scrutiny. Perhaps this idea is already out there although I could not find it explained the way I have. This is by no means a complete explanation, I know it has some holes I skipped over, and some of my terminology may be wrong.. my main goal was to get the idea out there for debate by people that understand chemistry, biology, physics, etc, better than I do.
- Login to post comments
This also supports another belief I have that life is much more divergent, resiliant, and abundant than is currently accepted by most scientists. If in fact life is simply the evolution of atoms assembling in various structures, it would seem that life could evolve in a much wider variety of environments than the "earth-like" one we know. The only "requirement" is an environment that allows complex chemicals to form without being quickly destroyed. The odds may be increased or decreased based on the ratios of different types of atoms available and the ability for them to come into contact, but the basic requirements are all that matters as far as "possibility" goes. I would not consider water or carbon a requirement, but only a liquid meduim where elements could mingle.
I am sure someone would counter this saying all imperical evidence shows that water and carbon are required for life. Inductive reasoning is only as accurate as the number of tests performed. I have derived a simple formula to describe the accuracy of inductive reasoning:
samples / (samples + 1) = accuracy
"samples" refers to the number of unique tests (or observations) that have been performed. "1" refers to the unknown sample you are trying to disprove. For example, if you say "I saw a black crow, therefore all crows are black", you have a 50% chance of being right. If you've seen 99 crows, and all 99 are black, there's a 99% chance you're right, but there's the elusive non-black crow you have not seen, and may never see, so you can never be 100% accurate by inductive reasoning. (10000 samples would still only be a 99.99% chance of being right). Just to clarify things, I made up that equation as an example of the problem, I have no "references" on it.
On Earth, we have billions of living things, therefore it may make sense to say we know with (1 billion / 1 billion+1) certainty that life requires earthlike conditions. This is flawed because not all life on earth is unique. In the crow example, if you sampled the same crow 99 times, that would not be accurate since you did not use unique crows. We can only count unique life on earth that did not evolve from the same origin. I am not sure what the general consensus is on this is from evolutionists, but I guess it would be 1. If all life on earth evolved from one life source, we would only have a (1/2) accuracy of determining the requirements for life based on our imperical evidence. 50% is hardly enough to prove it disprove anything, so it should be wide open to speculation and debate.
About your induction theory... If i live in a white neighborhood and I have only seen 99 white folks and no other ethnical groups in my whole life... does that mean that I am right at 99% to say that homo sapiens are all white ?
And I don't know anything about evolution really. But to say that an atom or a star or the water on earth as evolved seems to be abusing the word "evolution".
If I drop a glass on the floor am I right to say that all these glass fragments are the products of evolution. I think most definitely not !
You seem to be confusing the notions of energy conservation and evolution here. Even if energy conservation is part of the evolutionary process, I'm pretty sure that the opposite is not true.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
If you are looking for one single word to describe the behavior of the universe as a whole, I think that you should look for another word... perhaps that the word God (of the gaps) could suit that definition very well... But not the word evolution.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
I wouldn't call it an induction theory, but rather a simple explanation of odds. I am pointing out that with inductive reasoning, you can never have certainty, although multiple tests can increase accuracy. It may appear to be fallable by using your "99 white folk" observation, but if you were testing X, and X was found to be true 99 times, you could say with some certainty that X is true, but never absolutely. (through unbiased testing, for example if there were non-whites, but you ignored them or avoided finding them, that would be biased). Your "99 white folk" is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make about our assumption on requirements for life.
I agree it seems to be abusing the word evolution, but as i said, it's not "evolution" in a classical sense, but it does follow the same idea. I am trying to suggest that perhaps evolution is more that just living evolution, but a way to describe how everything is the way it is.
You are right to think that there is no specific point at which the non-living evolves into living. It's also true that there are no extra special physical processes acting on the living that are not acting on the non-living. But this does not mean there is absolutely no difference between life and non-life that could allow you to postulate biological-style evolution at every level.
This is an example of the continuum fallacy. I want to make it clear that appealing to a continuum that leads from x to y to say that there is no difference between x and y is not necessarily a fallacy (just as a reducio ad absurdum argument may or may not be a fallacy depending on the argument). But in this case it is.
If natural selection is occuring then a case might be made that evolution is occuring (such as with Lee Smolin's notion of cosmological natural selection). But is anything at all like this happening at the atomic level or even at the inorganic chemical level? (And of course Lee Smolin's idea is just a concept that avoids certain ramifications of the anthropic principle.) I don't think there is any evidence of any such thing as absolute evolution.
Thank you, perhaps "natural selection" may be a more palatible word than "evolution" for describing evolution of non-living things, since people are emotionally attached to evolution referring to living things. I say emotionally because the actual defintion of evolution does not require life. Actually, one definition I found interesting was:
Regardless of terminology, I still consider this idea plausible.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I said "...only leaves us with the question of when life becomes more than just a well adapted chemical." I did not mean to imply that life is nothing more than well adapted chemicals, but that is the only part I am unable to define with my existing knowledge. I do believe that humans are different than water, but that does not mean we both can't follow the "laws of evolution" (which I do consider to be a law) just as we both follow other laws.
I think that clarification appeals to both fallacies you mentioned.
Well, that was part of my original argument. Chemicals are being formed and broken all the time, and "natural selection" decides which ones "live" and which ones "die". In concept, this is the exact same claim as evolution is for living things.
I concede that there is no "evidence" that the atom is an evolved structure, but I am more interested in stating a concept that others can provide ideas for or against.
Sometimes there is no "evidence" of a concept until one has the concept, then looks for evidence of it. For example, there was no "evidence" of black holes until years after their initial concept. Many scientists denied their existance due to the lack of evidence. Other scientists went on the hunt for the evidence. Once it was found, the concept was undeniable.
The concept of black holes, however, didn't come from out of the blue and from mere speculations. They where natural predictions of general relativity.
What it seems like you want to do is to generalize Darwin's idea of the struggle for life and apply it to the whole universe. Again, I think that the word evolution is a wrong choice. Call it thermodynamics (see 2nd law which deals with the evolution of systems) but not evolution or natural selection in the Darwinian way which deals with the competition between living things that struggles for their existence. Water doesn't struggle to stay in a liquid state.
More over I think that your theory wouldn't bring anything new to our knowledge, but it would only rename phenomenons that we are already aware of. I don't see the point in doing that.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
Perhaps I should approach this differently. What would be a good name for this idea so we can get past the terminology? Is this idea even worth modifying to be more accurate, or is it so impossible that it is not worth considering? Is there any way to set up a scientific test, or to formulate a mathematical probability?
If we go with the term "thermodynamics" to describe this process, and you consider that to be an accurate term to use, then thermodynamics should describe this process and my idea is already accepted (i'll check into that). If that does not describe this process, then it is not the right term either, and maybe nothing is, that's why I picked evolution (or absolute evolution) as the closest thing.
That was an example. I agree with your disagreement with it, but I still assert the original statement. Maybe a better example would be evolution itself. What was the documented evidence of evolution before the idea of evolution? Is there any similar evidence for my idea (I believe there is, but now I have to expose it). This is the kind of help I need with my idea.
What I don't understand is your goal.
What are you trying to do with this ? I mean, what do you think we could learn from this concept ?
Because, as I said, it looks like you are only trying to find a new name to define ideas and concepts that we already know of. Am I wrong in saying this ?
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
What your talking about is string theory (or generally how all of physics works) ,but mostly the understanding of what time really is instead of what most people think time is.
You probably meant M-theory with is ridiculously, pretentiously, naively and pompously referred to by some very respected physicists as the "theory of everything".
I don't really see why you think he's talking about that.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
He seems to be asking why complexity forms from simplicity and really complexity is an abundance of simplicity and that would pretty much be the theory of everything ,but maybe I don’t understand the question that is possible.