Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[seer]

No I did not.

So human beings were determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all?

[shunyadragon]

So human beings were determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all?

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

[seer]

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

I will ask again Shuny, were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

I will ask again Shuny, were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

Again, again and again . . .

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

[seer]

Again, again and again . . .

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

You are fibbing again Shuny, I am not arguing in a circle, but you will not answer a straight question, again: were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

You are fibbing again Shuny, I am not arguing in a circle, but you will not answer a straight question, again: were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

Let's clarify your misuse of randomness. Yes, I described it in terms of one event being random, but let's take a look at how the definition applies to a series of events.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

© Copyright Original Source

It is clear and specific by definition that the outcome of evolution is predictable based on the Laws of Nature and the environment. Only the outcome of an individual event in evolution such as one mutation can be considered random.

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

Science only can test the fact that evolution is repeatably predictable throughout the millennia, billions of years, up until the present without random outcomes. Arguing that the the outcome could be different is hypothetical, and beyond the ability of science and crystal balls. Based on the outcomes, we have no reason to believe that there is a wide variation of the outcomes, or for that matter any variation in the outcomes.

[seer]

It is clear and specific by definition that the outcome of evolution is predictable based on the Laws of Nature and the environment. Only the outcome of an individual event in evolution such as one mutation can be considered random.

You are avoiding again Shuny, there is no evidence that human beings were determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all. There is no scientific evidence that the laws of nature determined that bio-genesis would happen on this earth. Random.

[shunyadragon]

You are avoiding again Shuny, there is no evidence that human beings were determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all. There is no scientific evidence that the laws of nature determined that bio-genesis would happen on this earth. Random.

ALL the evidence of the science of evolution has determined that the Laws of Nature and the environment determine the course of evolution. All the present evidence we have at present indicates that abiogenesis and biogenesis occurs naturally in given environments. The science of evolution is based on the predictability and falsification of hypothesis like all science and consistent. All I can do here is present the scientific evidence and correct your misuse of concepts like randomness.

Again, again, and again . . .

You reject the science of evolution as 'a priori' to any dialogue we have. You have little or no knowledge, and hold a distinctly fundamentalist view of Creation. This is the crux of the argument.

[seer]

ALL the evidence of the science of evolution has determined that the Laws of Nature and the environment determine the course of evolution. All the present evidence we have at present indicates that abiogenesis and biogenesis occurs naturally in given environments. The science of evolution is based on the predictability and falsification of hypothesis like all science and consistent. All I can do here is present the scientific evidence and correct your misuse of concepts like randomness.

Again, again, and again . . .

You reject the science of evolution as 'a priori' to any dialogue we have. You have little or no knowledge, and hold a distinctly fundamentalist view of Creation. This is the crux of the argument.

Shuny, no one believes that life on earth was inevitable, nor was it inevitable that we evolved as we did or evolve at all. There was chance all along the way.

[Tassman]

Shuny, no one believes that life on earth was inevitable, nor was it inevitable that we evolved as we did or evolve at all. There was chance all along the way.

No-one believes that life on earth was inevitable. Life has NOT arisen one most planets in the universe, but it has developed on Earth and the mechanism was the Evolutionary process. This is supported by considerable evidence and not in doubt. Your argument is a straw-man in defense of an imaginary creator deity.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, no one believes that life on earth was inevitable, nor was it inevitable that we evolved as we did or evolve at all. There was chance all along the way.

No one, that is not the case.

Source: https://www.nature.com/news/2006/061113/full/061113-9.html

Was life on Earth inevitable?

Life may be the ultimate in planetary stress relief, a new theory claims.

Philip Ball

What do lightning and life have in common?
What do lightning and life have in common?Getty
The appearance of life on Earth seems to face so many obstacles — sourcing the right ingredients, for example, and arranging them into living things (while being bombarded by meteorites) — that scientists often feel forced to regard it as almost miraculous. Now two US researchers suggest that, on the contrary, it may have been inevitable.

They argue that life was the necessary consequence of available energy built up by geological processes on the early Earth. Life sprang from this environment, they say, in the same way that lightning relieves the accumulation of electrical charge in thunderclouds.

In other words, say biologist Harold Morowitz of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and physicist Eric Smith of New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, the geological environment "forced life into existence".

This view implies not only that life had to emerge on the Earth, but that the same would happen on any similar planet. Smith and Morowitz hope ultimately to predict the first steps in the origin of life based on the laws of physics and chemistry alone.

Inspiring life
Morowitz and Smith admit that they don't yet have the theoretical tools to clinch their arguments, or to show what form this "inevitable life" must take. But, they argue, it probably used the same chemical processes that now drive our own metabolism — but in reverse.

“Life would emerge on any sunny, wet rocky planet.”
One source of geological energy would have been compounds called polyphosphates, made in volcanic processes. These are 'battery molecules', similar to those that now supply living cells with energy.

Another source would have been hydrogen molecules, which were probably abundant in the early atmosphere, even though they are almost absent today. Hydrogen would have been generated, for example, by reactions between seawater and dissolved iron.

Energy-releasing reactions between hydrogen and carbon dioxide, belched into the atmosphere by volcanoes, can produce complex organic molecules, the precursors of living systems.

In our metabolism, a series of biochemical reactions called the citric-acid cycle breaks down organic compounds from food into carbon dioxide. Horowitz and Smith say that the energy reservoirs of the young Earth could have driven a citric-acid cycle in reverse, spawning the building blocks of life while relaxing the 'energy pressure' of the environment.

Eventually these processes will have become encapsulated into cells, making the energy flows more efficient. Morowitz and Smith present their ideas in a Santa Fe working paper1.

The right chemistry
The idea is "instructive and inspiring", says Michael Russell, a specialist in the origin of life at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Life, he agrees, is "a chemical system that drains and dissipates chemical energy".

Russell has used similar ideas to argue that "life would emerge using the same pathways on any sunny, wet rocky planet"2,3. The most likely place for it to occur, he believes, is at miniature undersea volcanoes called hydrothermal vents, where the ingredients and conditions are just right for energy-harnessing chemical machinery to develop 4.

The biochemical processes of living organisms are highly organized. Scientists have long puzzled over how such systems can come spontaneously into being, when the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe as a whole generates increasing disorder.

The answer, broadly speaking, is that local clumps of order come at the expense of increasing the disorder around them. Horowitz and Smith think that such order happens because it is a better 'lightning conductor' for discharging excess energy.

Thus, they say, despite several major extinctions throughout geological time, each of which almost obliterated every living thing, life itself was never in danger of disappearing — because an Earth with life is always more stable than one without. The researchers call this process a "collapse to life", which in their view is as inevitable as the appearance of snowflakes in cold, moist air.

© Copyright Original Source

Again . . .

You express your ignorance and fundamentalist agenda, and I present the sources.

[shunyadragon]

Another scientist draws the same conclusions:

Source: https://www.iflscience.com/physics/life-inevitable-consequence-physics/

Life Is Inevitable Consequence Of Physics, According To New Research

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

England’s hypothesis is a key bridge between physics and biology. Although it’s not yet conclusively proven, it potentially holds the key to answering one of the greatest questions of all: Where did we come from?

Here’s what his work is arguing. Thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is heading towards a state of complete structural disorder. It’s tumbling towards a state where everything is essentially the same no matter how the constituent parts are arranged.

This is known as “maximum entropy”, where everything on an energy level is balanced, everywhere.

Right now, though, there are pockets of order, of low entropy – objects and things that cannot be atomically rearranged and still be the same thing (planets and life, for example). They are the exceptions to an increasingly disordered universe, something first highlighted by Schrodinger’s seminal 1944 essay What Is Life?

© Copyright Original Source

These scientists I cited express my view that life and evolution is inevitable based on the Laws of Nature, and the environment. Of course it remains problematic, because you a priori reject science. I can provide more . . .

[seer]

Another scientist draws the same conclusions:

Source: https://www.iflscience.com/physics/life-inevitable-consequence-physics/

Life Is Inevitable Consequence Of Physics, According To New Research

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

England’s hypothesis is a key bridge between physics and biology. Although it’s not yet conclusively proven, it potentially holds the key to answering one of the greatest questions of all: Where did we come from?

Here’s what his work is arguing. Thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is heading towards a state of complete structural disorder. It’s tumbling towards a state where everything is essentially the same no matter how the constituent parts are arranged.

This is known as “maximum entropy”, where everything on an energy level is balanced, everywhere.

Right now, though, there are pockets of order, of low entropy – objects and things that cannot be atomically rearranged and still be the same thing (planets and life, for example). They are the exceptions to an increasingly disordered universe, something first highlighted by Schrodinger’s seminal 1944 essay What Is Life?

© Copyright Original Source

These scientists I cited express my view that life and evolution is inevitable based on the Laws of Nature, and the environment. Of course it remains problematic, because you a priori reject science. I can provide more . . .

Nonsense Shuny, you take a couple of theories that have not been proven, because in fact we can not replicate the conditions nor do we know the actual biological process that took place. And it was not inevitable that the earth would have the conditions for life, nor, again was it inevitable that humans would develop as we did or at all. Who believes that?

[seer]

Again . . .

You express your ignorance and fundamentalist agenda, and I present the sources.

Really, get educated Shuny:

Accidents of evolution that made us human

https://www.newscientist.com/round-u...man-evolution/

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, you take a couple of theories that have not been proven, because in fact we can not replicate the conditions nor do we know the actual biological process that took place. And it was not inevitable that the earth would have the conditions for life, nor, again was it inevitable that humans would develop as we did or at all. Who believes that?

You made the assertion that no one believes that life and evolution was inevitable, and I presented at least 4 or 5 reference in the articles that support this, and I can present more. You persist in 'arguing from ignorance,' and just simply denying science based on a religious agenda. Moving the goal posts does not help your case. The inevitability of life and evolution is based on the environment. The scientists cited involve our earth and it's history, which they support the science that life and evolution on our earth was inevitable. Where ever in the universe that a planet with a suitable environment exists, life and evolution will exist.