Hope in Helplessness
The pressure on my shoulders is too much. When it was first applied, the load was light and well balanced; there were friendly arms that supported some of the weight and soft words of encouragement that quietly lifted the heavy mass.
Now, I seek independence. I want a bigger load on, in many ways, younger shoulders. I want to exchange support for neglect and love for indifference. God, help me.
In times of need, of fright, of complete helplessness I reach out to something bigger than myself; at all other times, I dismiss such a higher being as childish and unsupported.
Is god a human fabrication? Something for us to lay our fate onto whenever we feel lost only to snatch it back again and claim free will when we feel comfortable?
Eric. I
Apr 10, 07:16 AM
It depends on what you believe, but to me God is a fabrication.
I believe the idea to be a cultural entity that’s passed on through time. It originated as a way of explaining the World.
I have often thought, If I were alive even 500 years ago would I believe in God? I probably would. I would look around into the World and wonder how things came to be, how our mind works, and why we are here. Religion answers all of these.
The ancient religions were very much like this. Greek, Roman, Mayan Gods were not there for comfort. The Gods gave good harvests and favours for obedience.
It is also telling that the original leaders of government were the priests, doing Gods will. This justified their positions over the hard-working farmers in early city-states. In this way, religion helps those that are in power to control people. If you steal, you go to hell.
Today, religion has shifted its focus to providing morals and comfort for people in their lives. This is because religion’s explanation of reality has been tarnished; most religious people no longer believe in things like Adam and Eve literally. Thus, philosophical revelations of the Bible are put on hold while the internal culture of churches’ survive.
For me, I don’t need a religion for comfort because I actively think about reality, come to my own conclusions, create my own philosophy. For many, but not all, this would be too tedious; instead, they turn towards pre-packaged religion that has the answers laid out for them – such is how religion is passed on.
This is not to say that lessons learned in all religions are worthless. They actually teach many good lessons, but falter in many other respects.
Ultimately, why would we assume that the people who knew so little about the World thousands of years ago should be right. They were the philosophers of their time, but as you know, philosophy changes and degrades with new information.
tarun
Apr 10, 07:26 AM
The only thing that I think might save me [or you] is an altered (higher?) state of consciousness.
If there is a god, I don’t know why it created us. Can a god have desires?
I hope to lose my self so I won’t feel the ups and downs. I [we] can only wait.
Tom Martin
Apr 10, 11:19 AM
From what I have observed of the people that are around me, it would seem that people are more likened to just listen to someone rather than think independantly about things that affect us all. For many, a religion is an easy way out. There are certain people in my life who I’ve seen use it as a scapegoat whenever things don’t go their way, or when they can’t find a decent real world answer.
There is not much mroe I can say without repeating what Eric said.
KarmaDude
Apr 10, 02:41 PM
Looks like Eric has captured most of my thoughts as well.
One thing I would like to add is: we have such an inside-the-box-view of things that I sometimes wonder what everything looks like from outside the box. Sizes and distances being relative, and there being a certain structure to the universe, I sometimes wonder if there could be someone or something outside the box, responsible for all this?
Jonathan McDonald
Apr 10, 03:35 PM
What’s more consoling, atheism when we’re feeling strong or religion/theism when we’re feeling weak? Do we see more clearly when things are going our way, or when everything seems to be ripped apart and out of control? I don’t think the question can be answered by an appeal to a metanarrative (Eric) or by some hypothetical transmogrification into something entirely new (Tarun). I suppose you could call God a scapegoat for our mistakes—nobody could sanely deny that this often happens—but that doesn’t really answer the question, does it? To put the question more plainly, why, when the order we’ve built into our lives begins to crumble, do we automatically reach out to something or someone higher than ourselves, as if by reflex? Even today, the vast majority of the world is religious, almost as if we just can’t help it.
lr
Apr 10, 11:47 PM
There is an unspoken assumption, somewhat reinforced by “religion” or (at least) religiosity, that God is somehow separate from us – out there, over there, somewhere – utterly removed from our experience.
What if He isn’t? What if each and every one of us possess the tiniest part of the spirit of God within ourselves, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color or religion? What else might “made in His image” or “God-breathed” mean?
What do you suppose Chief Seatlle meant when he suggested that we are all connected – both to the eternal and to each other?
What if God gave each of us a small part of what He himself is made – that which we call spirit? What if we began to perceive each other as if He did?
We would then see the entirety of the human race as all made of the essentially the same stuff and the differences we create among ourselves – viewing each other as we do through the lenses of our human prejudices and misconceptions – would be little more than an illusion to be dissipated.
Eric. I
Apr 11, 06:51 AM
“We would then see the entirety of the human race as all made of the essentially the same stuff and the differences we create among ourselves – viewing each other as we do through the lenses of our human prejudices and misconceptions – would be little more than an illusion to be dissipated”.
It will (I hate to say this) never happen. There will always be people that believe what their culture teaches them. You are socialized into society from a very young age; a lot of what you believe is simply what you have learned from your culture.
Funny, I get the same utopian image of society if everybody could reject the idea of religions, accept that we do not know everything, and have a stronger sense of mind to face reality. The defining factor seems to be that everybody believes the same thing (which again is impossible).
@Jonathan McDonald
My answer is obtained within my narrative. I would suggest that not everybody reaches out to religion and God in times of need, I don’t. But those that have been taught that it is culturally appropriate to do so will do so. Our socialization becomes a part of who we are and directs our beliefs.
Also in my narrative, reaching out to God is not innate because God has not always been a creature to reach out to. Often God(s) were seen as malevolent (Greeks / Romans), or simply as spirits that resided in nature and made it work. People sought to please the Gods to avoid punishment because they thought that is how the World works.
Today, there is a focus on the benevolent God and less on explaining reality. Morals, parables, hymns, good ethics have taken a frontstage in Western religions. Thus, those that believe act on what the church and its culture teaches: to reach out to God in times of need.
Thame
Apr 11, 07:32 AM
You all make excellent points, and thank you Eric for describing everything so well.
Eric:
“For me, I don’t need a religion for comfort because I actively think about reality, come to my own conclusions, create my own philosophy. For many, but not all, this would be too tedious; instead, they turn towards pre-packaged religion that has the answers laid out for them – such is how religion is passed on.”
But what happens if you examined your reality but found no explanation? What happens when you just hit a cosmic brick wall?
Tarun:
“If there is a god, I don’t know why it created us. Can a god have desires?”
Good point. Saying there is a god still leaves a great deal unexplained.
Tom & KarmaDude: Eric really took care of things with that comment didn’t he :D
“I sometimes wonder if there could be someone or something outside the box, responsible for all this?”
I agree. We’re probably too boxed in our study of a creator or higher being to get away from our idea of a god.
Jonathan:
“Even today, the vast majority of the world is religious, almost as if we just can’t help it.”
While I think many people simply accept a god because that is how they were raised (that it is wrong to question God’s existence). It is therefore no wonder that we find ourselves in situations that we feel would require a higher power.
lr:
That idea also seems plausible and I think it is somewhat similar to what my family’s religion describes (although frankly, I’m not much of an expert).
lr
Apr 11, 01:16 PM
Thame:
I don’t want to sound too terribly “New Age”, being one part philosopher, one part Christian, one part merely spiritual and one part stubborn individual, but I think the only time we don’t see God is when we reach “out” for Him, rather than reach in or (in terms of what we share with other people, animals, nature) reach across. “Out” is just the wrong direction.
Thanks for the link. That’s a very interesting read. Alas, it doesn’t quite describe it for me so I’m still in search of a label for myself that fits. :) (That’d be very nice to have, then I could encompass in one breath everything I believe and people would understand it.)
Eric. I
I’m not sure that’s so terribly strange, considering you appear to reach “up” – toward a higher level of consciousness, awareness and intellectual understanding, which (I think) we all do, so I can’t agree it’s a stronger mindset: It’s one we all share.
I think we’re all reaching toward the same thing; we just have different names for it. From my perspective, whether one is spiritual, agnostic, atheist or any other “label”, the only trick to understanding and relating to them is to understand the semantics of their perspective on our awareness of the essence that defines us as “alive”.
I’ll shut up now before I get into the “tiny pinpoints of light” we all are. :)
Tom Martin
Apr 11, 10:17 PM
Here is a little analogy that I always use to explain my view on religions as a whole, to the friends of mine who can’t really grasp the more technical words (and by the way, I heard this analogy from one of my friends, but I remember not so I am not able to give credit where it’s due):
—
Imagine the world as one big forest with one lake, and each religion a different animal. As far as we know, every animal needs water, so naturally there will be paths to the lake. Most likely each animal will have it’s own path from it’s home to the lake. Each animal makes it’s own path, or follows closely to another’s path. Every path leads to the lake, the one commonplace where animals of all kinds can be seen. Every animal drinks from the same water, but takes a different path to get there.
—
In the end, I believe that if there is a higher power, every religion that believes in a Creator is right in their own way, whether it be reaching Enlightenment, or meeting Him in his House. Each religion has a relatively common endpoint, so who’s to say they aren’t all right. Honestly, religions should stop bickering over differences, and accept the fact that there will never be one religion, in the sense of all believing exactly the same teachings. In a sense, aren’t they all one religion if they believe in a common ending? In religion, I see the train of thought being “it matters not what the journey is, it is the end that is important” – but to a point.
I feel that I am starting to ramble, so I will take my leave for the night.
I may be right, I may be wrong. I figure that I’ll know when I’m done being flesh on this planet.
Atul
Apr 11, 11:10 PM
I believe, and it follows Hindu philosophy, that God is the universal consicousness and is pervasive in everything including each of us and other living beings. To me, that explains why a plant knows how to use nutrients to grow according to structural rules and why evolution happens. God is the intelligence in each of us that makes things like this happen. Additionally, each living being (at least animals), have their own consciousness. I find it hard to believe that our universe is a random occurrence. It is too well planned out.
I think the fault of some religions is that they are so human-centered. Why must God be human-like? So that we can relate. Going back to an earlier post, religion has the purpose of making people behave morally. God is not created by man though.
Another interesting thing I’ve always wondered about is… why does almost every religion instruct that we praise God and repeat God’s name? God doesn’t have an ego and God know’s He/She/It is great. Maybe if God does have an ego, that’s why we were created so that we could idolize God.
KarmaDude
Apr 12, 12:25 AM
The Flat Earth Society is a great example of however hard you try; there will always be people who refuse to accept the truth.
Same reasoning applies when it comes to God. For all the beliefs out there, the truth is, we know NOTHING about God. I feel a belief in God, is like the belief of a flat earth, it limits us rather than set us free.
And then the logic of all of us going to the same place—-well there might be some truth to that if you look at Earth as the big waterhole. There is a good chance that we might not be going anywhere, and just get’s recycled right here.
I think we have carried this belief long enough, why not just let go, and move on, and just as we face life once we get here, why not face whatever is there after life, once we get there. The destination is unknown, so why worry about it, let’s treat it as a black box, and enjoy the journey.
Finally, I would like to leave with some food for thought, with the following Epicurean Paradox:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Atul
Apr 12, 09:37 AM
Good points Karmadud, like the last quote.
I think God is not warm and loving but objective and rational. Death should not be considered sad, (although for humans it usually is), but it shoudl be considered as necessary for life. Suffering is the tricky one. Every religion has an excuse as to why innocent babies must suffer and die. One thing that atheists haven’t sufficiently explained to me is how does an animal know how to grow from small cells into and adult?. Much of this growth happens before the animal has a brain. Also, I don’t believe that evolution happens by trial and error. There has to be some intelligence behind it. How can a frog re-engineer itself to adapt to its surroundings?
Tom Martin
Apr 12, 11:28 AM
Indeed that was a good point in that paradox, Karmadude.
In my first quarter of philosophy, the instructor gave us a poem, “Ithaka”, by By Constantine P. Cavafy. It basically says that the journey is more important than the ending. This is something I live by, in a way; I’d rather have a journey full of love and hope, hurt and despair than concentrating solely on the end goal, which is ultimately unknown.
The reason I say that is because I know I will die, and nobody knows what is after death. Might as well live an adventurous and interesting life than live for something unknown and far away.
Atul:
That is a good point and one that I have found myself pondering many nights. I do not know my science enough to say much from that perspective, and the structure of life does seem to have intelligence behind it.
I do think though, that the reason a frog can adapt to it’s climate is much the same as any other animal. Their body is affected by their surroundings, and must try to cope with it whie they are alive. When an egg is fertilized, doesn’t the child inherit the dominant traits, with the recessive ones having less chance to resurface as more generations go by? I don’t think that explains it enough though (I don’t know my science too well either.)
Eric. I
Apr 12, 01:38 PM
Atul:
“One thing that atheists haven’t sufficiently explained to me is how does an animal know how to grow from small cells into and adult?. Much of this growth happens before the animal has a brain.”
It has nothing to do with the brain, but rather the animal’s gene’s. The cells each follow the instructions that have been given to them.
“I don’t believe that evolution happens by trial and error. There has to be some intelligence behind it. How can a frog re-engineer itself to adapt to its surroundings?”.
I too can say that I too was once skeptical about this. But after looking into natural selection in my anthropology class (which will be my minor) and reading Darwin’s Origin of Species , I now have very little doubt in the theory of natural selection as the primary process of evolution.
Natural Selection in a Nutshell:
1) Animals are capable of reproducing faster than the food supply.
2) All species have variability (easily showable).
3) Due to #1, competition arises and therefore those with better adapted traits are more likely to survive.
4) Traits are heritable.
5) Over long stretches of time favourable traits accumulate until a new species is defined.
Darwin, Wallace an countless others have given clear examples of this happening. The Origin of Species is worth a read, but if you’re not very interested it is rather long and tedious.
KarmaDude
Apr 12, 02:14 PM
Eric, what you point out makes sense from an observational point of view, which is after the fact. I think what Atul is trying to get at is the old chicken or the egg dilemma.
What intelligence in the cells makes all this happen? If it all started from a single cell, then what are the properties of that cell which facilitates the creation of an egg in the first place? From then on how did a group of cells figure out they can store all the information needed in the DNA, and be created over and over from a single cell? How do these groups of cell know where to find the information, what to do with that information, and function in little groups that come together to make the whole?
Darwin gave us a new direction, but I feel we are still a long way from knowing the truth.
Eric. I
Apr 12, 02:59 PM
I agree, the question of origin has not been answered; however, natural selection and genes do answer Atul’s immediate questions.
In regards to origins, I do think that answers about how cells evolved and function are being slowly (or not that slowly depending on how you look at it) uncovered. I mean, how long have we known about DNA? Not that long.
Cells are too complex to have been the first organisms, and it is fairly plain to see that they evolved from simpler forms. The problem is that there’s no way for the simpler forms to be preserved for us.
When you get down to very simple life crazy things begin to happen: consider how DNA copies itself into RNA, and other similar processes. We’re only starting to understand such processes, but already the line between life and only matter is becoming blurred (some don’t even consider Virus’ to be life). (Perhaps others with more microbiology knowledge could add to that?).
I believe that the question of the origin of life is answerable and will be found, most likely sooner than later; however, the origin of matter and the universe is a completely different matter.
Thame
Apr 12, 06:41 PM
I think there is a common misconception that is creating some of this confusion concerning the origin of life.
Eric did a wonderful job of describing selection and evolution but there is another important aspect to understand before considering cell’s activities.
“What intelligence in the cells makes all this happen? If it all started from a single cell, then what are the properties of that cell which facilitates the creation of an egg in the first place? From then on how did a group of cells figure out they can store all the information needed in the DNA, and be created over and over from a single cell? How do these groups of cell know where to find the information, what to do with that information, and function in little groups that come together to make the whole?”
Cells, in themselves, do not know anything. All of their activities and processes (whether inter- or intracellular) are created by the functions of various enzymes coded by their DNA.
No cell is figuring out anything, it is simply the result of chance mutations/combinations that result in an advantageous feature that is selected for in the organism’s environment.
As for the origin of DNA, it is most likely that RNA was the first molecular storage molecule because it posesses some autocatalytic capabilities and could potentially replicate itself. Later on, some cells somehow gained the ability to store their information in DNA and since it is more stable than RNA, it was selected for by the environment and eventually replaced RNA as the main method for storing genetic information.
Eric:
“Consider how DNA copies itself into RNA, and other similar processes. We’re only starting to understand such processes.”
Actually, DNA replication and transcription is one of the best understood mechanisms in cell biology. I have some killer animations on a CD that came with my textbook that I’ll try to find. The videos are absolutely stunning!
“Some don’t even consider Virus’ to be life.”
I am by no stretch a microbiologist, but I personally don’t consider a virus to be alive. While we might categorize them as living based on their characteristics (they replicate, metabolize, have some enzymatic activity and usually carry genetic information), these characteristics become much less lifelike when examined in realy life. Viruses replicate using a host cell’s machinery and do not actively transcribe and translate their genetic information. In most cases, they simply insert this information into the host cell’s genome and let it do the dirty work.
KarmaDude
Apr 12, 09:46 PM
Cells, in themselves, do not know anything.
Thame, don’t you think that’s a premature statement to make, especially when in reality we ourselves don’t completely understand how cells work and think. If we did, the question about origin of life would not be a complex one to answer!!
I mean, it would take me years of education to even spell protein, and these cells are smart enough to look up instructions in our genes, and create complex proteins, follow commands from the other cells, work as a group, and all the other complex functions they perform. Sure we can observe their functions, but that does not mean they don’t know anything, you will probably have to be in their shoes to know that for sure.
But there is a lot of information out there on studies of microbial behavior, which give us some insight into the microbial mind, without having to step into their shoes. Here is a good read about micro-minds – http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/microminds.html
KarmaDude
Apr 12, 10:09 PM
In most cases, they simply insert this information into the host cell’s genome and let it do the dirty work.
The part that is intriguing here is the fact that viruses just don’t infect any cell they encounter, there are selective in nature. A HIV targets macrophages, polio targets certain spinal nerves, hepatitis targets liver cells, and rabies targets the brain.
So, there seems to some kind of thought and decision making going on here, which makes me wonder if they are indeed alive. You always get the easy explanation, they inject information into a cell kind, but the part that no one explains is firstly how did the virus know which cell to look for, and then once it found it, how does it know that it needs to inject its information into the host cell? Unless some off these questions are answered, it’s tough to make any certain conclusions about a virus.
ok I will shut up now :)
Thame
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
“I mean, it would take me years of education to even spell protein, and these cells are smart enough to look up instructions in our genes, and create complex proteins, follow commands from the other cells, work as a group, and all the other complex functions they perform. Sure we can observe their functions, but that does not mean they don’t know anything, you will probably have to be in their shoes to know that for sure.”
No no no.
You cannot view the cell’s processes as being in any way “thought-out” or considered. Molecular reactions are happening because of random collisions between, for example, and enzyme and it’s substrate that produces a certain effect because of a resulting change in the conformation of both things involved.
Even in complex multicellular interactions, nothing is in any way “thought” by the cells. There are simple feedback loops and reaction cascades that are then destroyed by themselves (in the cell cycle regulations mechanisms for example).
It’s really late and I can’t get into the details, but cells are not in the human-sense “thinking” about these processes. They simply happen because of chance mutations that were selected for by their environment that happened to produce enzymes with certain functions.
“The part that is intriguing here is the fact that viruses just don’t infect any cell they encounter, there are selective in nature. A HIV targets macrophages, polio targets certain spinal nerves, hepatitis targets liver cells, and rabies targets the brain.”
That is also not a result of any cellular thought process. There are receptors on the HIV virus that bind only to certain membrane proteins that are found in macrophages.
Atul
Apr 12, 10:52 PM
Eric,
I would believe that evolution is random if thousands of combinations of significant mutations were continually created, but it seems that minor mutations are what typically occur. And they are so inconsequential that they wouldn’t impact the survival of the species.
Maybe I’m losing all sense of the time scale of evolution, but it seems to me that there would be many more combinations of significant mutations of all species at any given point in time. There should be 1,000 significantly different subspecies of alligators right now. Some are doomed, others will survive. If there are only 4 subspecies, and they all happened due to a mutation in one particular animal, how can a mutation that increases the likelihood of survival become prevalent when it is not always going to be a dominant gene?
I’m thinking as I type so I apologgize that some of my comments might not make complete sense.
Atul
As for cells not having to know what to do, that it happens by way of RNA and DNA, how can we explain the combination of cells into an organism. What tells the living being that kidney cells have already been created so new cells need to become bone tissue. The system aspect of an organism has to be orchestrated with more than DNA and RNA signals. I understand that hormones play a role, but still, a hormone is just a substance. How does the cell at one end know that everything is as it should be at the other end of the organism?
Eric. I
Apr 13, 07:31 AM
Atul:
“There should be 1,000 significantly different subspecies of alligators right now,”. Darwin actually thoroughly covers these kind of objections.
First, it’s not that mutations are the main thing creating new species, it’s the fact that each and every one species vary in some degree. Humans are a great example, no two people look the same. In fact, if you plot traits onto a graph (for example height) it nearly always forms a bell curve.
When natural selection happens it occurs on the extremes of the bell curve, and over time the entire population shifts.
But natural selection does not always happen: if nothing effects the survival, or more importantly the reproduction, of an individual natural selection need not occur. So if the environment of an animal changes, that different environment is likely to favour certain traits over others; however, if the environment stays the same, no evolution.
This might explain alligators lack of change, nothing about how they live has changed much over millions of years.
Secondly, in reference to there being thousands of alligators, why isn’t there thousands of offshoots for every species? You have to remember two things that happen as populations evolve.
Number one, those former species have now directly evolved into new forms. The modern alligator is not exactly the same as fossil alligators. The same with humans, we have at least 4 “homo” species leading directly to us, but those species no longer exist because they are us, they evolved.
Number two, new varieties directly compete with other varieties in the same environment. Therefore, the better adapted is likely to survive while the other perishes. This explains why species evolve into new ones while offshoots are minimized. It is why our many australapithecine ancestors no longer survive: the one that lead to the homo line was better adapted; due to competition, the other species died out while only one survived.
So this is roughly how the number of species can be limited: environment must change or the species will stay the same, and competition among species stops all possibilities from continuing.
Think about how perfect animals are for where they are in nature. Natural selection explains that perfectness very well.
“How does the cell at one end know that everything is as it should be at the other end of the organism?”. Yes hormones do play a role, and also the entire nervous system. Both tell cells what to do at what times. If you’re asking how, for example, the shape of a lung can form then natural selection can also answer that.
The cells don’t know what the lung’s shape is, but rather have simply been put into place by the genes that are acted on by natural selection. It seems impossible to be this simple, but it isn’t that hard to believe once you consider how many many generations could contribute to the shape of a lung (I was going to go on here but i’ve typed enough).
In other news, researchers have just made cell division go in reverse the article demonstrates how very specific processes regulate cells and backs up what thame’s saying.
Eric. I
Apr 13, 07:38 AM
Also, if you have some time Chapter 4 in the Origin of Species makes some very good points. The entire book should really be read, but this is the main chapter.
KarmaDude
Apr 13, 10:49 AM
Thame, I think we are looking at this differently; I am not really talking about the processes within a cell, and neither the chemistry of things. What I am trying to get at is the nature of a cell, the personality of a cell, the behavior of a cell.
Even in the case of enzymes, if you look at any metabolic pathway, there is nothing random about them, there could be errors, but as long as it works, the metabolic product is always the same. And even the feedback loops, have a purpose of regulating things, almost like there is a language of chemistry being spoken.
An explanation using randomness, is for me not explaining anything. Take something as basic as the urea cycle or photosynthesis, why would something that specific in function, a random creation, when it has a very specific function to perform? Enzymes act as a catalyst to speed up reactions, why would an enzyme be created randomly, when there is a very specific function for a particular enzyme? It’s like saying the enzyme came first and then the function after, in that case why not any enzyme, why does it have to be specific
Eric, this is how I like to think about natural selection—-Let’s say I switch jobs from working with computers to a construction job. As I get into the job, my weak muscles start to strain to perform this new job, which requires more strength. A sequence of events transpire, where the body figures out, hey let’s add on more muscle cells, to meet the strength demand, and over time I grow stronger. Now let’s say after a couple of years, I return to my desk job, and another sequence of events transpire, and the body figures out that there are a bunch of cells doing nothing, so let’s cut back, and get rid of the ones that are not needed, and over time, my new gained strength vanishes. Now if I continue doing construction, my kids do the same thing, and many generations later, chances are I would have bred very strong individuals via natural selection. Just like breeding a fast horse, or better yielding livestock etc…this is where Darwin got the idea for natural selection.
But what it does not explain or provide is the complete blueprint for this process. I feel, to say all this is random is just blatant ignorance, because if you look carefully, and observe correctly, there is a great deal of method to the madness. Darwin has shown us a path, not the destination; we have gone further down the path, but no where near the end. So to use concepts like natural selection and explain things away as random, does not really give the complete picture. And that’s why I have raised the questions I have.
Thame
Apr 13, 07:31 PM
Karmadude:
“I am not really talking about the processes within a cell, and neither the chemistry of things. What I am trying to get at is the nature of a cell, the personality of a cell, the behavior of a cell.”
The two (biology/chemistry & behavior) are one and the same. A cell would have no function and would exhibit no activity without the enzymatic processes that are coded for by its genetic code.
“Even in the case of enzymes, if you look at any metabolic pathway, there is nothing random about them, there could be errors, but as long as it works, the metabolic product is always the same. And even the feedback loops, have a purpose of regulating things, almost like there is a language of chemistry being spoken.”
We must separate our analysis of these functions from what is actually going on. To us, since they are so similar to activities we regulate on a macroscopic level every day, they seem to be “thought-out”.
The activities that create this cellular personality are not planned.
A typical cyclical regulatory activity is initiated by some environmental factor. The activated enzyme then activates numerous other proteins throughout the cell (through random collisions) that have some impact on the cell. In the case of the cell life-cycle regulatory mechanism, a kinase activates enzymes associated with progression through a phase in the life cycle and also activates an enzyme that will eventually tag the original kinase for destruction.
Don’t ask me how a collection of cells can have a personality (like a human), but individual cells do not have a personality or other kind of thought process behind their activities. It is all a wonderfully beautiful collection of tightly controlled inter- and intracellular interactions.
Eric. I
Apr 13, 08:11 PM
“Now if I continue doing construction, my kids do the same thing, and many generations later, chances are I would have bred very strong individuals via natural selection”. Nope, this is not the theory of natural selction. Rather it is the theory of acquired characteristics thought up by Jean Baptiste Lamarck
The life experiences have nothing to do with evolution beyond reproduction and survival. To breed stronger lineages you must select those that have the genes that naturally predispose a creature to be stronger, not those that work out the most.
I’m not sure what you mean by random. There is little that is random about natural selection. Every species varies and always has; for example, how many hair colors and types are there today? If one had an advantage it would then be selected.
If you’re refering to random genetic mutation then natural selection does not address the issue at all; that is a problem for genetics.
I agree, natural selection is not the entire picture and we’re working on that. But it must also be remembered that natural selection explains the vast majority of occurences, and that it is so widely accepted because of statistics that completely back-up the theory..
Thame
Apr 13, 08:54 PM
Sorry if I’m missing some of these comments, but Eric is right. Basically, a change in the somatic (body) cells is evolutionarily unimportant. Only changes in the germ line which create an organism’s gametes (sex cells) are important because it is the genetic information in these that will be passed to new organisms and will create a modified genetic base that can then be selected.
KarmaDude
Apr 17, 02:53 PM
Eric: Depends which edition of The Origin of Species you have read, because what I am talking about is heredity, and Darwin did adopt some Lamarckian ideas later on. And you cannot brush of heredity. A great example of this is the evolutions of migration in birds. How does navigational information get stored? Ever thought of that?
Thame: What is missing is the logic behind the functioning of a cell, and its creation. We know the chemical reactions, the syntax, what we don’t know is the entire semantics. Every experience in life can contribute to evolution.
We tend to think of the whole, but we think because the parts figured out how to make us think first, so then do the parts think? I mean we can take each and every part that makes us, and question how could it be a random process? Every time I look at my eyes, I wonder, how could the parts figure out a lens, they must know the physics of optics, if its random mutations, how do they know when to stop?!
Unless we understand the intelligence of a cell and their social behavior, we are never going to be able to answer how they do what they do. Their language of chemistry tells us a lot, but I feel that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Thame
Apr 17, 10:59 PM
“I mean we can take each and every part that makes us, and question how could it be a random process? Every time I look at my eyes, I wonder, how could the parts figure out a lens, they must know the physics of optics, if its random mutations, how do they know when to stop?!”
I understand where you’re coming from and it certainly seems like a difficult problem to explain. The most interesting part of this questions (the formation of our eyes again does not require any individual cells to know of their function within the whole) is in the brain. I am curious to know at what point of brain growth that the activity becomes controlled with a definite sense of self or at least definite self-control.
Eric Irvine
Apr 26, 11:05 AM
The following video is also roughly congruent with what I think:
We’re all just monkeys.
I really think that the human perspective is completely off; to us, humans are the entire universe.