Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Is there a force of evolution?

PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 11:16:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(Note: the first four paragraphs not including this one can be skipped if one so wished - it is basic commentary, but is useful to understanding the topic.) We are currently aware of four main forces in the universe (that is, gravity, strong/weak nuclear, and electromagnetic); however, I believe that another force should be added to these four: the force of evolution. So, I do not mean the forces that drive evolution in the sense of mutations and natural selection, but that there is a force of evolution.

To begin with showing why I believe this to be the case, let's first take a look at gravity. Suppose you've never experienced gravity's effects and that you've never even heard of the term before. Now, imagine that you are holding a pencil. Based solely on this knowledge, if you were to let go of the pencil, where would it travel? Anywhere, you may think. It could go up, down, left, right, or maybe even stay in place. There's nothing suggesting that it will go one way or the other - all options appear equally likely. So you let go and find out. It falls down. You try again. It falls down. And again. And again. And again. This is a persistent deviation from randomness (as it only travels in one direction as opposed to all the other equally likely directions it could have gone in).

Logically, this consistent deviation from random chance is what leads us to the conclusion that there is an invisible, unobserved force that is causing the pencil to fall down. Namely, gravity. Of course, a skeptic could easily argue that they do not believe in gravity - that every single instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that the pencil could have actually travelled in any other direction. While the skeptic is technically right in that this is a logical possibility, the probability of this being so is so infinitesimally small that the skeptic would be dismissed as irrational or unscientific, for the theory of gravity is the most likely alternative.

I believe that the force of evolution is a similar case.

The first step to proving its existence is understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Now, many understand this law, so I'll only briefly cover this topic. While this law specifically states that, in a closed system, entropy will increase (i.e. order will degenerate toward disorder), this does not exclude the possibility that an open system may also have increases in entropy. In an open system, if we wish to avoid an increase in chaos, we must put energy into the system; however, energy cannot simply be randomly put into the system, as this will simply lead toward more disorder. Energy must be put into the system in such a way that disorder will form toward order and complexity. For example, if you have a room full of gas and you simply add energy to the molecules, it will only increase their kinetic energy and will simply increase entropy; however, if you have a plant and you give it a very specific form of energy (light from the sun), it will flourish and grow toward a more complex and orderly state.

We should realize that in the world, we have three main systems. There are some that are evolving from disorderly toward orderly states, some that are stable, and some that are evolving from orderly toward disorderly states. If there is such a system that is evolving from a disorderly to an orderly state, then it is clear that there is some kind of input of energy that is causing the entropy of the system to decrease. This can either be a visible force (like the sun's light being absorbed by the plant) or an unobservable force that is decreasing entropy (similar to how gravity pushes a pencil down).

Let's take a look at a system that is evolving from a disorderly toward an orderly state.

In the observable, known universe, perhaps the most complex and highly ordered thing is the human being, containing a fascinating brain and nervous system. It is clear that, because the human being is the most highly ordered structure we know of, it is also one of the most improbable physical systems, meaning it is least likely to have been produced by random chance. Through evolution, we can see that there is a general trend - beings take initially disordered and simple forms and gradually developed toward higher order forms that are less likely to have formed. In other words, it is a process of moving from more probable to less probable configurations. From disorder to order.

It is to my knowledge that the first, crude forms of invertebrates appeared no earlier than 600 million years ago (most likely a sponge like creature); consequentially, the process of evolution from these odd invertebrates to humans took no longer than 600 million years. Now, this is a fairly short time span from a geological perspective, and we can see that evolution wasn't a smooth process. It was instead punctuated by short periods of rapid change, and had long periods of stability in between. Within this short time frame, there was a distinct and consistent deviation from randomness, and instead had a persistent move from disorder to order, from more probable to less probable configurations.

It is, therefore, irrational to claim that this would be left up to chance. If it were left up to chance, the transformation from one species to the next could take billions of years, let alone millions or a few thousand. Instead, it happens in a quicker time span (sometimes an observable one), and to claim that this is due to chance is just like the skeptic claiming that every instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that one day everything could just start flying off in different directions. The reason we say gravity isn't left to chance is because there is a persistent deviation from randomness - the same occurs with evolution, and we are thus forced to conclude that there is indeed a force of evolution.

I am paraphrasing this from William S. Hatcher, though I believe he stated it better than I. He later goes on and attempts to show that this evolutionary force is actually God, but that's for another discussion and requires a whole new argument. I do believe, however, that there is a force of evolution.

What are your thoughts on this?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 4:49:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 11:16:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
(Note: the first four paragraphs not including this one can be skipped if one so wished - it is basic commentary, but is useful to understanding the topic.) We are currently aware of four main forces in the universe (that is, gravity, strong/weak nuclear, and electromagnetic); however, I believe that another force should be added to these four: the force of evolution. So, I do not mean the forces that drive evolution in the sense of mutations and natural selection, but that there is a force of evolution.

To begin with showing why I believe this to be the case, let's first take a look at gravity. Suppose you've never experienced gravity's effects and that you've never even heard of the term before. Now, imagine that you are holding a pencil. Based solely on this knowledge, if you were to let go of the pencil, where would it travel? Anywhere, you may think. It could go up, down, left, right, or maybe even stay in place. There's nothing suggesting that it will go one way or the other - all options appear equally likely. So you let go and find out. It falls down. You try again. It falls down. And again. And again. And again. This is a persistent deviation from randomness (as it only travels in one direction as opposed to all the other equally likely directions it could have gone in).

Logically, this consistent deviation from random chance is what leads us to the conclusion that there is an invisible, unobserved force that is causing the pencil to fall down. Namely, gravity. Of course, a skeptic could easily argue that they do not believe in gravity - that every single instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that the pencil could have actually travelled in any other direction. While the skeptic is technically right in that this is a logical possibility, the probability of this being so is so infinitesimally small that the skeptic would be dismissed as irrational or unscientific, for the theory of gravity is the most likely alternative.

I believe that the force of evolution is a similar case.

The first step to proving its existence is understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Now, many understand this law, so I'll only briefly cover this topic. While this law specifically states that, in a closed system, entropy will increase (i.e. order will degenerate toward disorder), this does not exclude the possibility that an open system may also have increases in entropy. In an open system, if we wish to avoid an increase in chaos, we must put energy into the system; however, energy cannot simply be randomly put into the system, as this will simply lead toward more disorder. Energy must be put into the system in such a way that disorder will form toward order and complexity. For example, if you have a room full of gas and you simply add energy to the molecules, it will only increase their kinetic energy and will simply increase entropy; however, if you have a plant and you give it a very specific form of energy (light from the sun), it will flourish and grow toward a more complex and orderly state.

We should realize that in the world, we have three main systems. There are some that are evolving from disorderly toward orderly states, some that are stable, and some that are evolving from orderly toward disorderly states. If there is such a system that is evolving from a disorderly to an orderly state, then it is clear that there is some kind of input of energy that is causing the entropy of the system to decrease. This can either be a visible force (like the sun's light being absorbed by the plant) or an unobservable force that is decreasing entropy (similar to how gravity pushes a pencil down).

Let's take a look at a system that is evolving from a disorderly toward an orderly state.

In the observable, known universe, perhaps the most complex and highly ordered thing is the human being, containing a fascinating brain and nervous system. It is clear that, because the human being is the most highly ordered structure we know of, it is also one of the most improbable physical systems, meaning it is least likely to have been produced by random chance. Through evolution, we can see that there is a general trend - beings take initially disordered and simple forms and gradually developed toward higher order forms that are less likely to have formed. In other words, it is a process of moving from more probable to less probable configurations. From disorder to order.

It is to my knowledge that the first, crude forms of invertebrates appeared no earlier than 600 million years ago (most likely a sponge like creature); consequentially, the process of evolution from these odd invertebrates to humans took no longer than 600 million years. Now, this is a fairly short time span from a geological perspective, and we can see that evolution wasn't a smooth process. It was instead punctuated by short periods of rapid change, and had long periods of stability in between. Within this short time frame, there was a distinct and consistent deviation from randomness, and instead had a persistent move from disorder to order, from more probable to less probable configurations.

It is, therefore, irrational to claim that this would be left up to chance. If it were left up to chance, the transformation from one species to the next could take billions of years, let alone millions or a few thousand. Instead, it happens in a quicker time span (sometimes an observable one), and to claim that this is due to chance is just like the skeptic claiming that every instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that one day everything could just start flying off in different directions. The reason we say gravity isn't left to chance is because there is a persistent deviation from randomness - the same occurs with evolution, and we are thus forced to conclude that there is indeed a force of evolution.

I am paraphrasing this from William S. Hatcher, though I believe he stated it better than I. He later goes on and attempts to show that this evolutionary force is actually God, but that's for another discussion and requires a whole new argument. I do believe, however, that there is a force of evolution.

What are your thoughts on this?

As far as I understand, the second law of thermodynamics IS the driving force of evolution, life performs an effective function of helping a system tend to a higher state of entropy, by overcoming energy barriers which would have made it difficult otherwise (there is a reason why glucose or dynamite doesn't spontaneously combust).

You might be interested in my first round argument vs garretgadedupre (below) which has my full view on it for abiogenesis, but it applies to evolution as well. It's more of a chemists perspective than a biologists.

http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 4:52:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 9:14:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 4:49:25 AM, Envisage wrote:

As far as I understand, the second law of thermodynamics IS the driving force of evolution, life performs an effective function of helping a system tend to a higher state of entropy, by overcoming energy barriers which would have made it difficult otherwise (there is a reason why glucose or dynamite doesn't spontaneously combust).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the second law of thermodynamics IS the driving force of evolution."

Rather, I was arguing that because evolution shows a persistent deviation from randomness (rather, a deviation from entropy and toward order), there should be a force of evolution. I am confused as to how the second law would be the driving force of evolution, when I argue that the proof of the force of evolution is in the opposition to the concept of the second law of thermodynamics (since earth is not a closed system and entropy is decreasing with higher ordered life forms).


You might be interested in my first round argument vs garretgadedupre (below) which has my full view on it for abiogenesis, but it applies to evolution as well. It's more of a chemists perspective than a biologists.

http://www.debate.org...

Thank you. I'll take a look at it.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 9:28:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 11:16:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
(Note: the first four paragraphs not including this one can be skipped if one so wished - it is basic commentary, but is useful to understanding the topic.) We are currently aware of four main forces in the universe (that is, gravity, strong/weak nuclear, and electromagnetic); however, I believe that another force should be added to these four: the force of evolution. So, I do not mean the forces that drive evolution in the sense of mutations and natural selection, but that there is a force of evolution.

To begin with showing why I believe this to be the case, let's first take a look at gravity. Suppose you've never experienced gravity's effects and that you've never even heard of the term before. Now, imagine that you are holding a pencil. Based solely on this knowledge, if you were to let go of the pencil, where would it travel? Anywhere, you may think. It could go up, down, left, right, or maybe even stay in place. There's nothing suggesting that it will go one way or the other - all options appear equally likely. So you let go and find out. It falls down. You try again. It falls down. And again. And again. And again. This is a persistent deviation from randomness (as it only travels in one direction as opposed to all the other equally likely directions it could have gone in).

Logically, this consistent deviation from random chance is what leads us to the conclusion that there is an invisible, unobserved force that is causing the pencil to fall down. Namely, gravity. Of course, a skeptic could easily argue that they do not believe in gravity - that every single instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that the pencil could have actually travelled in any other direction. While the skeptic is technically right in that this is a logical possibility, the probability of this being so is so infinitesimally small that the skeptic would be dismissed as irrational or unscientific, for the theory of gravity is the most likely alternative.

I believe that the force of evolution is a similar case.

The first step to proving its existence is understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Now, many understand this law, so I'll only briefly cover this topic. While this law specifically states that, in a closed system, entropy will increase (i.e. order will degenerate toward disorder), this does not exclude the possibility that an open system may also have increases in entropy. In an open system, if we wish to avoid an increase in chaos, we must put energy into the system; however, energy cannot simply be randomly put into the system, as this will simply lead toward more disorder. Energy must be put into the system in such a way that disorder will form toward order and complexity. For example, if you have a room full of gas and you simply add energy to the molecules, it will only increase their kinetic energy and will simply increase entropy; however, if you have a plant and you give it a very specific form of energy (light from the sun), it will flourish and grow toward a more complex and orderly state.

We should realize that in the world, we have three main systems. There are some that are evolving from disorderly toward orderly states, some that are stable, and some that are evolving from orderly toward disorderly states. If there is such a system that is evolving from a disorderly to an orderly state, then it is clear that there is some kind of input of energy that is causing the entropy of the system to decrease. This can either be a visible force (like the sun's light being absorbed by the plant) or an unobservable force that is decreasing entropy (similar to how gravity pushes a pencil down).

Let's take a look at a system that is evolving from a disorderly toward an orderly state.

In the observable, known universe, perhaps the most complex and highly ordered thing is the human being, containing a fascinating brain and nervous system. It is clear that, because the human being is the most highly ordered structure we know of, it is also one of the most improbable physical systems, meaning it is least likely to have been produced by random chance. Through evolution, we can see that there is a general trend - beings take initially disordered and simple forms and gradually developed toward higher order forms that are less likely to have formed. In other words, it is a process of moving from more probable to less probable configurations. From disorder to order.

It is to my knowledge that the first, crude forms of invertebrates appeared no earlier than 600 million years ago (most likely a sponge like creature); consequentially, the process of evolution from these odd invertebrates to humans took no longer than 600 million years. Now, this is a fairly short time span from a geological perspective, and we can see that evolution wasn't a smooth process. It was instead punctuated by short periods of rapid change, and had long periods of stability in between. Within this short time frame, there was a distinct and consistent deviation from randomness, and instead had a persistent move from disorder to order, from more probable to less probable configurations.

It is, therefore, irrational to claim that this would be left up to chance. If it were left up to chance, the transformation from one species to the next could take billions of years, let alone millions or a few thousand. Instead, it happens in a quicker time span (sometimes an observable one), and to claim that this is due to chance is just like the skeptic claiming that every instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that one day everything could just start flying off in different directions. The reason we say gravity isn't left to chance is because there is a persistent deviation from randomness - the same occurs with evolution, and we are thus forced to conclude that there is indeed a force of evolution.

I am paraphrasing this from William S. Hatcher, though I believe he stated it better than I. He later goes on and attempts to show that this evolutionary force is actually God, but that's for another discussion and requires a whole new argument. I do believe, however, that there is a force of evolution.

What are your thoughts on this?

First congratulations because I rarely read such long threads, but you got my attention.

I have two things I want you to explain to me in order to answer.

1) Why do you assume a human being, animal, or whatever, are expamples of order? This order/disorder distinction feels deeply subjective to me. Could you elaborate a little more?

2) Evolution doesn't occur "by chance" as you have said. The only random thing in evolution, in anything, would be mutation. So is your evolution-force hypothesis really needed to explain evolution?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:22:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 9:28:34 AM, Otokage wrote:

1) Why do you assume a human being, animal, or whatever, are expamples of order? This order/disorder distinction feels deeply subjective to me. Could you elaborate a little more?

It's based off of entropy, the disorder of the system. You believe this is subjective, but it's actually quite objective. A higher entropy means more microstates. A microstate, in the context of chemistry, are the possible arrangements and energies of the molecules in a system in a particular moment. This is why liquid and gases have higher entropy than solids - they exhibit molecules with higher kinetic energy and more possible arrangements than solids.


2) Evolution doesn't occur "by chance" as you have said. The only random thing in evolution, in anything, would be mutation. So is your evolution-force hypothesis really needed to explain evolution?

The point of the post, I suppose, was to demonstrate that there is a fifth force in addition to the other four forces. If we could continue replicating earth (as an experiment) with similar conditions, I believe that the force of evolution would consistently lead toward similar life forms in a similar amount of time. Yet a force of evolution does not seem to be recognized in this sense.

Most consider evolution a process that occurs by chance in the sense of natural cause and effect relationship. For example, people sometimes ask "Why haven't we grown wings yet?" or "Why does the body contain this useless function?". The answer, of course, is that there is no goal to evolution. With natural selection, it's similar to a trial and error process. This variation or mutation either enables the individual to produce more offspring or it doesn't.

In this sense, it appears to be by chance.

Furthermore, I was interested in Hatcher's argument for God, so I was interested in seeing how others would react to his initial premise.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:53:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:22:16 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/5/2014 9:28:34 AM, Otokage wrote:

1) Why do you assume a human being, animal, or whatever, are expamples of order? This order/disorder distinction feels deeply subjective to me. Could you elaborate a little more?

It's based off of entropy, the disorder of the system. You believe this is subjective, but it's actually quite objective. A higher entropy means more microstates. A microstate, in the context of chemistry, are the possible arrangements and energies of the molecules in a system in a particular moment. This is why liquid and gases have higher entropy than solids - they exhibit molecules with higher kinetic energy and more possible arrangements than solids.

I'm not an expert on physics, but can you actualy measure the entropy of a human body, and state it is bigger/smaller than the entropy of, ie, the atmosphere?

2) Evolution doesn't occur "by chance" as you have said. The only random thing in evolution, in anything, would be mutation. So is your evolution-force hypothesis really needed to explain evolution?

The point of the post, I suppose, was to demonstrate that there is a fifth force in addition to the other four forces. If we could continue replicating earth (as an experiment) with similar conditions, I believe that the force of evolution would consistently lead toward similar life forms in a similar amount of time. Yet a force of evolution does not seem to be recognized in this sense.

But outside your explanation, it is already expected that in similar conditions, evolution would produce the same life forms, since it is not a random process. What I do not understand is how "this force" of yours fits into the theory, and how it improves it?

Most consider evolution a process that occurs by chance in the sense of natural cause and effect relationship. For example, people sometimes ask "Why haven't we grown wings yet?" or "Why does the body contain this useless function?". The answer, of course, is that there is no goal to evolution. With natural selection, it's similar to a trial and error process. This variation or mutation either enables the individual to produce more offspring or it doesn't.

In this sense, it appears to be by chance.

But if you are doing something "by trial and error", you are not doing it "by chance", are you? If it really were a "by chance" process, errors wouldn't matter to the outcome.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 12:15:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:53:32 AM, Otokage wrote:

I'm not an expert on physics, but can you actualy measure the entropy of a human body, and state it is bigger/smaller than the entropy of, ie, the atmosphere?

The atmosphere has a higher entropy than the human body, as it is composed of gases and is immensely larger than it. Necessarily, there are far more possible microstates in the atmosphere than the human body.


But outside your explanation, it is already expected that in similar conditions, evolution would produce the same life forms, since it is not a random process. What I do not understand is how "this force" of yours fits into the theory, and how it improves it?

I'm not sure it improves it, but you ask how the force fits into the theory of evolution. I claim that evolution itself is a force that exists within the universe, similar to the other four forces we are aware of, such as gravity. In other words, there is a natural drive toward life in the form of evolution.


But if you are doing something "by trial and error", you are not doing it "by chance", are you? If it really were a "by chance" process, errors wouldn't matter to the outcome.

Yes, if I am the on doing the trial and error, it is obvious I am not doing something by chance. But evolution, as far as we know, isn't a conscious entity. If something works, it works. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. There is no choice in this process.

For example, if a baby animal were born without an eye (consider this a defect), then the baby would have a very hard time surviving in the wild, as it would have a blind spot, making it susceptible to predators. It will probably die and it wont be able to reproduce.

There is no choice in this. I used the term random to refer as the other alternative, but I suppose this presents a false dichotomy. I'm not sure what other term to use to refer to this. Naturalistic causes?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 12:26:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:53:32 AM, Otokage wrote:

I'm not an expert on physics, but can you actualy measure the entropy of a human body, and state it is bigger/smaller than the entropy of, ie, the atmosphere?

Also, I used to take an AP Chemistry class. There are several formulas for determining the entropy of a system, and it is mathematically verifiable. Entropy, in these formulas, is often denoted delta S, and from my memory, several other variables are needed to find this value. For example, you can determine entropy using a remodeled version of the Gibbs Free Energy equation, which is normally delta G = delta H - delta S. Simple algebra will allow you to attain the value of the entropy.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 12:28:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 12:26:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/5/2014 11:53:32 AM, Otokage wrote:

I'm not an expert on physics, but can you actualy measure the entropy of a human body, and state it is bigger/smaller than the entropy of, ie, the atmosphere?

Also, I used to take an AP Chemistry class. There are several formulas for determining the entropy of a system, and it is mathematically verifiable. Entropy, in these formulas, is often denoted delta S, and from my memory, several other variables are needed to find this value. For example, you can determine entropy using a remodeled version of the Gibbs Free Energy equation, which is normally delta G = delta H - delta S. Simple algebra will allow you to attain the value of the entropy.

Sorry, for some reason I forgot to add temperature.

delta G = delta H - T(delta S)
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 1:37:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 12:15:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/5/2014 11:53:32 AM, Otokage wrote:

I'm not an expert on physics, but can you actualy measure the entropy of a human body, and state it is bigger/smaller than the entropy of, ie, the atmosphere?

The atmosphere has a higher entropy than the human body, as it is composed of gases and is immensely larger than it. Necessarily, there are far more possible microstates in the atmosphere than the human body.


But outside your explanation, it is already expected that in similar conditions, evolution would produce the same life forms, since it is not a random process. What I do not understand is how "this force" of yours fits into the theory, and how it improves it?

I'm not sure it improves it, but you ask how the force fits into the theory of evolution. I claim that evolution itself is a force that exists within the universe, similar to the other four forces we are aware of, such as gravity. In other words, there is a natural drive toward life in the form of evolution.

Yes. But correct me if I'm wrong, you state that there's a force that somehow promotesforce promotes the organization of matter in levels of increasing complexity, from an element to the human body. But since this organization of matter is already efectively explained without your "force-hypothesis", what makes you think this force exists? I suppose this hypothesis did not come out of anything, but of something you have observed that suggested you the need to state the hypothesis to somehow explain something not explained in the theories we already know. What is it?


But if you are doing something "by trial and error", you are not doing it "by chance", are you? If it really were a "by chance" process, errors wouldn't matter to the outcome.

Yes, if I am the on doing the trial and error, it is obvious I am not doing something by chance. But evolution, as far as we know, isn't a conscious entity. If something works, it works. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. There is no choice in this process.

For example, if a baby animal were born without an eye (consider this a defect), then the baby would have a very hard time surviving in the wild, as it would have a blind spot, making it susceptible to predators. It will probably die and it wont be able to reproduce.

There is no choice in this. I used the term random to refer as the other alternative, but I suppose this presents a false dichotomy. I'm not sure what other term to use to refer to this. Naturalistic causes?

You could indeed call it "naturalistic causes", but since this naturalistic cause is mainly natural selection, saying it is "by chance" feels wrong, since "by chance" and "selection" really shouldn't go in the same sentence.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 1:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 1:37:36 PM, Otokage wrote:

Yes. But correct me if I'm wrong, you state that there's a force that somehow promotesforce promotes the organization of matter in levels of increasing complexity, from an element to the human body.

Correct.

But since this organization of matter is already efectively explained without your "force-hypothesis", what makes you think this force exists?

When there is a persistent deviation from random chance, there is clearly a force at work. It's just as I explained in the OP, about the pencil and gravity. The pencil could travel in any direction, but it consistently defies these other directions and instead travels downward. A skeptic could think to themselves that there is no force pushing it down and that it was just an incredible coincidence that it fell to the ground time and time again, but that would be irrational.

The same occurs with evolution. Throughout the history of the earth, there has been a persistent deviation from randomness as I've explained in the OP.

This is why I believe evolution should be considered a force instead of merely a process that happens.


You could indeed call it "naturalistic causes", but since this naturalistic cause is mainly natural selection, saying it is "by chance" feels wrong, since "by chance" and "selection" really shouldn't go in the same sentence.

You're right. Sorry for conflating the terminology together.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 3:31:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 11:16:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
So, I do not mean the forces that drive evolution in the sense of mutations and natural selection, but that there is a force of evolution.

The problem is that natural selection is the "force" that produces order (decreasing entropy in the very tenuous stretch of scientific terms) in evolution. The reason that we see a persistent deviation from randomness in life forms is natural selection. I am not quite sure how you just dismiss this by "I don't mean mutations and natural selection" when that is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

To use your own analogies, the argument you are trying to make is akin to me stating: is there a force of gravity? I don't mean like force that causes things with mass to attract, I mean why would thing with mass attract instead of repel each other? Or why would one thing care if another thing had mass at all? So there must be a force of gravity that makes gravity act the way it does.

So if you wish to ask a deeper question about why things are the way they are... we don't really know. But it doesn't make sense to dismiss things we do know (the driving force of evolution) along the way.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 2:08:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 11:16:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
(Note: the first four paragraphs not including this one can be skipped if one so wished - it is basic commentary, but is useful to understanding the topic.) We are currently aware of four main forces in the universe (that is, gravity, strong/weak nuclear, and electromagnetic); however, I believe that another force should be added to these four: the force of evolution. So, I do not mean the forces that drive evolution in the sense of mutations and natural selection, but that there is a force of evolution.

To begin with showing why I believe this to be the case, let's first take a look at gravity. Suppose you've never experienced gravity's effects and that you've never even heard of the term before. Now, imagine that you are holding a pencil. Based solely on this knowledge, if you were to let go of the pencil, where would it travel? Anywhere, you may think. It could go up, down, left, right, or maybe even stay in place. There's nothing suggesting that it will go one way or the other - all options appear equally likely. So you let go and find out. It falls down. You try again. It falls down. And again. And again. And again. This is a persistent deviation from randomness (as it only travels in one direction as opposed to all the other equally likely directions it could have gone in).

Logically, this consistent deviation from random chance is what leads us to the conclusion that there is an invisible, unobserved force that is causing the pencil to fall down. Namely, gravity. Of course, a skeptic could easily argue that they do not believe in gravity - that every single instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that the pencil could have actually travelled in any other direction. While the skeptic is technically right in that this is a logical possibility, the probability of this being so is so infinitesimally small that the skeptic would be dismissed as irrational or unscientific, for the theory of gravity is the most likely alternative.

I believe that the force of evolution is a similar case.

The first step to proving its existence is understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Now, many understand this law, so I'll only briefly cover this topic. While this law specifically states that, in a closed system, entropy will increase (i.e. order will degenerate toward disorder), this does not exclude the possibility that an open system may also have increases in entropy. In an open system, if we wish to avoid an increase in chaos, we must put energy into the system; however, energy cannot simply be randomly put into the system, as this will simply lead toward more disorder. Energy must be put into the system in such a way that disorder will form toward order and complexity. For example, if you have a room full of gas and you simply add energy to the molecules, it will only increase their kinetic energy and will simply increase entropy; however, if you have a plant and you give it a very specific form of energy (light from the sun), it will flourish and grow toward a more complex and orderly state.

We should realize that in the world, we have three main systems. There are some that are evolving from disorderly toward orderly states, some that are stable, and some that are evolving from orderly toward disorderly states. If there is such a system that is evolving from a disorderly to an orderly state, then it is clear that there is some kind of input of energy that is causing the entropy of the system to decrease. This can either be a visible force (like the sun's light being absorbed by the plant) or an unobservable force that is decreasing entropy (similar to how gravity pushes a pencil down).

Let's take a look at a system that is evolving from a disorderly toward an orderly state.

In the observable, known universe, perhaps the most complex and highly ordered thing is the human being, containing a fascinating brain and nervous system. It is clear that, because the human being is the most highly ordered structure we know of, it is also one of the most improbable physical systems, meaning it is least likely to have been produced by random chance. Through evolution, we can see that there is a general trend - beings take initially disordered and simple forms and gradually developed toward higher order forms that are less likely to have formed. In other words, it is a process of moving from more probable to less probable configurations. From disorder to order.

It is to my knowledge that the first, crude forms of invertebrates appeared no earlier than 600 million years ago (most likely a sponge like creature); consequentially, the process of evolution from these odd invertebrates to humans took no longer than 600 million years. Now, this is a fairly short time span from a geological perspective, and we can see that evolution wasn't a smooth process. It was instead punctuated by short periods of rapid change, and had long periods of stability in between. Within this short time frame, there was a distinct and consistent deviation from randomness, and instead had a persistent move from disorder to order, from more probable to less probable configurations.

It is, therefore, irrational to claim that this would be left up to chance. If it were left up to chance, the transformation from one species to the next could take billions of years, let alone millions or a few thousand. Instead, it happens in a quicker time span (sometimes an observable one), and to claim that this is due to chance is just like the skeptic claiming that every instance of gravity has been due to extraordinary chance, and that one day everything could just start flying off in different directions. The reason we say gravity isn't left to chance is because there is a persistent deviation from randomness - the same occurs with evolution, and we are thus forced to conclude that there is indeed a force of evolution.

I am paraphrasing this from William S. Hatcher, though I believe he stated it better than I. He later goes on and attempts to show that this evolutionary force is actually God, but that's for another discussion and requires a whole new argument. I do believe, however, that there is a force of evolution.

What are your thoughts on this?

You are positing a force that can't be measured, can't be verified, cannot be mathematically quantified, and isn't required to explain evolution.

You may as well suggest evolution fairies.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 4:50:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 3:31:46 PM, Floid wrote:

The problem is that natural selection is the "force" that produces order (decreasing entropy in the very tenuous stretch of scientific terms) in evolution. The reason that we see a persistent deviation from randomness in life forms is natural selection. I am not quite sure how you just dismiss this by "I don't mean mutations and natural selection" when that is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

Because natural selection and mutations alone do not comprise the entirety of evolution. They are merely components. For example, natural selection is entirely useless if there is no variation within the population.


To use your own analogies, the argument you are trying to make is akin to me stating: is there a force of gravity? I don't mean like force that causes things with mass to attract, I mean why would thing with mass attract instead of repel each other? Or why would one thing care if another thing had mass at all? So there must be a force of gravity that makes gravity act the way it does.

The analogy you provide is completely different from what I attempt to do. This kind of thinking will lead toward infinity, and we might as well be discussing the cosmological argument to determine if there is a first cause or not.

I'm not saying there is an invisible force causing evolution to work the way it does. I'm saying evolution is the force itself, and it should be regarded as a force instead of merely a process.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 4:53:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 2:08:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

You are positing a force that can't be measured, can't be verified, cannot be mathematically quantified, and isn't required to explain evolution.

That's incorrect. Entropy can be mathematically determined. We have methods that allow us to look back into the history of evolution to see the persistent deviation from randomness. I have provided reasoning as to why evolution should be regarded as a force.

To say it cannot be verified would be false.

You may as well suggest evolution fairies.

Evolution fairies? I propose that evolution is a force. How does one immediately think of fairies upon hearing this proposal?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:17:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 4:53:06 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/7/2014 2:08:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

You are positing a force that can't be measured, can't be verified, cannot be mathematically quantified, and isn't required to explain evolution.

That's incorrect. Entropy can be mathematically determined. We have methods that allow us to look back into the history of evolution to see the persistent deviation from randomness. I have provided reasoning as to why evolution should be regarded as a force.

To say it cannot be verified would be false.

You may as well suggest evolution fairies.

Evolution fairies? I propose that evolution is a force. How does one immediately think of fairies upon hearing this proposal?

Entropy isn't a force and tending towards a more disordered state is no more a "force" for evolution than it is for any mechanism of energy transfer, as this is really the only thing that it demonstratably relates to.

Th Deviation from randomness you speak of sufficiently explained by the non random selection of random changes. You can demonstrate it with a pack of cards or dice.

To posit that evolution is driven by anything more than what it has been experimentally verified as being driven by, which is what you are doing, is positing an unseen force. The fact that you claim it's entropy, which it isn't as entropy is not a force, doesn't make it verifiable or determinable. Having a way to measure it makes it verifiable.

You must establish a verifiable causal link and measurable effects. You have neither. You have basically said evolution is a force and linked it to entropy without doing gaterhing required facts or evidence to demonstrate anything.

This is what makes me think of fairies, as this is just a valid supposition as yours.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:22:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:17:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Entropy isn't a force and tending towards a more disordered state is no more a "force" for evolution than it is for any mechanism of energy transfer, as this is really the only thing that it demonstratably relates to.

I didn't say entropy is a force; however, for a system to consistently tend toward a less disordered and more complex state would require a visible input of some kind of energy or some unobservable force at work. I gave an example already with gas molecules in a room. If all the molecules suddenly grouped into the corner of the room and stayed there, there is a persistent deviation from randomness and there is thus some kind of input of energy or a force at work.

Th Deviation from randomness you speak of sufficiently explained by the non random selection of random changes. You can demonstrate it with a pack of cards or dice.

I don't understand your first statement at all. Regardless, I've already explained in the OP how a consistent deviation from randomness requires some kind of force at work.


To posit that evolution is driven by anything more than what it has been experimentally verified as being driven by, which is what you are doing, is positing an unseen force. The fact that you claim it's entropy, which it isn't as entropy is not a force, doesn't make it verifiable or determinable. Having a way to measure it makes it verifiable.

The fact that you think I'm claiming entropy is the force driving evolution shows that you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:47:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:22:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/7/2014 5:17:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Entropy isn't a force and tending towards a more disordered state is no more a "force" for evolution than it is for any mechanism of energy transfer, as this is really the only thing that it demonstratably relates to.

I didn't say entropy is a force; however, for a system to consistently tend toward a less disordered and more complex state would require a visible input of some kind of energy or some unobservable force at work. I gave an example already with gas molecules in a room. If all the molecules suddenly grouped into the corner of the room and stayed there, there is a persistent deviation from randomness and there is thus some kind of input of energy or a force at work.

You need to understand what entropy is and how it applies on the earth. Disorder increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, it derives energy from the sun (which does so by increasing entropy).

Evolution does not reverse entropy.

Th Deviation from randomness you speak of sufficiently explained by the non random selection of random changes. You can demonstrate it with a pack of cards or dice.

I don't understand your first statement at all. Regardless, I've already explained in the OP how a consistent deviation from randomness requires some kind of force at work.

I am not surprised you don't understand it. If you did, you would not be making these claims.

Mutations are random, natural selection from the environment and other statistical pressures are not. This introduces a bias that drives random changes in a particular direction.


To posit that evolution is driven by anything more than what it has been experimentally verified as being driven by, which is what you are doing, is positing an unseen force. The fact that you claim it's entropy, which it isn't as entropy is not a force, doesn't make it verifiable or determinable. Having a way to measure it makes it verifiable.

The fact that you think I'm claiming entropy is the force driving evolution shows that you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

When I claimed your force is not mathematically verifiable, you claimed that entropy is mathematically verifiable; I assumed you knew how entropy worked and were not claiming evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics. Now I understand that you don't understand entropy and especially don't understand how it pertains to evolution and that makes things a lot clearer. Thank you.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:54:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:47:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

You need to understand what entropy is and how it applies on the earth. Disorder increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, it derives energy from the sun (which does so by increasing entropy).

Again, I already pointed this out in my OP. I am already aware that I'm talking about open systems. Why do you think I keep talking about the input of energy and force? Such things can only occur in an open system.

It's quite obvious that I'm talking in this context.


Mutations are random, natural selection from the environment and other statistical pressures are not. This introduces a bias that drives random changes in a particular direction.

I am already aware of this.


When I claimed your force is not mathematically verifiable, you claimed that entropy is mathematically verifiable;

Yes, because we can mathematically verify entropy, which is related to my argument of how evolution is a force. This does not mean that I assumed entropy is a force.

I assumed you knew how entropy worked and were not claiming evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics.

Already addressed above. If you understood what I was saying and actually read what I wrote in the OP, you'd realize that I'm quite obviously and clearly talking in the context of an open system.

Now I understand that you don't understand entropy and especially don't understand how it pertains to evolution and that makes things a lot clearer. Thank you.

It's clear you still don't understand what I'm saying.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 9:03:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:54:02 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/7/2014 5:47:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

You need to understand what entropy is and how it applies on the earth. Disorder increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, it derives energy from the sun (which does so by increasing entropy).

Again, I already pointed this out in my OP. I am already aware that I'm talking about open systems. Why do you think I keep talking about the input of energy and force? Such things can only occur in an open system.

It's quite obvious that I'm talking in this context.

But in so doing you are completely missing the point.

You are claiming the earth is an open system, then incorrectly stating that localised order cannot increase, which is wrong, for the very reason that it is an open system. Which is why I am stating you don't understand entropy, With an influx of energy, that can be converted to other forms, complexity can be decreased locally as the entropy in the closed system can decrease.

Whenever someone eats and puts on weight, tidies their room, builds a house, constructs a Lego model, makes a sand castle, separates their whites from their colours they are locally decreasing entropy by adding order into the system.

Do you require some magic force to be in existence in order to explain sand castles? No. It is a simple result of adding order by converting energy from one form to another.

With energy you can add order, but the process of obtaining that energy will always add more disorder than you can create by using it.


Mutations are random, natural selection from the environment and other statistical pressures are not. This introduces a bias that drives random changes in a particular direction.

I am already aware of this.

Yet are positing an imaginary force that creates the order instead if the systemic bias in the system created as a result of organisms exploiting existing forms of energy to create order.


When I claimed your force is not mathematically verifiable, you claimed that entropy is mathematically verifiable;

Yes, because we can mathematically verify entropy, which is related to my argument of how evolution is a force. This does not mean that I assumed entropy is a force.

So when I said your force is not mathematically verifiable, and then you replied by saying entropy is mathematically verifiable, if entropy is not the force itself, it means you didn't answer the question and your force remains mathematically unverifiable.

I assumed you knew how entropy worked and were not claiming evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics.

Already addressed above. If you understood what I was saying and actually read what I wrote in the OP, you'd realize that I'm quite obviously and clearly talking in the context of an open system.

Well not really, for the reasons I cited above, the reason is you believe that order can't increase locally in an open system. It can. Even in a closed system you can have locally increasing order matched with a global decrease in order for the reasons I stated clearly.

Now I understand that you don't understand entropy and especially don't understand how it pertains to evolution and that makes things a lot clearer. Thank you.

It's clear you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I understand exactly what you are saying, as I have stated you don't understand the finer points of entropy by virtue of the fact you do not appreciate local order can increase without an imaginary force. Thus relating back to my original reply, that we don't need any new force to explain the complexity of life and clarified in this post.

Moreover, it is clear in that original reply given your response about entropy here, it still remains invisible, mathematically unverifiable, and unnecessary.

Which relates me right back to the magical evolution pixies,
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 10:01:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 4:50:42 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Because natural selection and mutations alone do not comprise the entirety of evolution. They are merely components. For example, natural selection is entirely useless if there is no variation within the population.

Did you really say that natural selection is useless without variation within the population a sentence after you mention mutations?

Natural selection is useless if there is no variation within the population... that is where "mutations" come in. Random mutations would tend towards increased entropy without something picking the best of them which is where natural selection comes in.

So what do you disagree with... that mutations occur or that natural selection exists? If you don't disagree with either, what is the purpose of this other force your propose?

To use your own analogies, the argument you are trying to make is akin to me stating: is there a force of gravity? I don't mean like force that causes things with mass to attract, I mean why would thing with mass attract instead of repel each other? Or why would one thing care if another thing had mass at all? So there must be a force of gravity that makes gravity act the way it does.

The analogy you provide is completely different from what I attempt to do. This kind of thinking will lead toward infinity, and we might as well be discussing the cosmological argument to determine if there is a first cause or not.

I'm not saying there is an invisible force causing evolution to work the way it does. I'm saying evolution is the force itself, and it should be regarded as a force instead of merely a process.

But there you are just making stuff up that is obviously wrong under scientific terminology.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 7:32:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 9:03:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

But in so doing you are completely missing the point.

You are claiming the earth is an open system, then incorrectly stating that localised order cannot increase,

Wrong. I never stated this. Take a look at the OP yet again and you'll see I never stated this.

which is wrong, for the very reason that it is an open system. Which is why I am stating you don't understand entropy, With an influx of energy, that can be converted to other forms, complexity can be decreased locally as the entropy in the closed system can decrease.

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If there is an increase in localized order, as you put it, then there is clearly some kind of input of energy or force.


Whenever someone eats and puts on weight, tidies their room, builds a house, constructs a Lego model, makes a sand castle, separates their whites from their colours they are locally decreasing entropy by adding order into the system.

Again, this is exactly what I mean. There is clearly a force at work that is adding order into the system.


Do you require some magic force to be in existence in order to explain sand castles? No. It is a simple result of adding order by converting energy from one form to another.

It's not a magic force. It simply is a force. As I've stated above, this is precisely what I mean.


So when I said your force is not mathematically verifiable, and then you replied by saying entropy is mathematically verifiable, if entropy is not the force itself, it means you didn't answer the question and your force remains mathematically unverifiable.

The component of my argument that is mathematically verifiable shows that what I'm saying is true. In this sense it is mathematically verifiable.

Anyway, the rest of this is the exact same misconception between us. You keep thinking I'm stating something I'm not, though I'm not sure why.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 7:36:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 10:01:03 AM, Floid wrote:

Did you really say that natural selection is useless without variation within the population a sentence after you mention mutations?

Do you really think that variation is only from mutations?

The majority of variation within a population comes from sexual reproduction (this is obviously excluding asexual populations). Do you even meiosis?


Natural selection is useless if there is no variation within the population... that is where "mutations" come in.

More accurately, the majority of variation within the population comes from sexual reproduction. Again, meiosis.


But there you are just making stuff up that is obviously wrong under scientific terminology.

It's not the classical definition of force, no. It is clearly distinct from the other known forces in the universe.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 7:10:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 7:32:41 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/8/2014 9:03:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

But in so doing you are completely missing the point.

You are claiming the earth is an open system, then incorrectly stating that localised order cannot increase,

Wrong. I never stated this. Take a look at the OP yet again and you'll see I never stated this.

which is wrong, for the very reason that it is an open system. Which is why I am stating you don't understand entropy, With an influx of energy, that can be converted to other forms, complexity can be decreased locally as the entropy in the closed system can decrease.

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If there is an increase in localized order, as you put it, then there is clearly some kind of input of energy or force.


Whenever someone eats and puts on weight, tidies their room, builds a house, constructs a Lego model, makes a sand castle, separates their whites from their colours they are locally decreasing entropy by adding order into the system.

Again, this is exactly what I mean. There is clearly a force at work that is adding order into the system.


Do you require some magic force to be in existence in order to explain sand castles? No. It is a simple result of adding order by converting energy from one form to another.

It's not a magic force. It simply is a force. As I've stated above, this is precisely what I mean.


So when I said your force is not mathematically verifiable, and then you replied by saying entropy is mathematically verifiable, if entropy is not the force itself, it means you didn't answer the question and your force remains mathematically unverifiable.

The component of my argument that is mathematically verifiable shows that what I'm saying is true. In this sense it is mathematically verifiable.

Anyway, the rest of this is the exact same misconception between us. You keep thinking I'm stating something I'm not, though I'm not sure why.

I've actually been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand what you are using as justification for your force. Hoping that once the misconception is cleared up with your understanding you will return to normalcy.
Now that we have gotten to this point, it seems you understand the key principles, and are thus stupid rather than simply ignorant.

Lets be clear, what we already know about forces, entropy and energy, it is clear that most of your arguments here are not arguments for your secret magical force, but arguments for the existance forces we already know about.

If you read back through all my posts, you will see you have essentially ignored all the key points with regards to entropy, energy transfer, localised order, and variations of this in order to focus on the fact that I am "misrepresenting" what you are saying. Now I am aware you are not simply ignorant, I can now clarify accordingly.

So lets be clear, and be under no illusion. There is no additional, magical or secret force driving things. We know of four forces. Gravity, Electromagnetism, the strong and the weak nuclear force.

Life is a chemical system, and converts primarily chemical and electromagnetic energy into other forms of chemical energy, kinetic energy and potential energy through movement. These are all fully and completely explained by the four forces already described.

Evolution and the "complexity" you are talking about is simply the progression of those chemical systems; with at no point anything deviating measurably or experimentally from those four forces or known energy stores. Energy accountancy works very well without any mystery force, thank you very much.

Complexity, in terms of evolution; whatever that term really means; is simply an expression of that underlying chemical order. Again, explained perferectly and, completely by the four understood forces of natures and the various forms of energies that have been well understood for at least the last few hundred years.

So there is no mathematical way of describing the way the new force contributes to the system other than 0, because that is the amount of energy that remains unaccounted for in all experimentation thus far regarding life and evolution. It is therefore unmeasurable for the same reason.

Even worse, force is an expression of energy; more specifically a force is generally something that acts to transfer energy from one form to another. And in this way, there is no accounted discrepancy for the energy in the system that is required to be explained by a "new force".

In this respect, and the reason for me assuming you were ignorant, rather than stupid, is if you are truly arguing what you are saying you are arguing; you are basically defining the way entropy descreases locally in a closed system; and then using them to posit a force or forces that allows this to happen. That's fine, in fact that is completely accurate as there are indeed forces and mechanisms of energy transfer; and these already fully explain all energy accounting that is required for evolution and indeed ALL work. As I said in my very first reply which you have continued to argue with.

This is why perpetual motion machines are bunk, there are no additional energy stores or forces at work that would cause additional energy or work to be done outside our traditional understanding of energy accountancy: And thus no research has ever shown an experimentally verified unaccounted sum of energy that could be attributed to any force you care to invent.

Even worse the force you posit only affects evolution; so in essence a force that mediates some form of high level chemical interaction only in life forms, rather than everything. While I could buy into a mystery force of nature along the lines of gravity, strong, weak, etc, this is where you are really losing it; by proposing a force that is neither mathematically verified, experimentally demonstrable but ALSO intelligently selective in a way it is not possible for any force to actually be.

If you truly understand and appreciate all the things you say you understand and appreciate, then you should know better than to make the argument you are making.

This force, like magical evolution pixes, is simply fluff for all these reasons. And you are quite welcome to beleive in such new age pseudo-scientific woo if you please, but please don't attempt to argue it has any form of scientific basis, as it doesn't.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 4:49:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 7:10:51 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Now that we have gotten to this point, it seems you understand the key principles, and are thus stupid rather than simply ignorant.

You still don't understand what I'm talking about and have resorted to using ad hominem due to your lack of understanding. Really now, this is just ridiculous. You've posted a long banter of what is already known and agreed upon and then, without addressing what I've actually said, try to discredit what I've said.

You say my argument has no scientific backing, but to the contrary. It's based on the same evidence that evolution is based on.

This force, like magical evolution pixes, is simply fluff for all these reasons.

How do we know that gravity isn't caused by magical gravity pixies? We don't. We just know it is a force, but this obviously doesn't make gravity any less credible than it already is.

The same is with evolution, except we know what causes evolution. We know about natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, variation, and so on.

Why do you think I'm trying to make up a force out of nothing? I'm not.

If you think I'm saying that there is some mysterious unknown force driving evolution you clearly do not understand what I'm saying, and that's that.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 6:54:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:49:15 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/9/2014 7:10:51 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Now that we have gotten to this point, it seems you understand the key principles, and are thus stupid rather than simply ignorant.

You still don't understand what I'm talking about and have resorted to using ad hominem due to your lack of understanding. Really now, this is just ridiculous. You've posted a long banter of what is already known and agreed upon and then, without addressing what I've actually said, try to discredit what I've said.

You say my argument has no scientific backing, but to the contrary. It's based on the same evidence that evolution is based on.

I was pretty clear in my previous post exactly why you're wrong, and have been pretty clear about how there cannot be any additional force and all of the arguments you are making for your force are actually arguments for the existance of the forces we already know about and completely explain the world.

I see that you haven't really quoted or addressed any of this, nor have you at any point throughout this thread.

I would recommend that you actually go through and address this, because saying that I am wrong, or misunderstood is no substitute for actually demonstrating that some force exists, and I have been pretty thorough in the previous post explaining why it can't.

This force, like magical evolution pixes, is simply fluff for all these reasons.

How do we know that gravity isn't caused by magical gravity pixies? We don't. We just know it is a force, but this obviously doesn't make gravity any less credible than it already is.

We experience gravity, we experience it's effects it is mathematically verifiable, and can be measured and tested.

Your force cannot for all the reasons I have cited and have cited all the way through, including in the first post.

The same is with evolution, except we know what causes evolution. We know about natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, variation, and so on.

Why do you think I'm trying to make up a force out of nothing? I'm not.

You are making a force up out of nothing because all those things are explained through statistics, and the existing forces as I stated very clearly in the previous post and you have ignored (And in fact have been ignoring throughout this thread). There is no room for any force, and no evidence for any force and with no evidence, trying to say one exists is making it up out of nothing.

If you think I'm saying that there is some mysterious unknown force driving evolution you clearly do not understand what I'm saying, and that's that.

Ummm...

The reason we say gravity isn't left to chance is because there is a persistent deviation from randomness - the same occurs with evolution, and we are thus forced to conclude that there is indeed a force of evolution.

Rather, I was arguing that because evolution shows a persistent deviation from randomness (rather, a deviation from entropy and toward order), there should be a force of evolution

The point of the post, I suppose, was to demonstrate that there is a fifth force in addition to the other four forces. If we could continue replicating earth (as an experiment) with similar conditions, I believe that the force of evolution would consistently lead toward similar life forms in a similar amount of time. Yet a force of evolution does not seem to be recognized in this sense.

I claim that evolution itself is a force that exists within the universe, similar to the other four forces we are aware of, such as gravity

When there is a persistent deviation from random chance, there is clearly a force at work

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

You may want to ignore the fact that an additional force in the way you propose it is absurd, but please don't claim this is not what you have been saying.

It is clear, if you chose to review my previous post, there is no room for such an additional force, it is not required, it is not measurable, and the way it would work as you suggest is impossible.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 9:54:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 6:54:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

I would recommend that you actually go through and address this, because saying that I am wrong, or misunderstood is no substitute for actually demonstrating that some force exists, and I have been pretty thorough in the previous post explaining why it can't.

Just like saying I have no evidence without addressing what I've said is no substitute for rebutting my arguments.

We experience gravity, we experience it's effects it is mathematically verifiable, and can be measured and tested.

We also have experienced the effects of evolution. We have scientific evidence of it and it has been tested.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

Do you not realize, or perhaps do you lack the reading comprehension to realize, that:

There is a mysterious force driving evolution = / = evolution is a force itself.

You may want to ignore the fact that an additional force in the way you propose it is absurd, but please don't claim this is not what you have been saying.

You may want to ignore the fact that these two things are not equivocal, but whatever floats your boat.

It is clear, if you chose to review my previous post, there is no room for such an additional force, it is not required, it is not measurable, and the way it would work as you suggest is impossible.

Well, actually, you never proved it was impossible. You might think you did. You pretty much just explained evolution and entropy, then stated that because we know how they work I am wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 1:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 9:54:17 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/10/2014 6:54:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

I would recommend that you actually go through and address this, because saying that I am wrong, or misunderstood is no substitute for actually demonstrating that some force exists, and I have been pretty thorough in the previous post explaining why it can't.

Just like saying I have no evidence without addressing what I've said is no substitute for rebutting my arguments.

The rebuttal against YOUR arguments was presented a couple of posts ago.

You are positing a force exists; I have demonstrated why the force cannot exist, because there is nothing missing for your force to actually explain.

I have addressed the key contentions you have made about force, and rather than deal with this, you are simply arguing semantics. You are still proposing a force, this force is still impossible for the reasons I have stated, and this force is not required to explain the world as I have described. If you want to ignore all this and argue about the semantics of what you're arguing, that's fine, but I will keep bringing you back to this singular point..

We experience gravity, we experience it's effects it is mathematically verifiable, and can be measured and tested.

We also have experienced the effects of evolution. We have scientific evidence of it and it has been tested.

And this is already perfectly well explained WITHOUT a new force as I have described.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

Do you not realize, or perhaps do you lack the reading comprehension to realize, that:

There is a mysterious force driving evolution = / = evolution is a force itself.

This is even more stupid, as Evolution is a simply just statistical process of heridity. Arguing that as well as simple statistical process, it is also a force is rather left field.

Even so, you seem to ignore that these two things amount to the same thing.

"A force drives the process of evolution that drives increasing complexity in organisms"

And

"A force drives increasing complexity in organisms"

This is really semantics. They both amount to the same thing as you are arguing a FORCE exists analogous to the other four forces of nature. This force again for the reasons I have repeatedly explained and you have continually ignored CANNOT exist due to the nature you propose for it, IS NOT required because of the sufficiency of explaining evolution and increasing complexity of life using the existing four forces and chemistry alone, and IS NOT measurable, as there are no additional holes in understanding of energy accountancywhich such a force can explain.

You may want to ignore the fact that an additional force in the way you propose it is absurd, but please don't claim this is not what you have been saying.

You may want to ignore the fact that these two things are not equivocal, but whatever floats your boat.

As stated above, they are essentially the same thing. In both cases you are proposing a force that acts on things; whether it drives evolution or evolution doesn't change the key requirements that you need to satisify in order to demonstrate that such a force exists. As explained you fall far short in all ways of doing this and continue to ignore.

Both concepts are reliant on the same poor understanding of force, entropy and energy as described in my above post. You are simply making a semantic argument in order to not have to address the suffocating hole in your case.

It is clear, if you chose to review my previous post, there is no room for such an additional force, it is not required, it is not measurable, and the way it would work as you suggest is impossible.

Well, actually, you never proved it was impossible. You might think you did. You pretty much just explained evolution and entropy, then stated that because we know how they work I am wrong.

I have explained that there is nothing "missing" that requires an additional force of nature. You seem to have completely missed this part of my argument, I suggest you go re-read it. Moreover, it was one half of my argument, the latter part was the part that explained why it was impossible.

What I showed was impossible is that the forces of nature operate on mainly the atomic level, and are generally well described in how they affect things.

You propose your force does this, but organises matter in some weird anthropormic way that organises SOME matter and NOT others depending on whether it is alive or not; this is not possible and is simply unscientific woo.