Ruling out Evolution

[widdershins]

I always love when someone claims some mysterious wisdom which scientists, who are actually trained in the subject, just cannot see.  How does a person go from, "Based on what little I know about the science, this doesn't seem to fit" to "Trained scientists who know more than me about this must be wrong" instead of simply "I wish I knew enough about this subject to actually understand it"?  It's even worse with the people who, say, confused evolution with abiogenesis, showing that they haven't even bothered to TRY to learn anything about the science.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I'm not sure that is true. The evidence suggests the atoms in living things follow different rules than those in inanimate objects.

What evidence? You have no evidence of that.

There are emergent properties only associated with life that science cannot explain.  Not now or ever.

Argument from ignorance. Problem is, that excuse is wearing so very thin in the past century, that this position is very very suspect.

The Achilles Heel of science (reduction-ism) is that it cannot explain emergent properties.

Sure it can. Science already explains several emergent properties in physics, like the solidity of matter, and chemistry itself.

Without categories ... science has no means to organize.  So use categories or not ... and accept the problems with each choice.  You can't have it both ways, unless you are into fuzzy logic ;-)

I know you think that this is profound and deep insight, but it really isn't. Yes, categories are necessary in science, but science is a thing of man â€"we use it to describe nature, but science is not nature itselfâ€" and the categories we invent for use in science are something that nature need not be beholden to. The designation of "kind" that creationists use are just that, artificial categories created by creationists that nature is not beholden to, as the fossil record shows. The natural/artificial distinction is equally as artificial a boundary as the creationists' kinds. Like the horizontal gene transfers that occured in nature that basically guarantees that every organism on the planet fits the definition of a GMO, nature doesn't respect our boundaries.

[Baruch]

Someone else denied categories as a method, not me.  You deny it when it helps you, and embrace it when it helps you.  I use Zen rhetorically, not as a personal position.  Monism has existed from ancient times, same as materialism.

Yes, the behavior of a cat is different than a snowball ... if you bothered to notice the difference.  But as a monistic materialist, how could one notice? ;-)  All atoms are just alike ... except when they are not.  At one time materialists claimed that souls were real, as a fine gaseous matter that dissipates at death.

Sorry, science hasn't explained much ... describe yes, explain no.  But I previously posted on the difference, and won't repeat.  One can now calculate, but only because it is a toy problem, the valency of oxygen in chemistry, from QM.  That isn't much to sneeze at.

Ad hominem arguments and name calling ... so intellectual ;-)

Yes, science is man made, same as religion or poetry.  And those who reject the man made, should reject science too.  One priesthood trying to replace another, ever since Plato.  And you bring up GMO ... that all life forms are valid, including small pox.  Maybe you would like to try some?

[Hakurei Reimu]

Someone else denied categories as a method, not me.  You deny it when it helps you, and embrace it when it helps you.

No, as Humpty Dumpty said, I just remember who is the master and who is the servant. Nature doesn't care about our categories, and even if it does seem to organize itself into such, they tend not to be the unbreachable pidgeon-holes that a thing is locked into in perpetuity. No, such thing is a very human thing, and we best remember that, no matter how we cut up reality into little pieces, nature is under no obligation to respect those cuts. It was here first.

Yes, the behavior of a cat is different than a snowball ... if you bothered to notice the difference.  But as a monistic materialist, how could one notice? ;-)

Just because I think of them as the same substance (matter) doesn't mean I don't notice when one thing is behaving differently from another. We wouldn't formulate scientific laws unless we notice that something is exhibiting a regular behavior, and if that regular behavior is not shared with all things, we investigate the reasons behind the difference in behavior.

There are in fact salient differences between Chevies and organisms that does mean that Chevies cannot come into existence without beings we would call intelligent, but that doesn't make their existence any less natural, nor does the fact that Chevies cannot come into existence without intelligent organisms imply that organisms cannot come into existence without some form of intelligence. It's simply a false analogy.

All atoms are just alike ... except when they are not.

Atoms are not all alike, because they don't behave all alike. That's how we know there are different kinds of atoms. Take a chemistry class sometime.

At one time materialists claimed that souls were real, as a fine gaseous matter that dissipates at death.

Souls were a pre-scientific notion that was dismissed when not only its presence was completely unverifiable, but also when we discovered biochemistry.

Sorry, science hasn't explained much ... describe yes, explain no.  But I previously posted on the difference, and won't repeat.  One can now calculate, but only because it is a toy problem, the valency of oxygen in chemistry, from QM.  That isn't much to sneeze at.

From what I have read, you don't understand what an explanation is and never have. As such, I don't give your "difference" much credence.

Ad hominem arguments and name calling ... so intellectual ;-)

Ah, the false appeal to ad hominem. How original. Sorry, chum. Calling an idiot an idiot is only an observation, not an ad hominem.

Yes, science is man made, same as religion or poetry.  And those who reject the man made, should reject science too.

Sorry, I think GMOs are fine. As such, I don't reject the man-made. You're the one who rejects the man-made, remember?

One priesthood trying to replace another, ever since Plato.  And you bring up GMO ... that all life forms are valid, including small pox.  Maybe you would like to try some?

You realize that small pox was 100% naturally evolved, right, Mr. Naturalistic Fallacy?

[Baruch]

Weaponized small pox is not naturally occurring.  I expect there have been man made strains since the 1960s, same as weaponized anthrax and bird flue.  The idea that those weapon stocks were destroyed, and research was stopped is ... un-skeptical.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Weaponized small pox is not naturally occurring.

Smallpox has never been weaponized. Even if it were, it would still not be a GMO. It's plenty deadly enough as is.

I expect there have been man made strains since the 1960s, same as weaponized anthrax and bird flue.

Weaponized anthrax isn't a GMO either, nor would be bird flu. Again, the strains are 100% natural. They're simply prepared in a way that makes them suitable for mass distribution, such as being aerosolized. "Weaponization" does not imply any genetic alteration, at all.

Seriously, get informed.

[u196533]

What evidence? You have no evidence of that.

Consciousness is an emergent property that science can't explain.
The atoms in inanimate objects follow the primary drive of chemistry to lose energy and gain entropy.  Living organisms seek energy in order to gain entropy.  The emergence of self preservation cannot be explained by science.  Not now.  Not ever.
The top-down methodology of science (system, sub-system, component) is inadequate for explaining emergent properties.  It is the wrong tool.

[u196533]

Sure it can. Science already explains several emergent properties in physics, like the solidity of matter, and chemistry itself.

I don't consider those emergent properties.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I don't consider those emergent properties.

[u196533]

Please explain why you consider those emergent properties.  How do the properties of the system emerge only in the system but cannot be seen/predicted from the components?

[sdelsolray]

...
The emergence of self preservation cannot be explained by science.  Not now.  Not ever.
...

Here we go again.  The Broken Record speaks.

[Baruch]

Consciousness is an emergent property that science can't explain.
The atoms in inanimate objects follow the primary drive of chemistry to lose energy and gain entropy.  Living organisms seek energy in order to gain entropy.  The emergence of self preservation cannot be explained by science.  Not now.  Not ever.
The top-down methodology of science (system, sub-system, component) is inadequate for explaining emergent properties.  It is the wrong tool.

I reject "emergent" phenomenon, as a face saving gesture used by materialists.  There is nothing science can do, other than hand waving, to justify "emergent" anything.  Science is inherently reductionistic ... that doesn't allow anything "emergent".  Reductionism is a methodology, which works most of the time, that we impose on empirical reality.  But some people will treat that as an ideology, not just another tool in the tool kit.

However we have to be careful ascribing purpose to inanimate objects ... except maybe in poetry.  "The Sun smiled" is a simile, not a metaphor.  People who dislike metaphor, shouldn't use them ... but cease condemning those who do.  Lately I prefer Homer's description of reality to Plato's or even Archimedes' (who was the most awesome guy ever).

[Baruch]

Here we go again.  The Broken Record speaks.

It cannot be explained by reductionism.  Science (biology) explains self preservation quite well.  But psychology isn't biology, biology isn't chemistry, and chemistry isn't (but almost is) physics.  And Pythagoras is a right angled triangle ... physics isn't the same as math ... though math is mostly useful as a language for physics.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Consciousness is an emergent property that science can't explain.

Because you say so.

The atoms in inanimate objects follow the primary drive of chemistry to lose energy and gain entropy.  Living organisms seek energy in order to gain entropy.  The emergence of self preservation cannot be explained by science.  Not now.  Not ever.

This shit again? For the umpteenth time, NO. Living organisms follow the same laws of matter as inanimate objects. Furthermore, it the only kind of system that is able to do what you say. We have self-driving cars today that can drive themselves to gas stations, and with only a little more programming, they can even be made to self-fuel. So either cars are living organisms now that they can do this (seek energy), which we can explain, or your notion that living organisms are fucking magic is simply wrong.

The top-down methodology of science (system, sub-system, component) is inadequate for explaining emergent properties.  It is the wrong tool.

Someone who never made an effort to understand what entropy and energy and life are about is in no position at all to say that science is the "wrong tool." Every tool is the wrong tool if used improperly.

I don't consider those emergent properties.

Too fucking bad. They are.

Please explain why you consider those emergent properties.  How do the properties of the system emerge only in the system but cannot be seen/predicted from the components?

This is because you see "emergent properties" and you think 'magic'. Emergent properties are not magic. Every emergent property we observe has its origin in the salient properties of the components interacting in particular ways.

In the case of the solidity of matter, because the property only emerges in bulk â€" that is, when you gather a bunch of interacting fermions together. They can't stack up onto each other, so they must take up space. The property is not inherent in the original particle, but only when you consider the statistics of many of them together.

In the case of living organisms, consider what happens to an organism that doesn't seek energy in some way. Well, it dies and its species goes extinct. As such, after a while, all you see are organisms that do, indeed, seek energy to continue function. It's not because its some inherent property of life, but rather that all the life that didn't do that job well enough die off.

[u196533]

Because you say so.
This shit again? For the umpteenth time, NO. Living organisms follow the same laws of matter as inanimate objects. Furthermore, it the only kind of system that is able to do what you say. We have self-driving cars today that can drive themselves to gas stations, and with only a little more programming, they can even be made to self-fuel. So either cars are living organisms now that they can do this (seek energy), which we can explain, or your notion that living organisms are fucking magic is simply wrong.
Someone who never made an effort to understand what entropy and energy and life are about is in no position at all to say that science is the "wrong tool." Every tool is the wrong tool if used improperly.
Too fucking bad. They are.
This is because you see "emergent properties" and you think 'magic'. Emergent properties are not magic. Every emergent property we observe has its origin in the salient properties of the components interacting in particular ways.

In the case of the solidity of matter, because the property only emerges in bulk â€" that is, when you gather a bunch of interacting fermions together. They can't stack up onto each other, so they must take up space. The property is not inherent in the original particle, but only when you consider the statistics of many of them together.

In the case of living organisms, consider what happens to an organism that doesn't seek energy in some way. Well, it dies and its species goes extinct. As such, after a while, all you see are organisms that do, indeed, seek energy to continue function. It's not because its some inherent property of life, but rather that all the life that didn't do that job well enough die off.

You keep missing the point that living organisms increase energy AND lower entropy spontaneously without an outside influence.  That violates the basic drive of chemistry and has never been observed in an inanimate object. 
You are the one that thinks the entropy of individual molecules cannot by measured.  I think it is your lack of understanding of entropy that prevents you from seeing my point.

Emergent properties may not be magic, but they cannot be explained by science.

It is debatable if the solidity of matter is an emergent property.  Yes it only occurs when there is more than one particle, but it can be predicted from the constituents.  It isn't an interaction effect.  A+B +AB.  It is simply A+B due to the exclusion principal.