Purpose and design (Evolution)

by John Kalber, Tuesday, July 04, 2017, 17:22 (746 days ago) @ John Kalber

As a convinced atheist, it always troubled me that while creationism offered an explanation of life and evolution whatever I thought of it, atheism did not. It clings to the idea that it was all a million’s to one series of chance events.
This always distressed me but not being an important person, I thought that if 'they' had no answer ... Then one day, loafing in my chair (aged 76), I resolved that if I believe/know that all things are subject to physical law, so must be life and evolution.
Suddenly excited by a flash of (rather clouded!) inspiration, I decided upon a dialectical approach to this conundrum. Having pondered in this way, I realised that my starting point must be (as it were) as if I were Mother Nature! There is nothing and no-one to help Mother Nature in this scenario.
It was obvious that while evolution was, thanks to Darwin et al., partially understood, the same cannot be said of life to any real extent. I have never considered chance – an arithmetic equation not engaged by nature – as affecting evolution. Mother Nature doesn’t ‘do’ arithmetic so chance barely exists.
All ‘events’ are the essentially automatic result of a current ‘pre-condition’. There are usually, probably two or more automatically acceptable outcomes in the terms of the then pre-existing conditions. Thus this process in not totally deterministic as it allows marginally different, immediate outcomes. These, in turn, will result in widely varying further outcomes.
So, I thought, it’s essentially atomic – must be if nature is automatic: complex (at this stage) would be impossible. Atoms, to become materials must be governed by laws (properties) that set the boundaries of their differing structures and capabilities including – most importantly – the acceptability of conjoining with other atoms that are’sympathetic in their structure. A simple example sprang to mind.
H2O !! This is the result of the interplay of entirely natural forces and materials. Before the advent of Homo-Sapiens, as far as we know, absolutely everything has been formed automatically.
So, for certain, we know that inorganic materials can and do form automatically! Life would seem to be formulated in like manner but there are other quite natural possibilities. No useful purpose for airing them here, unfortunately.
Evolution, however, is a different case.
The very simplest form of life as yet, eludes us, leaving only speculation. Nonetheless, it is possible that all life has developed from it. Assuming this to be so, that lifeform further developed when some member/s automatically accepted an additional atom or atoms. The addition/s altered the pre-existing ‘State’, just marginally and this ‘change’ modified the automatically the range of further ‘acceptability’.
In a nutshell, this process, automatically functioning in varying conditions, must inevitably result in all the lifeforms that have ever existed and any yet to appear.
Simple can only deal with simple, but, eventually, complexity is formed but is still limited to operating with only the simplest available choices. In Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens is displayed the amazing capability of the brain. Many feel that this level of complexity cannot arise in this seemingly ‘iffy’way.
What they fail to understand is that chance (iffyness!) plays no part! These bits of brain are already at a stage where the ‘rules of engagement’ can only accept very particular new configuration. The already existing ‘configurations’ take, as they must, account of the ‘directing balance’ of the organism (i.e. what it has become) in accepting further ‘additions’.
On 7th July 2007, ten full years ago, I sent the main body of my idea (in a pages long essay) to The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies. Mrs Jill Abury (Sec) the Soc. biologist added the title ‘The Genesis of Evolution’. Sadly, for me, it was rejected.
Analogies are, unfortunately rarely if ever fireproof, but, if we assume here that the letters of the alphabet are incontrovertible parts of natural law and that letter ‘A’ can conjoin wth any other and all the others have limitations, I can say that A, B, C, may be an example of a natural automatic attracted set of atoms.
This base will not accept some dozen of the others but can unite with half a dozen of the remainder. Other letters may form other bases, but only with a limited selection of letters that will then influence strongly further additions. Later, the more complex word may be able to absorb what were hitherto unacceptable letters.
An example: the word Verb can become Verbal or Adverb, but the word Verb cannot retain its initial structure if it accepts letters a,d or l. ‘Verbatimly’ would represent that later complexity. I hope this is sufficient to convey my meaning.
I should, I think, make the point that are no physical laws plural. Physical law is a totality, the so-called laws are simply shades of its intrinsic all-embracing nature. I would be happy to discuss any views I post, via john.kalber@yahoo.com .

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum