An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 13, 2018, 02:52 (466 days ago) @ David Turell

David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:

"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."

Life is more than the sum of its material parts.

Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.

Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)

I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.

why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

David: I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.

There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum