7 ms·

It's not possible to overstate the importance of this fact - all these structures and processes evolved - weren't designed - but evolved ! Why not: designed to

by jjoe 6y ago

It's not possible to overstate the importance of this fact - all these structures and processes evolved - weren't designed - but evolved ! Why not: designed to evolve

fdej 6y ago
And then why not: the designer originated through evolution. Which in turn...
- carapace 6y ago
  It's an interesting idea: if we eventually learn to control time, perhaps we are/become the telos of the Universe? > His posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos and the evolution of matter to humanity, to ultimately a reunion with Christ. In the book, Teilhard abandoned literal interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. The unfolding of the material cosmos is described from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. Teilhard argued in Darwinian terms with respect to biology, and supported the synthetic model of evolution, but argued in Lamarckian terms for the development of culture, primarily through the vehicle of education.[15] Teilhard made a total commitment to the evolutionary process in the 1920s as the core of his spirituality, at a time when other religious thinkers felt evolutionary thinking challenged the structure of conventional Christian faith. He committed himself to what the evidence showed.[16] > Teilhard made sense of the universe by assuming it had a vitalist evolutionary process.[17][18] He interprets complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
emteycz 6y ago
Because there is no reason to think that. Evolution happens quickly enough to be observed and studied (and of course the underlying mechanisms are being studied as well), and we are doing that for a very long time now (hundreds of years - ask botanists), and so far not a single reason to think of designers has surfaced.
- jcims 6y ago
  The question is how much of the machinery in the linked page can you take away and still have a system that supports an evolutionary process. Once you're at the MVP for evolution, the next question is how did we get there from the initial conditions on Earth.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    The answer to the first question is known (most of it), and there are strong theories for the second.
LarvaFX 6y ago
Because there is no evidence to that and everything that is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
echelon 6y ago
It's just as likely that we're in a simulation. Or that God is a potato. Without evidence, it's just not worth the time. We have evidence of evolution. Every observation fits the model. If you can refute it, you'll win a Nobel prize.
zaarn 6y ago
Shitty design tbh. Just look at modern plants. Chlorophyll is immensely inefficient because it only filters the green part of light. A tree literally misses out on 80% of the energy provided by the sun. We did have purple photosynthesis for a quite a while but either competition or something else wiped them away minus some remaining bacteria families. Or look at ATP, the power currency of all lifeforms we know off minus virii. Almost all bigger lifeforms converted to mitochondrial production but then you have things like slime mold that doesn't for some reason and plants which have both mitochondria and photosynthesis. The entire ATP system is a mess because it has it's fingers in every other process. Impossible to optimize because any change just kills the cell. If that is designed, it's garbage.
- tantalor 6y ago
  > Shitty design ... Chlorophyll is immensely inefficient A simpler explanation is chlorophyll is balancing energy production vs. safety. Instead, for a safe, steady energy output, the pigments of the photosystem had to be very finely tuned in a certain way. The pigments needed to absorb light at similar wavelengths to reduce the internal noise. But they also needed to absorb light at different rates to buffer against the external noise caused by swings in light intensity. The best light for the pigments to absorb, then, was in the steepest parts of the intensity curve for the solar spectrum — the red and blue parts of the spectrum. https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-are-plants-green-to-reduce-the-noise-in-photosynthesis-20200730/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-are-plants-green-to-reduc...
  - zaarn 6y ago
    Purple is both red and blue, both from the steepest parts of the spectrum. The green part of the spectrum is literally nowhere near that. And again, organisms with purple chlorophyll have and continue to exist, so it's not like it's impossible or produces very incompetitive lifeforms.
    - tantalor 6y ago
      See discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998793
cee_el123 6y ago
Just to add to the usual arguments against this, please take a look at this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis especially the "Primordial origin of biomolecules" section You may also enjoy reading about the PAH world hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis
carapace 6y ago
You can replace "Natural" in "Natural Selection" with "Divine" to say "Divine Selection" and that's fine. No scientist can gainsay you. However, jumping in a scientifically-grounded discussion with "But what about design?" is kinda silly and unlikely to be useful. Frankly, I think you're right, I believe God exists and created the Universe such that it includes evolution of life, and that this redounds to His glory. Hallelujah!

by jjoe 6y ago

It's not possible to overstate the importance of this fact - all these structures and processes evolved - weren't designed - but evolved ! Why not: designed to evolve

fdej 6y ago

And then why not: the designer originated through evolution. Which in turn...

carapace 6y ago
It's an interesting idea: if we eventually learn to control time, perhaps we are/become the telos of the Universe? > His posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos and the evolution of matter to humanity, to ultimately a reunion with Christ. In the book, Teilhard abandoned literal interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. The unfolding of the material cosmos is described from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. Teilhard argued in Darwinian terms with respect to biology, and supported the synthetic model of evolution, but argued in Lamarckian terms for the development of culture, primarily through the vehicle of education.[15] Teilhard made a total commitment to the evolutionary process in the 1920s as the core of his spirituality, at a time when other religious thinkers felt evolutionary thinking challenged the structure of conventional Christian faith. He committed himself to what the evidence showed.[16] > Teilhard made sense of the universe by assuming it had a vitalist evolutionary process.[17][18] He interprets complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

emteycz 6y ago

Because there is no reason to think that. Evolution happens quickly enough to be observed and studied (and of course the underlying mechanisms are being studied as well), and we are doing that for a very long time now (hundreds of years - ask botanists), and so far not a single reason to think of designers has surfaced.

jcims 6y ago
The question is how much of the machinery in the linked page can you take away and still have a system that supports an evolutionary process. Once you're at the MVP for evolution, the next question is how did we get there from the initial conditions on Earth.
- emteycz 6y ago
  The answer to the first question is known (most of it), and there are strong theories for the second.

LarvaFX 6y ago

Because there is no evidence to that and everything that is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

echelon 6y ago

It's just as likely that we're in a simulation. Or that God is a potato. Without evidence, it's just not worth the time. We have evidence of evolution. Every observation fits the model. If you can refute it, you'll win a Nobel prize.

zaarn 6y ago

Shitty design tbh. Just look at modern plants. Chlorophyll is immensely inefficient because it only filters the green part of light. A tree literally misses out on 80% of the energy provided by the sun. We did have purple photosynthesis for a quite a while but either competition or something else wiped them away minus some remaining bacteria families. Or look at ATP, the power currency of all lifeforms we know off minus virii. Almost all bigger lifeforms converted to mitochondrial production but then you have things like slime mold that doesn't for some reason and plants which have both mitochondria and photosynthesis. The entire ATP system is a mess because it has it's fingers in every other process. Impossible to optimize because any change just kills the cell. If that is designed, it's garbage.

tantalor 6y ago
> Shitty design ... Chlorophyll is immensely inefficient A simpler explanation is chlorophyll is balancing energy production vs. safety. Instead, for a safe, steady energy output, the pigments of the photosystem had to be very finely tuned in a certain way. The pigments needed to absorb light at similar wavelengths to reduce the internal noise. But they also needed to absorb light at different rates to buffer against the external noise caused by swings in light intensity. The best light for the pigments to absorb, then, was in the steepest parts of the intensity curve for the solar spectrum — the red and blue parts of the spectrum. https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-are-plants-green-to-reduce-the-noise-in-photosynthesis-20200730/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-are-plants-green-to-reduc...
- zaarn 6y ago
  Purple is both red and blue, both from the steepest parts of the spectrum. The green part of the spectrum is literally nowhere near that. And again, organisms with purple chlorophyll have and continue to exist, so it's not like it's impossible or produces very incompetitive lifeforms.
  - tantalor 6y ago
    See discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998793

cee_el123 6y ago

Just to add to the usual arguments against this, please take a look at this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis especially the "Primordial origin of biomolecules" section You may also enjoy reading about the PAH world hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis

carapace 6y ago

You can replace "Natural" in "Natural Selection" with "Divine" to say "Divine Selection" and that's fine. No scientist can gainsay you. However, jumping in a scientifically-grounded discussion with "But what about design?" is kinda silly and unlikely to be useful. Frankly, I think you're right, I believe God exists and created the Universe such that it includes evolution of life, and that this redounds to His glory. Hallelujah!