Evolution

Science & Technology Biosciences
1

I don’t have any difficulty in believing in the theory of evolution (I say believe because I am not qualified to pass scientific judgement).

What I don’t understand is how chemical elements could accidentally combine to “create” life from a chemical soup of available elements. Is it possible that this great leap forward to end all great leaps forward occured by accident?

That one step, from dead to live, is the one remaining thread linking me to some form of “higher power” that I can’t break. This higher power no longer takes the form of a deity…but I am still left with this notion of a “life force”.

And if we did evolve from a bunch of dead chemicals into living beings…and thence to conscious living beings possesing free will…then not only must this thing called consciousness be chemically driven but this thing called free will must also be chemically driven n’est ce pas? And that seems to me to make free will deterministic…an oxymoron?

Are there any basic books/articles which explain the theories as to how this may have happened?

[I do have a problem with the idea that life first slithered out of the sea somewhere on the east coast of Scotland…which I heard on NPR recently so it must be right…I mean what genius decided on Scotland?..or is this just another Mel Gibson plot against the English?..].

Brent

2

Read The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. There is a whole chapter on this “leap”, and I think it is a very common sense explanation.

3

Thanks.

My wife may even have a copy.

Brent

4

What I don’t understand is how chemical elements could accidentally combine to “create” life from a chemical soup of available elements. Is it possible that this great leap forward to end all great leaps forward occured by accident?

That one step, from dead to live, is the one remaining thread linking me to some form of “higher power” that I can’t break.

It looks like you are stuck in a false alternative here. Life emerged from non-living chemicals and it happened lawfully. The law responsible was not God’s Law. It was the Law of Identity and its corollary, the Law of Causality. Things are what they are and they act in accordance with their natures. Let me explain.

Life is an emergent property – a property arising from the combination of entities or substances which none of the components themselves have. An example of an emergent property is two elements, hydrogen and oxygen, which are gasses at room temperature, combining to form water which is a liquid at room temperature.

The nature of the carbon atom is such that it can form very complex compounds with itself and other elements which we call “organic” compounds. It is the identity of the carbon atom which makes this possible.

Life arises, as an emergent property, when certain organic compounds combine in a particular way. Things are what they are. When chemicals combine in ways that cause life to emerge, life emerges. When they don’t, it doesn’t.

Likewise, living organisms capable of surviving, do survive. Those which are not capable, do not survive. Those organisms which survive and reproduce, leave descendants which may survive and reproduce. Those organisms which do not survive and/or reproduce, leave no descendants. Therefore, all organisms alive now are the inheritors of surviving, reproducing organisms.

When considering the issue, don’t forget all the designs that didn’t make it: the compounds that didn’t make living things, the living things that didn’t function well, the living things poorly adapted to their environment, the organisms that survived but didn’t reproduce. They were eliminated by the Laws of Identity and Causality because an entity which can’t survive and reproduce, doesn’t survive and reproduce. And that is why life exists and is as complex and varied as it is.

5

Betsy,

Thank you for that reply. I am begining to get it, honest.

But…can you continue your explanation of “the causal emergence of life”…up to include the emergence of free will? If life began and then evolved through the law of causality…sort of, carbon is carbon and it does what carbon does including joining with other elements and compounds to form…“life”…then where do the thoughts come in to the picture…and even more so…where does free will come from.

I can accept that a thought is a nonmaterial existent. I can accept that a man is what he is and is a product of his nature as an existent. But doesn’t “thought” and free will give man the option to “rise above” his nature as well?

But nothing can rise above its nature, because that would contradict causality.

I think my concept of rising above nature is where I am going wrong…

help!

Brent

6

im not sure i am scientifically qualified to answer some of these questions, but i do have a hypothesis on the free will aspect. If you can grasp how humans came into existence through evolution, then free will is part of that act of SURVIVING to pass on its genetics. Chemicals and all other non-living matter has now will. It cannot act. It is dead. Life in contrast, is that which does act. It must constantly act, it is inherent in its nature that it is constantly faced with the alternative life or death. the idea of free will should be self evident to any living being. Do you choose to open doors? How do you think you are typing on this computer? Was it nature’s will forced upon you, which allowed a man to invent, produce and distribute these computers? If you dont believe in God, what makes you think that nature would force you to do what you do?

I started out thinking that this question was difficult to answer, but as i began typing i realized that the question isnt that logical. i cant understand what makes you think we dont have free will?

7

“I think my concept of rising above nature is where I am going wrong…”

I think you’re right.

It seems you are confusing “rising above nature” with “improving” our ability to do what it is we do that makes us what we are. In other words, our essential trait, the ability to interact with and modify reality the way we do, can be improved so that we can do it even more efficiently and effectively, but we will still be doing the same thing.

If our actual nature ever changed, then we would no longer be “mankind”, we’d be something essentially different.

That help?

[edited a typo]

8

But…can you continue your explanation of “the causal emergence of life”…up to include the emergence of free will?

An extremely tall order. A simpler (and complex) question would be, “how did nerves evolve?”.

If life began and then evolved through the law of causality…sort of, carbon is carbon and it does what carbon does including joining with other elements and compounds to form…“life”…then where do the thoughts come in to the picture…and even more so…where does free will come from.

First, where did simple nerve cells come from to control muscle fibers?; where did brains come from? Where did the capacity to retain sensations in some form develop? Heck if I know, but I know that there were a huge number of steps, many of which didn’t work out.

I can accept that a thought is a nonmaterial existent. I can accept that a man is what he is and is a product of his nature as an existent. But doesn’t “thought” and free will give man the option to “rise above” his nature as well?

No (I guess: I don’t know what “rising above” would be). Our consciousness allows us to do very many things, but no matter how hard you wish it, you cannot rise above your nature and fly around the moon by flapping your arms. What you can do in comparison to apes and snakes is truly remarkable and miraculous from their perspective (if they had a perspective), but it is fully within the nature of man to build a machine that propells us around the moon.

But nothing can rise above its nature, because that would contradict causality.

Quite so. But the nature of a being is not irrevocably passed on to its offspring in exactly the same form.

9

But…can you continue your explanation of “the causal emergence of life”…up to include the emergence of free will?[…]

But doesn’t “thought” and free will give man the option to “rise above” his nature as well?

But nothing can rise above its nature, because that would contradict causality.

I think my concept of rising above nature is where I am going wrong…

help!

OK. :slight_smile:

Just as life evolved, consciousness evolved as a means of coping with an organism’s environment. Plants have mechanical and chemical reactions to certain things in their environment like gravity, sunlight, water, etc., but they don’t really have – nor do they need – consciousness. Animals evolved first with sensory reactions to things they encounter as they move around in their environment and that gives them an awareness of what they face in the present. More evolved animals have a perceptual faculty that automatically integrates sensations into an awareness of entities and also stores them in memory for recall by association. That gives perceptual-level animals the capacity to deal with the present and the past.

The most evolved animal of all is man and his conceptual faculty is his unique means of survival, but it is inherent in the nature of conceptual functioning that it is, and has to be, exercised by choice.

Introspect. What will you think about right now? Reading my posting? What it says? How many typos I made? What’s on the radio? Dinner? Your elbow?

A lower animal can only be aware of what is immediately before it plus any associated experiences in its memory. You are not that limited. You can think about the present, the past AND the future. You can abstract and integrate from your perceptions, memories and/or concepts and at any moment you have millions of options as to what you will think about … and how … and how well.

The human conceptual faculty evolved as a powerful tool of survival for our species. It allows us to go far beyond the limits lower animals have and gives us options and choices. If we choose to use our minds well, we will rise TO our nature and actualize our human potential.

10

im not sure i am scientifically qualified to answer some of these questions, but i do have a hypothesis on the free will aspect. If you can grasp how humans came into existence through evolution, then free will is part of that act of SURVIVING to pass on its genetics. Chemicals and all other non-living matter has now will. It cannot act. It is dead. Life in contrast, is that which does act. It must constantly act, it is inherent in its nature that it is constantly faced with the alternative life or death. the idea of free will should be self evident to any living being. Do you choose to open doors? How do you think you are typing on this computer? Was it nature’s will forced upon you, which allowed a man to invent, produce and distribute these computers? If you dont believe in God, what makes you think that nature would force you to do what you do?

I started out thinking that this question was difficult to answer, but as i began typing i realized that the question isnt that logical.  i cant understand what makes you think we dont have free will?

nimble,

  1. where did I say (or even imply) that nature forced me to do what I do?

2)perhaps you could tell me where I wrote that I didn’t believe in free will?

  1. are you saying that ALL life posseses free will?

Slugs and amoeba seem to have survived for quite a while…I don’t think they have free will.

I congratulate you on comimg up with such a profound answer to my simplistic question…and all this in the time it took you to write the paragraph.

Regards,

Brent

11

Charles T.

Yes that helps…you are right that if we rose above nature we would have a different nature…and not be man anymore.

I think I did imply that nothing could rise above its nature.

Thought and free will then give us the POPTENTIAL to rise to the utmost of our nature…that I can understand and accept.

But what are thoughts and what is free will (non material existents) relative to the mass of chemicals that make us (material existents).

I guess I am back to the question of what is consciousness and where does it come from?

Brent

12

I guess I am back to the question of what is consciousness and where does it come from?

Have you already answered the question “what is matter and where does it come from?”

13

nimble,

  1. where did I say (or even imply) that nature forced me to do what I do?

2)perhaps you could tell me where I wrote that I didn’t believe in free will?

  1. are you saying that ALL life posseses free will?

Slugs and amoeba seem to have survived for quite a while…I don’t think they have free will.

I congratulate you on comimg up with such a profound answer to my simplistic question…and all this in the time it took you to write the paragraph.

Regards,

Brent

im sorry i must have misread your post. I dont think you need to be upset about it. I assumed if you were questioning free will, that you were questioning the existence of free will. I guess i assumed wrong. SORRY.

14

stephen:

“Have you already answered the question what is matter and where does it come from?”

Come to think of it no!

But for some reason I can accept the idea that matter just exists (and always did exist) yet it is much more difficult for me to accept that consciousness always existed.

Is this an error on my part?

Brent

15

The human conceptual faculty evolved as a powerful tool of survival for our species. It allows us to go far beyond the limits lower animals have and gives us options and choices.  If we choose to use our minds well, we will rise TO our nature and actualize our human potential.

Betsy,

Thanks again for your replies.

I am trying to figure out why I have such a hard time with the concepts of:

  1. “life” arising from “dead” chemicals

  2. nonmaterial existents (e.g. thought, consciousness) arising from material existents (e.g.man).

I can accept that complex molecules will be formed from elements and compounds given the necessary environment. I am beginning to accept the leap from complex molecules to “living” organisms…I can then accept evolution a long way up the food chain…but have another block at the leap to consciousness.

I think I am looking for LEAPS when tiny evolutionary steps over a very long period would get me further.

Looking back, I have spent a lot of my life trying to be religious…trying to believe in God…(although never ever being religious…I guess I have been ASSUMING that all these religious people around me were somehow right…in the know…and I was wrong)…if one believes in a God all of these leaps are easy…God did it!

Regards,

Brent

16

DavidOdden,

Yes…thanks.

As you will see from my reply to Betsy, I think I am looking for far too large “jumps” in development…which are greatly assisted by a belief in God…versus an infinitely more incremental approach (evolutionary progress)…for which a God is not required.

Brent

17

I am trying to figure out why I have such a hard time with the concepts of:

  1. “life” arising from “dead” chemicals

  2. nonmaterial existents (e.g. thought, consciousness) arising from material existents (e.g.man).

Maybe it is because you are regarding “life” and “consciousness” as entities instead of what they really are. Life is a process performed by an entity. Consciousness is a faculty of an entity.

Life is a “process of self-sustained, self generated action” and some entities can engage in that process. “Running” is a process too and some animals that have at least two legs can engage in that process. That life – the process of living – can be performed by certain entities should be no more surprising than “running” can be performed by certain entities.

Consciousness is the faculty of awareness. A faculty is a capability to do some action. Some computers have the capability of accessing the internet. Some living things have the capability of being aware of their environment and directing their actions accordingly. That consciousness is a capability possessed by some living things should be no more surprising than some computers can access the internet.

Religion, which falsely regards life as a miracle and consciousness as something separable from the body of an organism, may have caused your confusion.

18

stephen:

“Have you already answered the question what is matter and where does it come from?”

Come to think of it no!

But for some reason I can accept the idea that matter just exists (and always did exist) yet it is much more difficult for me to accept that consciousness always existed.

Is this an error on my part?

The point is that consciousness is an irreducible primary, not capable of being explained by reference to anything more fundamental. We can talk about the physical conditions that give rise to consciousness, but consciousness itself is not like matter, not like anything else that exists.

It is true that there is no conceivable alternative to existence per se, but with consciousness, since we see how it ceases to exist when a brain dies, we can conceive of it not existing. Regardless, the fact that consciousness does exist, and that it is dependent on a brain for its existence, are two facts to be accepted.

19

But for some reason I can accept the idea that matter just exists (and always did exist) yet it is much more difficult for me to accept that consciousness always existed.

And that is a good thing, because consciousness did NOT always exist. I was going to say what Betsy has already said: Consciousness is not an entity; it is a faculty–an attribute of an entity. “This brick is not conscious. This human is conscious.”

That said, there still remains the question of how the living organisms became conscious; and even how they become conscious. After all, an embryo is not conscious, but at some point in its development from embryo to boy or girl, it does become conscious. Science does not seem to have answered the questions of when exactly this happens, and by what mechanism it happens.

if one believes in a God all of these leaps are easy…God did it!

Well, if you believe in reality, you can just as well say “Reality did it!” You cannot explain everything, as explaining something means reducing it to things you already accept. There necessarily have to be some irreducible primaries.

The fact of existence is one such irreducible primary; the possibility of consciousness is another one. You cannot validly ask “Why does existence exist?” nor “Why can things be conscious?” What you can validly ask are the questions I mentioned above: “When exactly does a baby become conscious?” and “What exactly happens when the baby becomes conscious?”

20

Capitalism, stephen, betsy,

Thank you for your posts and patience! :confused:

I have been trying to understand Objectivism for a while and these discussions are far more useful to me than plowing through the books unaccompanied.

Brent