The evolution of biological species and chance ...

[Christophe]

The author of this thread, did he not dare to put on the table the real current debate:

Creationism vs Evolutionism?

And why wouldn't there be a bit of both?

AIE Aie Aie ! No no this word here!

However, there is a fundamental question that has dragged on my mind for years: when did self-awareness appear in humans?

This is a point on which evolutionism will find it very difficult to answer! Can we be partially aware of existing? Can there be progressiveness in the process of awareness?

There are surely answers in the study of brain development in children ... a priori before 1 or 2 years (see far beyond?) We are not aware of existing ...

Even in the study of certain accident victims but more delicate ...

Creationism can answer the question much more easily ...

[Obamot]

Yes Janic, we agree on many points, without having jumped on foot in the theological debate. We can postpone it!

Completely agree with the designation adaptation, but an adaptation does not transform a mouse into an elephant or whale! We will find formal differences: tall, short, fat, skinny, hairy or not, etc ... (caused by hormones) but no pearl fisherwoman has seen gills grow (despite the need Monod way), nor aviator push wings !

The observation of the different stages of evolution of the fetus diverge from this point. They are disturbing in similarity with other species ... which does not formally mean that it must be deduced that we all have the same common core (mammals), but still, birth is a kind of unfolding of an adaptation process, with ultimately the living being which passes from a state of adaptation in an aquatic environment (the womb of the mother / sea) to that of our vital environment of being human according to birth, which is "aerial" ...

It's already very challenging ...;)

[Janic]

obamot hello

The observation of the different stages of evolution of the fetus diverge from this point. They are disturbing in similarity with other species ... which does not formally mean that it must be deduced that we all have the same common core (mammals), but still, birth is a kind of unfolding of an adaptation process, with ultimately the living being which passes from a state of adaptation in an aquatic environment (the womb of the mother / sea) to that of our vital environment of being human according to birth, which is "aerial" ...

The whole question is there! From similarities we deduce a common link and this is partially true, as much as we will find in all mobile machines, designed by humans, common points (it reminds me of mechanics and today legos): bolts, bearings, joints, electric / electronic network, etc… can we deduce that the plane or the submarine are the result of the evolution of the steam engine? In a way yes, if we consider the energy need or the metallic structures (the Effel tower also has metallic structures!) Or all the bolts and bearings that we will find in each, but none is the fruit of his own will to evolve, it is still and always external to him. (does it come from a god or from the extraterrestrials, (which amounts to the same thing) and brings us back to the debate panspermie or original soup which lasts for a long time and has nothing religious!)

Dedeleco wrote: Currently laboratories have set out to create simple bacteria from purely inanimate matter, and practically got there and so this should respond to janic, a creation animated with inanimate.

The problem, once again, is that the scientists do not start from nothing, they take back what exists and try to reproduce it starting from the current conditions, but in a total ignorance of the real conditions which could have given rise to the appearance of these (as was the case for Miller's experiments on amino acids).

Controversies
Quite quickly, criticisms appeared on the conditions of the experiment with a reducing atmosphere rich in hydrogen. Current research on the primitive atmosphere rather favors a non-reducing atmosphere, mainly composed of CO2, but the Stanley Miller experiment does not work in this type of atmosphere; the question of the composition of the primitive atmosphere is however not definitively settled. In addition, even in the initial experiment, the truly prebiotic molecules are obtained simultaneously with other compounds useless for life (problem of selectivity). Finally, we never observe that molecules of fairly limited complexity, for example amino acids and not proteins; Urey-Miller's syntheses represent a stage in the progressive evolution of complexity, which must be coupled with other successive stages in a global scenario.

wikipedia
We find it difficult to imitate the living (for example vitamins and other chemical synthesis products which resemble it), but are not identical; no more than an artificial, articulated leg is the equivalent of a real leg.
The main problem which opposes the theory of the appearance of life, by chance, finds its answer in the calculation of probabilities (it is scientific here!) Which does not go in this direction.

[Cuicui]

when did self-awareness appear in humans?

There is no evidence that self-awareness does not exist in other living things than humans.
Furthermore, as noted Obamot, there is no reason to oppose creationism and evolutionism. Evolution is a recognized and established fact. Creationism supposes an external intervention, which is not to be excluded a priori, even if it can shock those who are convinced that we are alone in the universe.

[dedeleco]

In any case to read your posts on this subject, it is clear that the understanding and awareness of the scientific method for humans is much more difficult than self awareness !!!

I realized that awareness of the scientific method is almost impossible for most men, with their instinct for religion, beliefs and superior leaders like god or the creator who directs us !!

Creationism is a modification of the spontaneous generation abandoned after Pasteur and no experience proves its reality, of a fuzzy creator who creates new species, so that one can follow the evolution (and especially the diversification in all the directions of life, read Gould on the links I put, with species not evolving over hundreds of millions of years, and microbes conserved over 2 billion years, as well as others evolving strongly, occupying all possibilities of life).

We find more and more in our genes our distant past of different species formerly, in agreement with the fossils.

[Obamot]

Ok.

And grilled by Cuicui, who "tore" me in turn, the words ... from the keyboard ... ^^

The author of this thread, did he not dare to put on the table the real current debate:

Creationism vs Evolutionism?

And why wouldn't there be a bit of both?

AIE Aie Aie ! No no this word here!

However, there is a fundamental question that has dragged on my mind for years: when did self-awareness appear in humans?

This is a point on which evolutionism will find it very difficult to answer! Can we be partially aware of existing? Can there be progressiveness in the process of awareness?

There are surely answers in the study of brain development in children ... a priori before 1 or 2 years (see far beyond?) We are not aware of existing ...

Even in the study of certain accident victims but more delicate ...

Creationism can answer the question much more easily ...

Whether one is “partially conscious”, being already from one individual to another, it is certain! But it is necessarily from the point of view of an outside gaze. Because semantically speaking, if one is "partially" conscious, that means that one is not! "Consciousness is consciousness through and through."

it is impossible to assign a consciousness to any other motivation than itself. Otherwise it would be necessary to conceive that consciousness, insofar as it is an effect, is not conscious of itself. In some way it should be without being aware of being. We would fall into this all-too-common illusion which turns consciousness into a semi-unconscious or a passivity. But consciousness is consciousness through and through. It can therefore only be limited by itself.

Look in the morning, how much risk their skin by driving like crazy to go to work! It's good that their notion of "self-awareness" can be relegated to the background ... depending on the circumstances! (Or not, by the way ...)

But basically, if we admit " lapses of consciousness "The" conscience "Of man then becomes entirely relative. Because it corresponds to its status as a human being ... Each form of life must have " stuff Which are specific to her, and which one has no idea as a human being, since they correspond to her own universe and the perception she has of the "globality that surrounds her" ... ( If indeed these forms of life would call it that for us ...).

We know all these works, which have succeeded in convincing us in part, that man would have a form of superiority over the animal kingdom, but is that correct? Or is it a decoy, as there are so many in science (voluntarily or not)

However, we must remember that for the material universe, we are only able to grasp only 4% unfortunate percent, according to the last book of a CERN researcher: the missing mass is considerable, and even staggering!

Finally, if we come back to our poor condition of being pitiful human (but who has all its great intrinsic value), pitiful yes because he thinks he is great ... Because the development of his consciousness is something he must constantly put back on the carpet, and each new generation must relearn everything and reappropriate ... While in the animal model, those who favored other survival strategies, have developed other capacities that we ignore and which goes beyond possibly from afar, what we cheerfully call: "consent», Out of vanity, and above all to differentiate ourselves from the animal kingdom, by de facto establishing ourselves as superior beings ...

The fact is, that we know nothing about it, there are vibratory spaces that escape us, and if we consider the potential existence of a world parallel to our own, made up of anti-matter and serving us as " balancing ", according to certain theories ... So if this world exists ... who can say if there are not animals who are" aware ", while we do not ... and to look at ourselves while saying :

- but when will this primitive form pass “the course”, from the “universal xxxxx”? (I put crosses, since each species will have its own concept to express it) ...

Well, well ... let's make a prognosis, will this thread exceed 100 pages?

[Cuicui]

Creationism is a modification of the spontaneous generation abandoned after Pasteur and no experience proves its reality, of a fuzzy creator who creates new species

Arguments in favor of the reality of creationism (apart from any belief or religion): sudden appearance of certain species without intermediate links, artificial genetic modifications currently obtained in the laboratory and allowing the creation of new species to be envisaged in the near future.
It remains to be seen who these genetic enthusiasts would have been (not necessarily fuzzy) who once seemed to have had a good time diversifying land species ...

[dedeleco]

sudden appearance of certain species without intermediate links,

is a pure illusion due to the scarcity of fossils and the speed of genetic change under external constraint, like new dogs of very different appearance or new plants, (new roses) in a few generations, with also the epigenetics which accelerates the changes .

We differ from chimpanzees especially by epigenetics.

So not proof at all.

And nobody had fun diversifying the species, simply the time, which leads to colonize all the possible niches, proof of the evolution in all directions, even regressions, (snakes = lizards having lost their legs, for example, etc.) as numerous as advancement.
See links and books by Gould !!!

This life-creating goddess would have fun changing all the physical laws without stopping if it existed !! not found, computers work without stopping without failures according to the whims of such a god !!!
So purely religious belief !!!

Absurd as a god controlling the world !!!

[Janic]

What effects on organisms?
We know today that the very diverse chemical processes of epigenetics (acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitinylation of chromatin, post-transcriptional modifications, etc.) play a role in the development of many diseases, therefore cancer, but also in traits such as the behavior, aging or longevity of individuals. And recent studies conducted on plants or animals suggest that certain epigenetic modifications acquired during existence could to pass on to descendants. Suffice to say that epigenetics, a field of research in full expansion for a few years, is one of the major scientific and medical challenges of our time.
http://www.inserm.fr/thematiques/geneti ... igenetique

There is a fundamental difference between could to pass on and se transmit. It goes without saying that when an individual is in particular conditions (lifestyle, food, environment, etc.) these influences mark the individual and will be found in descendants living under the same conditions, but if these conditions unfavorable disappear this epigenetic phenomenon also disappears. So, for the moment nobody really knows if these epigenetic phenomena will be permanently registered in the heritage or if it remains only “regressive” factors.
Thus families with cancer, diabetes, etc ... see these "diseases" disappear from subsequent generations when living conditions change.
PS: dedeleco, you really have big problems with religion!
Leave it aside and worry only about the non-religious and scientific dimension of the debate because you forget a little quickly that the development of science, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, arts, letters, etc. ..were made by believers (whatever these beliefs) and from which we benefit today including atheist scientists, and that if atheism wants to impose its philosophy at any cost, this one does not bring together majority of scientists from all over the world.

[Cuicui]

sudden appearance of certain species without intermediate links,

is pure illusion ... So not proof at all.

I'm not talking about evidence, but arguments. In this area full of strangers, peremptory claims are out of place.

And no one had fun diversifying the species

Proofs ?

This goddess person

Uh, who are you talking about? And why bring in "divinities"?