[tonyrey]

Many scientists believe all life, including that of human beings, has developed solely as the result of random mutations and natural selection. Do you believe this is an adequate explanation?

[simoneaugie]

Everything is a coincidence.
Nothing is a coincidence.

Everything is true from a certain perspective.
Everything is also false.

To me, nothing is a coincidence and everything is true. The glass half-full?

Even if someone totally disagrees with me, I win!

[Athos]

Scientists do not claim all life originated by chance. What they do say is that life developed (evolved) by natural selection and an occasional and rare mutation.

The origin of life is unknown and, as far as I know, science has never claimed to know this.

[tonyrey]

Scientists do not claim all life originated by chance. What they do say is that life developed (evolved) by natural selection and an occasional and rare mutation.

The origin of life is unknown and, as far as I know, science has never claimed to know this.

Two examples:

Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself."

Nobel laureate Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity: "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance."

[Athos]

Two examples:

Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself."

Nobel laureate Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity: "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance."

While some scientists may have proposed hypotheses re the origin of life, this in itself is not enough to claim that science has said that all life originated by chance. However, re-reading your OP I see that you are referring to "scientists" and not "science". So I apologize for assuming something you did not say.

[tonyrey]

While some scientists may have proposed hypotheses re the origin of life, this in itself is not enough to claim that science has said that all life originated by chance. However, re-reading your OP I see that you are referring to "scientists" and not "science". So I apologize for assuming something you did not say.

There's no need to apologize - scientists like Dawkins give the impression they represent science :D Many scientists reject Darwinism because natural selection and random mutations do not explain how lifeless molecules have developed into persons...

[Athos]

There's no need to apologize - scientists like Dawkins give the impression they represent science :D Many scientists reject Darwinism because natural selection and random mutations do not explain how lifeless molecules have developed into persons...

If many scientists reject natural selection and random mutations for the reason you state, then such "scientists" are not worthy of the name since Darwinism does not address the question of, as you put it, "lifeless molecules developing into persons".

[tonyrey]

If many scientists reject natural selection and random mutations for the reason you state, then such "scientists" are not worthy of the name since Darwinism does not address the question of, as you put it, "lifeless molecules developing into persons".

Judging by his private correspondence Darwin seems to have accepted Huxley’s version of a naturalistic origin of life. He suggested life may have begun in a 'warm little pond". He certainly lost his faith in Christianity after the death of his daughter. In The Descent of Man he wrote:

"I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity."

Yet Darwin also wrote:

"I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance."

Whatever Darwin believed, NeoDarwinists certainly maintain all life has emerged by chance. Dawkins, for example, argues that natural selection even applies to inanimate matter!

[NeedKarma]

Should this be moved to the religious discussions area? It seems to have an agenda.

[Akoue]

Should this be moved to the religious discussions area? It seems to have an agenda.

If it goes there it will just turn into a battle of biblical quotes. This is a perfectly fine philosophical topic and discussion--even if one or more participant has an agenda of some sort. At least in philosophy, there is more room for reasoned argument than there is in the religious discussions forum. We all know the script for things that happen there.

[asking]

Two examples:

Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself."

Nobel laureate Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity: "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance."

I'm with Athos on this.

Monod, a molecular biologist, died in 1976 and I don't feel that his opinion that we are alone in the universe is supported by current understanding of either biology or planetary astronomy, which both suggest that if life appears at all, evolution is likely. (And that there is at least plenty of opportunity for life to appear.)

Dawkins comment about a self replicating RNA molecule appearing by accident is not wrong, of course. But it's not meant to suggest that all of evolution is about random events--the crashed 747 spontaneoulsy reassembling itself. That's the implication I'm reacting against. Evolution is not like that. The environment shapes the bodies and minds of organisms over time, including us. Dawkins knows that.

So the premise implied in the title of this thread, that we are here by chance, is, to a biologist, slightly irksome. Chance is involved, but it's hardly the whole story.

By analogy: If I go to the market to shop for dinner, thinking to buy fresh fish and green beans, but discover the fish is not fresh and they have squashes instead of beans, I go home and make sauteed chicken and squash instead. My specific choices about what to cook and eat were affected by chance, or at least the vagaries of the grocery store. But the meal hardly appeared on my table "by chance." (and this is not a design argument either... )

[tonyrey]

Should this be moved to the religious discussions area? It seems to have an agenda.

You imagine there is an agenda! It is a philosophical question, plain and simple. Chance is hardly a religious topic, but if you find it distasteful there is no need to be involved in the discussion :)

[tonyrey]

[QUOTE=asking;1609930]

So the premise implied in the title of this thread, that we are here by chance, is, to a biologist, slightly irksome. Chance is involved, but it's hardly the whole story.

[/QUOTE

Obviously chance is not the whole story but since the origin of life is attributed to a fortuitous combination of circumstances and random mutation is regarded as the ultimate source of genetic variation it must be the fundamental factor in the naturalistic theory of evolution...

[asking]

Obviously chance is not the whole story but since the origin of life is attributed to a fortuitous combination of circumstances and random mutation is regarded as the ultimate source of genetic variation it must be the fundamental factor in the naturalistic theory of evolution...

Random mutation; contingency, historical and otherwise; and directional selection are all mechanisms by which evolution occurs, among many factors. There is no need to single out one of them alone (random mutation) and set it up as a strawman.

There are different ways of looking at chance. The chances that a particular dust particle floating around my house will settle exactly in the middle of my camera lens seems infinitely small, but considering how much dust is in the air, the chances that any one particle of dust should settle there is a virtual certainty. If you want to look at our existence as an example of the first case, then we are unlikely. But if you start with the dust particle that has already settled, it's not quite so amazing. We are the dust particle that has already settled.

[tonyrey]

The chances that a particular dust particle floating around my house will settle exactly in the middle of my camera lens seems infinitely small, but considering how much dust is in the air, the chances that any one particle of dust should settle there is a virtual certainty. If you want to look at our existence as an example of the first case, then we are unlikely. But if you start with the dust particle that has already settled, it's not quite so amazing. We are the dust particle that has already settled.

Your analogy of the human race with a dust particle is a perfect summary of naturalistic evolution! By attributing all development to physical causes our existence is interpreted as due to chance since it is devoid of any ultimate meaning, purpose or value...

[21boat]

Interesting post here. This may relate to that area in chance. I remember around the 90s the Smithsonian magazine had a bunch of world scientist that was allowed for a brief time use military satellites to look in space. They found a Hot Spot in temperature reading in our universe. There was nothing of consequence there except a heat signature. They felt that something Huge happen there to leave the heat signature there for Billions of years. They felt it could be the Big bang that started our universe and the heat residual still remains.

Just thought I share that relating to life here and where it all possibly started to have a planet

Signed 21 Boat

If I Helped To Answer Your Question Please Rate My Answer

I think that was around 91 or 92.

[tonyrey]

interesting post here. This may relate to that area in chance. I remember around the 90s the Smithsonian magazine had a bunch of world scientist that was allowed for a brief time use military satellites to look in space. They found a Hot Spot in temperature reading in our universe. There was nothing of consequence there except a heat signature. They felt that something Huge happen there to leave the heat signature there for Billions of years. They felt it could be the Big bang that started our universe and the heat residual still remains.

Just thought I share that relating to life here and where it all possibly started to have a planet

Signed 21 Boat

If I Helped To Answer Your Question Please Rate My Answer

I think that was around 91 or 92.

It's a fascinating fact but leaves the problem of what caused the Big Bang unsolved :)