Do complex life-forms in this universe automatically develop a pair of eyes?

[prothero]

to the OP, No.
but
Evolutionary convergence implies that complex life forms develop abilities and sensory perceptual abilities that improve procreation and survival in their enviroment and that certain abilities have developed independently multiple times (hearing,sight, locomotion, legs, fins, etc.).

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

And I STILL say that you can't apply the theory of natural selection to the question of the origin of life, because before it was alive, there was nothing to select.

Sure there was.

For example there is a certain beach in England where small pepples are found at one end and large rocks found at the other.

Wave action within the shape of the particular beach "selects" according to size of rock.

If you can apply a naturally selective process to sorting rocks on a beach why not self-replicating polymers?

As for relatively simple self-replicating polymers the selective agents could be multifarious.


Things like:

• Speed of self-replication
• Ability to bond with phospholipid layer
• Ability to create symbiotic enzyme
• Size of molecule

And so on - would all affect the ability of the self-replicating polymer to exist and replicate more copies of itself within the primordial soup.

This would feasably lead to a primitive form of 'evolution by natural selection' - simply because the more successful polymers begin to dominate the environment to the detriment of less successful models.

What action might have caused this if not natural selection?

[xris]

We can speculate as much as we like but the reality is we have never succeeded in creating life that has the same ability that life had when it first appeared on earth. Simple paterns of life, in nature have the ability to become complex and find answers to the most difficult of problems, so why not new life coming from that simple law of nature. I often wonder after so many millions of years why we do not find life reoccurring again and again in its basic format, should that be telling us something?

When people say nature gives other creatures more than two eyes , do they realise that they loose so much by that ability? I read that for man to have three arms his head would need to be four times bigger to cope with the complexities of coordinating three arms and hands. We are the pinnacle of success and to try changing us for the better would be nit picking at the best. Two eyes facing forward is the best it gets.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by xris

We can speculate as much as we like but the reality is we have never succeeded in creating life that has the same ability that life had when it first appeared on earth.

I think scientists are pretty close now. What's the betting that the "but life has never been created in a lab" objection will be moot soon enough?

I often wonder after so many millions of years why we do not find life reoccurring again and again in its basic format, should that be telling us something?

It probably has on occasion, but it would have been quickly gobbled up - such protolife is completely defenceless in an area where life is already established.

We are the pinnacle of success and to try changing us for the better would be nit picking at the best. Two eyes facing forward is the best it gets.

Depends what you call success. Time on planet - we're relative newcomers. Biomass - grass aces us. Number - we're piffling compared to ants.

When we talk of success we just laud our adapability and ability to survive in different environments, or maybe cite our apparently singlualr conciousnesses.

But they aren't things of any intrinsic worth.

[xris]

When or if we do create life as we know it, Jim. I will applaud their ability.

I cant imagine anything in creation , even ants, having the same abilities and success as humans. Ants are still involved in evolutionary battles for survival, not even they have overcome their enemies advances. They need to have varied evolutionary inventions to handle each aspect of the community. Soldier , workers, flying adventurers, queens . We are all of them and more in one compact ability. Give me a better invention than the human that can fulfill as many objectives?

[jeeprs]

Sorry Dave I have a real conceptual problem with where you're coming from. The fact that rocks get sorted into patterns has no bearing on the intricacies involved in the coming together of life. You have complete confidence that life is just something that spontaneously occurred, and sooner or later we'll work out the details, and it'll be right. Again I say, I am not a creationist or fundamentalist or even Christian, but I am never going to buy it. But there's no point arguing it as I am never going to convince you, and you have a snowflakes of convincing me. And besides, it is off the point of the OP.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

You have complete confidence that life is just something that spontaneously occurred...

Actually - you had complete confidence that - in your own words - "scientifically inclined types" wouldn't examine the origins of life "without getting touchy about it".

I think that's piffle - because of this very field of research.
I provided you with a precis about abiogenesis - not because I have "complete confidence" in it (though I think it's the best explanation there is, for sure) - but to demonstrate that the apparent assertion that no investigation into it occured was utterly baseless - as it is. Scientists are examining the very thing you claimed they wouldn't due to "touchiness" - QED.

The research may have shortcomings - though I still don't see why a journalistic proponent's south-east english accent has to do with it - can you explain why that's an issue for my edification please?

The fact that rocks get sorted into patterns has no bearing on the intricacies involved in the coming together of life.

Well that's not really apparent.

It is merely an example of a simple selective pressure - occuring in nature - to illustrate that not all processes of natural selection act on living matter.

Extrapolate up (or down) to the things that act of polymers.

It's really just posited as counter to the assertion that natural selection only happens when life is about.

That's not technically true.

Again I say, I am not a creationist or fundamentalist or even Christian, but I am never going to buy it.

Your dogmatism is up to you really. I'd rather learn for myself what the different arguments are and tend towards the better ones.

In doing so I'd have to be honest about such arguments - and not dismiss them along the lines of "such and such people won't look at such a thing without getting touchy" - when actually its a field of study of some intricacy and dividend (increasingly so).

It's nothing to do with religion or anti-religion insofar as I reckon it - because if you favour a supernatural first cause in your worldveiw it would be perfectly reasonable to assume this is how he did it. That's not my bag personally - but why abiogenesis would be incompatible with faith is beyond me.

[jeeprs]

Thanks Dave, well explained. You are giving me a lot of grounds for thought, I will gather my wits and I think make another post on the topic, I really don't want to hijack the OP. But this will be 8 hours away, I have a lot of work to do between now and then.

[jeeprs]

I have put some further comments on abiogenisis on my blog if anyone is interested.

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Could have, but what if 'two' are optimal - not because 'the grand designer' chose that number, but because that number is the one most likely to emerge from the many possibilities? ...

If having two eyes is most likely to emerge, then it would probably be what would emerge on most planets with life with eyes, but likely not all. Also, your use of the word "optimal" is not normal, as being the most likely to occur by chance is not what that word normally means. By the usual meaning of the term, it would appear to be more optimal for humans to not have appendixes, because they seem to be more potentially detrimental than helpful, but in fact people do tend to have them. Such considerations, by the way, tend to suggest that if humans were designed, the designer was incompetent. What is especially ironic and amusing is that creationists have often used the eye as an example of something that is supposed to show design and purpose, yet the human eye is extremely unreliable, so that most of them fail to work very well (which explains why most people use glasses, contact lenses, or corrective surgery), which surely tells us quite a bit about the abilities of any potential designer. But that is getting us off topic.