Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby edy420 on August 3rd, 2018, 9:32 pm 

I create a seed from scratch, an entirely new and separate species.
I plant this seed, and it grows into a tree.

Did I not create the tree?
Am I not responsible, for the colours of the leaves, the lengths of the stems and the overall shape and size of the tree?
How it reacts to gravity, was by my design, also how well it absorbs water and utilises photosynthesis, the type how fruit it bares etc.

Further more, if it mutates and evolves into something else over millions of years, am I not responsible for the creation of those plants too?

With evolution, I like to think of the first replicating cell as the seed of life.
Scientists don’t know where it came from or how it was made, but have a few theories on abiogenesis.

For me the answer is easy, the first self replicating cell came from God.
If this is true, then would God not be responsible for all life on earth? (any God/creator)
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby SciameriKen on August 3rd, 2018, 10:04 pm 

Life is an arbitrary classification - what we call life probably arose from things close to what we call life.
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
zetreque liked this post


Re: Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby edy420 on August 4th, 2018, 6:33 am 

As a theist, I’d like to argue that the first self replicating cell and the laws of physics are all created by God, but I have no scientific proof other than faith (likewise the opposing arguments).
There is no scientific proof either way so I digress, for the sake of philosophical exploration.
I’d like to explore an alternate way of looking at evolution, where we acknowledge the importance of the laws of physics.

SciameriKen » 04 Aug 2018, 11:04 wrote:Life is an arbitrary classification - what we call life probably arose from things close to what we call life.


Then, things “close” to what we call life, should be considered the seed of life.

Because, our family tree goes back further than our records.
Back before your great great great royal grandfather, before the Neanderthal, before the primeape, the first land animal and the first fish.
All the way back to the first self replicating cell and even further still.
Can we continue back to the things “close” to what we call life and before them too.

I wonder if the first self replicating cell had the beginnings of the human being.
Or is it more to do with the laws of physics, than the theory of evolution.
It was more than chance that we have legs, due to the way body mass is effected by gravity.
More than chance that we developed eyes, due to the way light reflects off of various complex atomic configurations.
More than chance that we have ears, due to the way that atoms vibrate when agitated.
Our entire composition would be meaningless if any of the laws of physics were absent.

Quite simply, the recipe for human life, is in the laws of physics, more so than the first self replicating cell.

Because, if we talk about things “close” to what we call life as being the seed of life, then what is the seed of life anything other than the laws of physics.

ie. things “close” to what we call life are all elements of which their characteristics, are predetermined by the laws of physics.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby zetreque on August 4th, 2018, 11:44 am 

edy420 » Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:32 pm wrote:I create a seed from scratch, an entirely new and separate species.
I plant this seed, and it grows into a tree.


Even if you created the laws of physics (your seed of life),
Who created you?
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby davidm on August 4th, 2018, 1:39 pm 

edy420 » August 4th, 2018, 4:33 am wrote:
I wonder if the first self replicating cell had the beginnings of the human being.


It didn't. Also, the first replicator was not a cell.

Or is it more to do with the laws of physics, than the theory of evolution.


Physics constrains what evolution can produce, but evolution produces the forms, by an endless string of contingent accidents.

The first simple replicator arose naturally, from underlying physics and chemistry. There was no designer, no god.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby Serpent on August 4th, 2018, 3:33 pm 

edy420 » August 3rd, 2018, 8:32 pm wrote:For me the answer is easy, the first self replicating cell came from God.
If this is true, then would God not be responsible for all life on earth? (any God/creator)

If>then / else
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby edy420 on August 5th, 2018, 1:18 am 

Let’s say we could recreate the first self replicating cell, and place it on a planet similar to the earth that our ancestral cell started with.

How different would the creatures be that evolved from it, compared to ours.
Surely it would develop eyes due to light, legs due to gravity, survival instincts and eventually a complex intellectual.

Ive heard someone say that we could have evolved with 3 eyes and no teeth.
But I highly doubt other humanoids would be much different anatomically, given a similar amount of time to evolve.

We struggle to recreate robotics that rival our own bodies, which are able to run a day or two on the energy of a banana.
We have thumbs, two eyes and teeth for a reason.
The way our limbs utilise pivot point mechanics, and muscular dynamics is a marvellous feat of engineering.
The robots we create look similar to us, because it’s an efficient design in terms of mobility and utility.
Or else four legged robots look similar to four legged creatures. (Ones that are missing knee or anckle joints are less functional)
The closer a robot looks to an existing creature, the more functional utility and mobility it has, while remaining efficient.
For example, a robot with tracks or wheels and 5 arms has less functional utility than a humanoid one.

The reason why we developed the way we did, was all guided by the laws of physics.

If the laws remain the same, then subjects of evolution may have less randomness involved than we think.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Who creates the tree, if I create the seed?

Postby davidm on August 5th, 2018, 10:52 am 

As previously noted, the first replicators were not cells. Cells are very complex; the first replicators were very simple.

As also previously noted, physics obviously constrains evolution, but evolution produces forms, not physics.

As to the rest, what structures evolve depends on the environment. Eyes are certainly useful, and have evolved independently many times, but not all animals have eyes, and no living things outside the animal kingdom have eyes. Some animals lost their eyes while evolving.

The human form is not at all optimal; basically, it’s a mess in many ways. There is no correlation between our anatomy and our intelligence.

Many creatures are highly intelligent and wholly different in form from us. Ants invented farming and domesticated animals 50 million years ago, long before humans appeared. Many animals make and use tools, can count, and can think abstractly. Other species communicate with their fellow and arguably have complex languages that we don’t understand. Elephants, whales, dolphins, crows and parrots are all highly intelligent, and look and act nothing like us.

We build robots like us because we like things that are familiar. If cows could build robots, they would look like cows. If cows could have gods, they would like cows.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: 05 Feb 2011



Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests