Aristotle on the Origin of Life

[rrobs]

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

 

[`mud]

YUP !

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

What do you think the alternative explanation for evolution
(as observed in the fossil record) will be?

 

[rrobs]

What do you think the alternative explanation for evolution
(as observed in the fossil record) will be?

Well, hard to tell, but I suspect it will be as different as the difference between Aristotle's idea and our current theory. I can imagine forums where anyone who still believes in our current theory will be considered as off the wall as we think of Aristotle and draw considerable flaming.

I guess the key here is, "hard to tell."

 

[Polymath257]

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

Aristotle's physics was also pretty bad, even from a Newtonian perspective.

Once we started *testing* our ideas and requiring the theories be predictive, the chances for this large of a shift are drastically reduced. So, while Newton was wrong, he was still right enough to be useful.

Even if the current theory of evolution (how change happens) is overthrown, the fact that species change over time (evolution itself) won't change.

 

[`mud]

Beyond 2030.....?

 

[Altfish]

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

Science changes as knowledge advances - that isn't a weakness, it's a strength.
The Theory of Evolution has changed (evolved if you like) and become more refined, we know much more than Darwin ever did; but it has strengthened as a Theory.
In a thousand years there may be (will be!!) more changes but the basic facts of the theory are unlikely to change much.

 

[Nakosis]

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

Not so much evolution since evolution is just about change, how life changes over centuries/eons. Life obviously changes over time. Perhaps about abiogenesis though. Kind of getting closer but until we have a proven theory of abiogenesis I suspect there is still much to learn.

 

[Nimos]

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

The way you have phrased this question or wondering, is done most excellent to show whether or not, a person believe or understand what evolution is

It's not meant to be taken offensive, but the question is like asking: "Whether evolution will be seen as being just as ridiculous as some random made up assumption, while eating a banana?"

Its like denouncing evidence, while eating them

The difference between evolution and Aristotles assumption, is that we use it in practice, within so many fields. Like agriculture, medicin, history, science, animal breeding. Whereas we don't use his theory for anything.

So even if evolution for some weird reason is shown to be wrong, we can still thank it for all the lives it have saved and all the people it have helped feed.

My guess is, that evolution is as likely to stay as the Earth being spherical is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, hard to tell, but I suspect it will be as different as the difference between Aristotle's idea and our current theory. I can imagine forums where anyone who still believes in our current theory will be considered as off the wall as we think of Aristotle and draw considerable flaming.

I guess the key here is, "hard to tell."

We can see how theories (in science) have changed over the centuries,
eg, Newtonian physics being discovered to be a special case approximation
of general relativity. But Aristotle existed in a time when theorization wasn't
supported by testing, ie, it was speculation based upon experience. This is
fundamentally different from the more modern approach. So I wouldn't be
so quick to assume that something like the TOE would be overturned in
the same manner as ancient views on physics.
Newton wasn't overturned, but rather his works were found to be good
approximations. So we might expect that our current understanding of
evolution would be improved, not replaced.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

The first person to fly was in a hot air balloon in 1783.

It took thousands of years for a person to ‘fly’.

In 1852 the first steam powered airship was launched.

Only 69 years.

In 1903 the Wright brothers executed controlled and sustained flight.

51 years

In 1949, the first human made object went into space. (Nasa website)

46 years

In 1957, the first satellite was placed in orbit.

8 years

In 1961, the first human went into space.

4 years

And since that time, humans landed on the moon, landed craft on Mars, and have sent a satellite beyond our solar system.


There is no limit to our abilities, if we only have open minds and use them to think beyond where we are today. It’s a shame there are some people who desire to limit their thinking only to what they know.

 

[Quintessence]

*sigh*

I understand the spirit of your comparison, but it is a fallacious one. The Four Elements are a teaching of natural philosophy, which is not science. If you read up on the Four Elements, you will come to understand that Air, Fire, Earth, and Water don't actually refer to literal, physical substances - they represent abstract principles. And no, the natural philosophy of the Four Elements isn't ridiculous. It's very elegant for those who bother to take the time to study it.

 

[rrobs]

Aristotle's physics was also pretty bad, even from a Newtonian perspective.

At the time, they were just as sure of their methods as we are today.

Once we started *testing* our ideas and requiring the theories be predictive, the chances for this large of a shift are drastically reduced. So, while Newton was wrong, he was still right enough to be useful.

Yes, Newton is very useful.

Even if the current theory of evolution (how change happens) is overthrown, the fact that species change over time (evolution itself) won't change.

Hope you don't mind, but the scriptures would agree with you. According to Genesis everything was created after "it's kind." The word "kind" is the Greek word genos which is of course where we get our word genus. The scriptures further declare that all the various life forms, plant and animal, have "seed in itself." What does a rose seed produce? An Oak tree? No! It produces another rose. Of course there are many species of roses, many having evolved over time, but a rose is a rose is a rose. Ditto with dogs, cats, people, etc.

The upshot; while the scriptures allow for evolution with a genus, it does not speak to one genus coming from some other genus.

 

[rrobs]

*sigh*

I understand the spirit of your comparison, but it is a fallacious one. The Four Elements are a teaching of natural philosophy, which is not science. If you read up on the Four Elements, you will come to understand that Air, Fire, Earth, and Water don't actually refer to literal, physical substances - they represent abstract principles. And no, the natural philosophy of the Four Elements isn't ridiculous. It's very elegant for those who bother to take the time to study it.

Well, at least you can see the spirit of my comparison.

Still one has to wonder about fireflies coming from morning dew. I think he meant just that and not some abstract principle at play. But I wasn't really there to ask, so maybe you are right.

 

[rrobs]

The way you have phrased this question or wondering, is done most excellent to show whether or not, a person believe or understand what evolution is

It's not meant to be taken offensive, but the question is like asking: "Whether evolution will be seen as being just as ridiculous as some random made up assumption, while eating a banana?"

Its like denouncing evidence, while eating them

The difference between evolution and Aristotles assumption, is that we use it in practice, within so many fields. Like agriculture, medicin, history, science, animal breeding. Whereas we don't use his theory for anything.

So even if evolution for some weird reason is shown to be wrong, we can still thank it for all the lives it have saved and all the people it have helped feed.

My guess is, that evolution is as likely to stay as the Earth being spherical is.

I suppose each generation thinks they, "have finally arrived."

 

[rrobs]

The first person to fly was in a hot air balloon in 1783.

It took thousands of years for a person to ‘fly’.

In 1852 the first steam powered airship was launched.

Only 69 years.

In 1903 the Wright brothers executed controlled and sustained flight.

51 years

In 1949, the first human made object went into space. (Nasa website)

46 years

In 1957, the first satellite was placed in orbit.

8 years

In 1961, the first human went into space.

4 years

And since that time, humans landed on the moon, landed craft on Mars, and have sent a satellite beyond our solar system.


There is no limit to our abilities, if we only have open minds and use them to think beyond where we are today. It’s a shame there are some people who desire to limit their thinking only to what they know.

Exactly. Given the rate of knowledge change, who could possibly know what we will know in 2,000 years?

 

[Quintessence]

Well, at least you can see the spirit of my comparison.

Still one has to wonder about fireflies coming from morning dew. I think he meant just that and not some abstract principle at play. But I wasn't really there to ask, so maybe you are right.

Well, I was speaking specifically of the Four Elements, which I've done enough research on that I really should just get a book published on it already. Just in general, we need to be careful about conflating natural philosophy with science. While natural philosophy laid some of the foundations for science, it is not science and it's a bit misleading to compare it to such. The thought processes used in natural philosophy are really not the same as what is used today in the sciences, so while the general point of "what we think now might be wildly wrong in the future" stands, there's some significant methodological differences that shouldn't be overlooked. Natural science is grounded in methodological naturalism and empiricism, standards which make the overturning of bedrock theories like gravity and evolution* very, very unlikely.

*side note - biological evolution DOES NOT discuss the origin of life; this is just an example

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

At the time, they were just as sure of their methods as we are today.

Yes, Newton is very useful.

Hope you don't mind, but the scriptures would agree with you. According to Genesis everything was created after "it's kind." The word "kind" is the Greek word genos which is of course where we get our word genus. The scriptures further declare that all the various life forms, plant and animal, have "seed in itself." What does a rose seed produce? An Oak tree? No! It produces another rose. Of course there are many species of roses, many having evolved over time, but a rose is a rose is a rose. Ditto with dogs, cats, people, etc.

The upshot; while the scriptures allow for evolution with a genus, it does not speak to one genus coming from some other genus.

Human time on earth has been incredibly brief and came very very very late in the scheme of things.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Exactly. Given the rate of knowledge change, who could possibly know what we will know in 2,000 years?

In 2000 years, I expect to know millions of times more than I know now.
Yet, I believe all that knowledge will still be nothing compared to what will still remain.
How about you?
What do you know?
What do you want to know?

 

[rrobs]

Well, I was speaking specifically of the Four Elements, which I've done enough research on that I really should just get a book published on it already. Just in general, we need to be careful about conflating natural philosophy with science. While natural philosophy laid some of the foundations for science, it is not science and it's a bit misleading to compare it to such. The thought processes used in natural philosophy are really not the same as what is used today in the sciences, so while the general point of "what we think now might be wildly wrong in the future" stands, there's some significant methodological differences that shouldn't be overlooked. Natural science is grounded in methodological naturalism and empiricism, standards which make the overturning of bedrock theories like gravity and evolution* very, very unlikely.

*side note - biological evolution DOES NOT discuss the origin of life; this is just an example

I see what you are saying and it has truth to it.

Did Aristotle consider his ideas science or philosophy? I do believe he was considered both, so we don't really know from which perspective he made his statements.

Is it not possible that our scientific method has limitations that some new method developed in the next 2,000 years will make it look just as quaint as we see Aristotle? Of courser if we are closed minded regarding the possibility, then we shall never see an alternative. Please don't ask me what that alternative might be. It will take 2,000 years to answer that one.

There is also a huge difference between observing gravity and observing evolution. Not having seen an actual mutation from one genus to another, all we can do is create models and make inferences. Gravity is easy enough to see. Don't even need any test tubes or flasks to see gravity at work.