Aristotle on the Origin of Life

[cladking]

Nobody educated in science thinks that, though. It's just another of these silly straw men erected by creationists in order to ridicule science. No doubt it is rhetorically useful, when ridiculing science to a select audience of ignorant creationists, though. I'm sure it gets a lot of laughs in such company.

You might be surprised how many metaphysicians think like I do.

Of course nobody is actually trained in metaphysics so no Peers exist to say what's real and what is imaginary.

 

[gnostic]

I don't think even the "big bang" is really theory. It is a mathematically consistent way to explain a wide array of observation. That the universe appears to have originated from a point is quite interesting but hardly very likely in reality. There is some reason math and observation support this but it seems that at this point it is simply unknown.

It is more than just maths.

Evidence is all about observation and what you can observe, then you can also:

1. Measure,
2. Quantify,
3. Test,
4. Verify or Refute

Since observations and measurements have been provided, then these are evidence, not merely equations or formulas or metrics.

While maths do play a role in most science, but it is the accumulated evidence that will determine whether the theory is factual and scientific.

The Big Bang theory is the only modern physical cosmology that are consistent with the verifiable evidence.

The same cannot be said about other proposed and theoretical models, like the Cyclical model (also known as Oscillating model or the Big Bounce), the various Multiverse models, the various superstring cosmology, the already debunked Static model (Einstein’s 1917 cosmology), the debunked Steady State model (Fred Hoyle’s 1950s cosmology), etc.

The Multiverse is very popular, especially with sci-fi novels, movies and TV, but so far it is purely mathematical, hence purely theoretical. As it is the case with various models proposed by Superstring theorists.

So for you to say what you have written, is just more of your silly anti-science conspiracy theory.

Tell me, cladking, did physicists have rejected your crazy idea too, as your claims the Egyptologists hurt your pride when they rejected your ideas?

 

[gnostic]

I can hear Aristotle saying all of that about his ideas. That doesn't mean what you say is wrong, but it is food for thought. I'm talking about 2,000 years of using at least as good of scientific methods we currently use (probably much better methods will arise, but we'll discount that probability for now) just may prove our current theory of evolution is completely wrong.

Aristotle’s ideas are large largely outdated, and most of them are wrong, simply because Aristotle, like Plato and Socrates before him, weren’t scientists; they were philosophers.

If you really want ancient Greek scientists, then try Aristarchus, Eratosthenes or Archimedes, all 3rd century BCE, producing real results that mean something in science. These 3 did actual works and not armchair philosophizing, like Plato and Aristotle.

 

[rrobs]

Nobody educated in science thinks that, though. It's just another of these silly straw men erected by creationists in order to ridicule science. No doubt it is rhetorically useful, when ridiculing science to a select audience of ignorant creationists, though. I'm sure it gets a lot of laughs in such company.

Can we get past the straw man and say something with actual substance?

My comment is meant to describe what the "scientists" here are saying. I understand perfectly well that real scientists would say exactly what I'm saying, i.e. we we learn more about nature than we presently know,

 

[rrobs]

Only that you call that "totally different" and I call it "basically the same".

The epitome of Doaism.

 

[rrobs]

Aristotle’s ideas are large largely outdated, and most of them are wrong, simply because Aristotle, like Plato and Socrates before him, weren’t scientists; they were philosophers.

If you really want ancient Greek scientists, then try Aristarchus, Eratosthenes or Archimedes, all 3rd century BCE, producing real results that mean something in science. These 3 did actual works and not armchair philosophizing, like Plato and Aristotle.

Exactly. Four hundred years made a huge difference. Why I'm arguing about the possibility of change in the next 2,000 years is a mystery.

 

[gnostic]

Exactly. Four hundred years made a huge difference. Why I'm arguing about the possibility of change in the next 2,000 years is a mystery.

Well, with your OP, you are trying to compare oranges with v8 engines.

In Aristotle’s days, they didn’t really understand much about biology, unlike what we understand today.

Well, not “me” in the “we” because I am neither a biologist, nor a biochemist.

My point is that in the 30 years, understanding biology at genetic-level, cellular-level, and even smaller at molecular level, you need to understand that biologists are not half-wits as you think they are.

That you keep harping on and on and on about there being some unknowns that Abiogenesis researchers haven’t uncovered, while true, it is only partial true, because they are learning more.

That you are claiming that they don’t know anything is just you, being very ignorant and you are allowing your religious belief cloud your judgement and intelligence.

I don’t know how else to say it, but you repeating yourself only make you sounds like a stubborn fool.

Instead of repeating yourself, with this “unknown” BS, try to learn (A) what they do know, (B) what they have discovered, (C) and what more that can be learn from knowing A & B.

So what they don’t know “everything”?

That’s not the point of science.

Science is about acquiring knowledge, via formulating the explanations (eg scientific theory, falsifiable hypothesis or theoretical model), and then to test and see if the explanations are probable or improbable.

No accepted scientific theories explain absolutely everything.

No scientific theory is inerrant.

In any case, Abiogenesis isn’t a scientific theory (so it isn’t science).

But Abiogenesis is a working proposal that far more solid than Intelligent Design or any religious creationism, because Abiogenesis is falsifiable, ID and creationism are not falsifiable.

 

[Native]

Outside of experiment there is no "theory". Cosmologists now try to model reality through mathematics but this will prove to be impossible at least in the short term because there is far too little known. No tool can do more than its design and I fear the tool we call "science" has reached the end of its usefulness. This is hardly to say we must abandon it but I believe we must modify its metaphysics to get over the impossibility of designing experiment to advance theory. We need to attack these things from a new direction.

I agree.

Regarding revising/abandon theories: The first time (About 1930) Newton´s "laws of celestial motion" was questioned by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve, scientists simply forgot to use the very scientific method itself. Instead of investigating the galactic motions, they just inserted "dark matter" in order to support previous gravitational assumptions and calculations.

A new attack in this matter and a real scientific method would have been to include other fundamental forces and its motions but the one which was questioned and contradicted.

 

[Native]

I don't think even the "big bang" is really theory. It is a mathematically consistent way to explain a wide array of observation. That the universe appears to have originated from a point is quite interesting but hardly very likely in reality. There is some reason math and observation support this but it seems that at this point it is simply unknown.

Neither do I. Science could just as well have stated the Universe to be created by a god. The only "reason some math and observation support this", all derives from the concept of HINDSIGTH BIAS and some misunderstood measurements of cosmic distances.

 

[Native]

Nobody likes any of my "theories" but I believe this is caused by the fact that ancient people used a different kind of science that proceeded differently and arriving at the same points because just as 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 any logical science corresponds to any other. The stories and myths are merely attempts at preserving ancient theory.

I know. The natural logics in ancient Stories of Creation is mostly forgotten and rediculed by modern science which itself is "totally lost in space".

When/if knowing of the ancient symbolic language and it´s astronomical and cosmological implications, one can read from several ancient religions and their mythologial contents that the creation/universe is eternal by nature - but also eternally changing between formation/creation, dissolution and re-formation. NO Big Bang here as assumed by modern confusions. It´s just a CIRCLE OF LIFE.

 

[Native]

I don't think even the "big bang" is really theory. It is a mathematically consistent way to explain a wide array of observation. That the universe appears to have originated from a point is quite interesting but hardly very likely in reality. There is some reason math and observation support this but it seems that at this point it is simply unknown.

This goes for all parts in modern cosmology. Watch this video from Sky Scholar about "black holes" -

 

[cladking]

Evidence is all about observation and what you can observe, then you can also:

"Evidence" is great stuff. But "evidence" is the backbone of observation not theory. Experiment is the backbone of theory. Evidence is ideal to form hypotheses and give insight into experiment design but it can never take the place of experiment. Of course theory will be consistent with evidence but it is not necessarily obvious that it is or Look and See Science would have already solved every mystery. Peers could simply glance at things and see what's really there.

The reality is Peers are just like the rest of us and they see what they expect. They see a reality that is consistent with what they believe. Because real scientists are trained to look more deeply they are a little more likely to see anomalies but ALL Homo Omnisciencis are very poor at seeing reality and very poor at seeing anomalies. Other animals think in terms of what they know and live in a world of anomalies.

Tell me, cladking, did physicists have rejected your crazy idea too, as your claims the Egyptologists hurt your pride when they rejected your ideas?

I'm necessarily right about physics because I'm merely using different definitions and metaphysics. The few who understand me simply see highly limited or no utility to using this perspective. A few biologists have told me that my 'understanding" of change in species is not so much different than modern beliefs about it. They don't agree that bottlenecks are so important. I have every reason to believe that no Egyptologist has even considered even a single one of my ideas. They don't comment nor respond to personal missives. On the rare occasion they quote me on-line they -snip- the entire post and call me names. Once in a while they'll raise points that demonstrate a shallow reading of a post or is defensive in nature. In their defense they have managed to point out numerous flaws in the past which have each been corrected. They haven't really "rejected" my theory since I seriously doubt any of them have more than a passing familiarity with it. Frankly I'd be proud to be proven wrong but as I keep telling people; Egyptology is a construct based on four primary assumptions and each of these is false. They have studied reality and created a "science" founded on four assumptions which are not true. As such their work is logical and consistent but it is not reflective of ANY REALITY WHATSOEVER. All of their work hinges on these assumptions so all of it is wrong. They have no ability to argue with me than you could argue with quantum mechanics with someone who maintains sub-atomic particles don't exist. Once you reject any of the belief in "ramps", "tombs", "stasis", and "superstition" there is nothing at all left of Egyptology. So they're never going to respond to me even after I've proven it. Frankly I suspect for most practical purposes my "beliefs" about the pyramids are already "proven". They are far more consistent with evidence and logic than Egyptological beliefs. My theory also makes accurate predictions where "state of the art" does not.

Expert opinion on my work on the brain and consciousness is irrelevant because experts don't even have a definition of "consciousness" and can't know how the brain works. But it is mostly digital so this supports my theory preferentially to current beliefs.

 

[cladking]

I know. The natural logics in ancient Stories of Creation is mostly forgotten and rediculed by modern science which itself is "totally lost in space".

When/if knowing of the ancient symbolic language and it´s astronomical and cosmological implications, one can read from several ancient religions and their mythologial contents that the creation/universe is eternal by nature - but also eternally changing between formation/creation, dissolution and re-formation. NO Big Bang here as assumed by modern confusions. It´s just a CIRCLE OF LIFE.

Everything observable is cyclical. Indeed, even its parts are cyclical so why wouldn't even origins?

Humans have seen a long succession of new ways to do things that are always much simpler and far less precise so why not language and thought as well? We know that humans were wise and powerful back in the "golden age" so why should we presume they were stumbled footed bumpkins? We can't seem to see why anything from consciousness to reality works so why do we each presume we know everything?

We simply dismiss everything out of hand that isn't consistent with our beliefs and we can't see the anomalies that prove we are almost perfectly ignorant. Many people wonder that religion has such a firm hold in this day and age of complete knowledge without ever considering that perhaps religion sprang from the same source as myth and legend which is also dismissed out of hand. They never consider the fact that these ancient "beliefs" ring true for a reason. I believe that the reason is that they sprang from a real science and the language that was its metaphysics. But even if I'm wrong the simple fact remains that no science to which individual consciousness is invisible can ever explain the reality of any origin. No science that is reductionistic in nature is likely to ever take apart something so complex as an wholly unpredictable reality so that origins can be determined. When we are able to deconstruct the future then we might be able to deconstruct the past. The former won't happen so neither will the latter.

But every day that goes by the complex will be transformed into the simple with more loss of precision, new theory will replace old theory with every theorist believing he now knows everything, and everything will continue to cycle with even theorists being replaced by newer and younger theorists. "Reality" will evolve one funeral at a time.

 

[Yazata]

Aristotle was an extraordinary intellect, in my opinion perhaps the greatest of all time. He is justifiably called history's first biologist. (He not only pioneered zoology, he pioneered scientific writing. Even today his biological books read more like modern textbooks than they read like most of the other contemporary writing of his time. (4th century BCE. Just compare it with the contemporary Hebrew writings.)

Aristotle's biological works include History of Animals, Generation of Animals, Movement of Animals, Parts of Animals, and On the Soul.

The English translation of the latter book's title is misleading, since to Aristotle the word 'soul' didn't mean what it means to most people today. This is captured in the same book's Greek title Peri Psyches and in the Latin title De Anima. To Aristotle, what we call 'the soul' was the principle of life in the abstract. Perhaps our modern word 'physiology' comes closest. It was what made animals move, what animated them. And Aristotle thought that there were a variety of processes involved in life, so the functions of the soul encompassed what we today would call metabolism, reproduction, temperature regulation, production of motion, sensory awareness and information processing/intellect. (All of which he discussed.)

Aristotle's biology - Wikipedia

(As you can no doubt tell, I'm a fan of Aristotle.)

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.

Which is more or less the modern view, isn't it? Aristotle didn't know about all of our modern chemical elements, so he got their number and nature wrong. But if you replace earth, air, fire and water with hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and all the rest, it's pretty much the same idea.

Where Aristotle differs most obviously from modern biological thought is in his teleology. Aristotle, perhaps inspired by his biological investigations, thought that all of nature was motivated by purposes. Why does the heart beat? To pump blood! Why do we have eyes? To see! In Aristotelian thought, everything that happens happens for a reason. That's why he included 'final cause' among his four causes. (To Aristotle, a 'cause' was the kind of information needed to account for the existence of something. These included its material, its form, how it was formed and its purpose/'final cause'. The craftsman analogy is obvious.)

"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

Aristotle was obviously aware of animal reproduction since he wrote a book on it (history's first comparative reproductive physiology text). He classified the generation of animals into three broad categories, those born live, those that emerge from eggs, and those that arise spontaneously. (I'd question whether he included mice in the latter category. But things like maggots, certainly.)

I'm less sure what Aristotle's theory of the first initial origin of life was. He doesn't say much about it. There may be a couple of reasons for that. For one, he already thought that life could arise spontaneously from non-life. And second, he seems to have thought of the past as infinite, without a temporal origin. So maybe life has always existed.

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous.

I don't think that most of Aristotle's biological work can be called "ridiculous". He obviously got many things wrong, but all-in-all he was dramatically ahead of his time. Given Aristotle's intellectual environment (the 4th century BCE) most of what he says was very smart (even if contemporary biologists don't always agree with him and have gone far beyond him in many ways).

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 you seem to be suggesting there is what philosophers of science call "the pessimistic induction". This is the idea that if many/most scientific ideas of the past have been shown to be wrong or superceded in some other way, then we can inductively conclude that most of our contemporary understanding will likely be superceded in the future.

I expect that's probably true.

The thing is, many of Aristotle's observations of animal life such as tide-pool invertebrates are still believed to be correct after all this time. Where he's more likely to be wrong is when he tries to place those observations in a larger conceptual scheme. When he speculates about physiological processes and so on. Yet his idea that there were physiological processes (as opposed to an animating supernatural life-force "breathed" into life) still appears to have been right.

So looking forward several hundred years, I expect that most of our present day descriptions of fossils will probably still be seen as reasonably accurate. Most of our present day gene-sequencing data will be accepted as good too, if perhaps excessively crude by their lights. And the big picture will also be seen to have been correct: natural selection and changes in biological populations over time.

Where they might differ from us is in the details in the middle. How does natural selection work on the level of the genome? What is the actual detailed history of life? What does the phylogenetic tree look like and how can it be assigned a time-scale? I think that's where they will differ most from contemporary thinking.

gGBb

 

[rrobs]

Well, with your OP, you are trying to compare oranges with v8 engines.

In Aristotle’s days, they didn’t really understand much about biology, unlike what we understand today.

I can imagine two people on a mental meshed network in the year 4020 talking about what we knew in the year 2020. One of them might say, "In Bill Nye's days, they didn’t really understand much about biology, unlike what we understand today."

My point is that in the 30 years, understanding biology at genetic-level, cellular-level, and even smaller at molecular level, you need to understand that biologists are not half-wits as you think they are.

I think biologists are intelligent people, certainly not half-wits. It's not their fault they have incomplete knowledge of things. Clearly the ones who investigate life in the year 4020 will have a much larger pool of data from which they draw their conclusions.

That you keep harping on and on and on about there being some unknowns that Abiogenesis researchers haven’t uncovered, while true, it is only partial true, because they are learning more.

I think it may be others harping about abiogenesis. I don't recall bringing it up other than possible replying to those who did.

That you are claiming that they don’t know anything is just you, being very ignorant and you are allowing your religious belief cloud your judgement and intelligence.

I said they don't know anything? Not really. All I'm saying is the scientists 2,000 from now may know more.

I don’t know how else to say it, but you repeating yourself only make you sounds like a stubborn fool.

If I keep repeating myself, it is only because other stubborn fools keep repeating themselves. Perhaps this forum is a ship of fools.

Instead of repeating yourself, with this “unknown” BS, try to learn (A) what they do know, (B) what they have discovered, (C) and what more that can be learn from knowing A & B.

Are you reading my posts? Where did I say they don't know anything or haven't discovered anything? At the risk of making myself a fool, I'll repeat my assertion: scientists will know more in the future and it may be so much more that our present day scientists will look to them like Aristotle looks to us today. I certainly wouldn't say either our scientists nor Aristotle didn't know anything.

So what they don’t know “everything”? That’s not the point of science.

I don't think you are reading my posts. If you are, you appear to be doing so hell bent on making me look ignorant. Sorry, but it's just not working.

Science is about acquiring knowledge, via formulating the explanations (eg scientific theory, falsifiable hypothesis or theoretical model), and then to test and see if the explanations are probable or improbable.

No accepted scientific theories explain absolutely everything.

OK. Now I know you are not reading my posts.

But Abiogenesis is a working proposal that far more solid than Intelligent Design or any religious creationism, because Abiogenesis is falsifiable, ID and creationism are not falsifiable.

That is a matter of opinion. I used to be of the same opinion as you, but not now.

It really doesn't bother me when accused of ignorance, but it is harmful to the accuser. Whatever energy we put out there returns in kind. Perhaps consider stopping with the "fool," ignorant," etc appellations in future posts. Just a suggestion, for your own well being.

 

[rrobs]

Aristotle was an extraordinary intellect, in my opinion perhaps the greatest of all time. He is justifiably called history's first biologist. (He not only pioneered zoology, he pioneered scientific writing. Even today his biological books read more like modern textbooks than they read like most of the other contemporary writing of his time. (4th century BCE. Just compare it with the contemporary Hebrew writings.)

Aristotle's biological works include History of Animals, Generation of Animals, Movement of Animals, Parts of Animals, and On the Soul.

The English translation of the latter book's title is misleading, since to Aristotle the word 'soul' didn't mean what it means to most people today. This is captured in the same book's Greek title Peri Psyches and in the Latin title De Anima. To Aristotle, what we call 'the soul' was the principle of life in the abstract. Perhaps our modern word 'physiology' comes closest. It was what made animals move, what animated them. And Aristotle thought that there were a variety of processes involved in life, so the functions of the soul encompassed what we today would call metabolism, reproduction, temperature regulation, production of motion, sensory awareness and information processing/intellect. (All of which he discussed.)

Aristotle’s Biology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

(As you can no doubt tell, I'm a fan of Aristotle.)



Which is more or less the modern view, isn't it? Aristotle didn't know about all of our modern chemical elements, so he got their number and nature wrong. But if you replace earth, air, fire and water with hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and all the rest, it's pretty much the same idea.

Where Aristotle differs most obviously from modern biological thought is in his teleology. Aristotle, perhaps inspired by his biological investigations, thought that all of nature was motivated by purposes. Why does the heart beat? To pump blood! Why do we have eyes? To see! In Aristotelian thought, everything that happens happens for a reason. That's why he included 'final cause' among his four causes. (To Aristotle, a 'cause' was the kind of information needed to account for the existence of something. These included its material, its form, how it was formed and its purpose/'final cause'. The craftsman analogy is obvious.)



Aristotle was obviously aware of animal reproduction since he wrote a book on it (history's first comparative reproductive physiology text). He classified the generation of animals into three broad categories, those born live, those that emerge from eggs, and those that arise spontaneously. (I'd question whether he included mice in the latter category. But things like maggots, certainly.)

I'm less sure what Aristotle's theory of the first initial origin of life was. He doesn't say much about it. There may be a couple of reasons for that. For one, he already thought that life could arise spontaneously from non-life. And second, he seems to have thought of the past as infinite, without a temporal origin. So maybe life has always existed.



I don't think that most of Aristotle's biological work can be called "ridiculous". He obviously got many things wrong, but all-in-all he was dramatically ahead of his time. Given Aristotle's intellectual environment (the 4th century BCE) most of what he says was very smart (even if contemporary biologists don't always agree with him and have gone far beyond him in many ways).



What you seem to be suggesting there is what philosophers of science call "the pessimistic induction". This is the idea that if many/most scientific ideas of the past have been shown to be wrong or superceded in some other way, then we can inductively conclude that most of our contemporary understanding will likely be superceded in the future.

I expect that's probably true.

gGBb

Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said. The only reason I used the word "ridiculous" was for the benefit of some who may be less discerning about knowledge itself. Most of the folks here don't even know Aristotle was a scientists. They are judging things from our current perspective, not from that of 2,000 years ago.

I personally believe that for his time Aristotle was brilliant. He did lay the work for the scientific method (I find it interesting that many who place the scientific method on a divine pedestal don't even know that).

Never heard of pessimistic induction, but that sums up all I was saying.

Take care

 

[night912]

A real butterfly can cause hurricanes, ya know? Maybe if you understood consciousness it wouldn't help in predicting hurricanes but it would completely stand "survival of the fittest" on its ear.

No it can't.

 

[Milton Platt]

Settled? And it will stand for the next 2,000 years?

As far as I know. It won't matter to either of us, though.
There is nothing I know of which might undercut the theory. There is close to 200 years of accumulated evidence in numerous scientific fields that overlaps and confirms the theory.

 

[Milton Platt]

Christians are often accused of closed mindedness. I'd say the poster child of closed mindedness is to believe that what we know about life today will stand, albeit with a few minor adjustments, for the next 2,000 years. It's mind boggling to me that few are willing to even consider the possibility that we have evolution 180 degrees backwards. That's closed mindedness on steroids.

The geological record does not support a 180 degree shift in how evolution works. There is nothing to suggest that life began as mor complex life forms and evolved into single celled organisms and viruses.

 

[Native]

And I would agree. For example, I also expect our current ideas about physics will be very different than what we know in 2000 years. But do I expect that our understanding of planetary orbits will change drastically? No.

You would if you were able to look at the Solar System formation as an integrated part of the galactic motion and formation - and no just a ramdom cosmic cloud of gas and dust which suddenly descided to collapse on itself, the explode and re-collapsing into planets and their moons.