The Meaning of Human Existence

[donttread]

This from an article, The Best Science Books of 2014, that includes EO Wilson's The Meaning of Human Existence, and includes this quotation:




I subscribe to the second but respect the first.

The meaning of our existence in its most basic sense , is the same meaning of existence for an ant or a whale , to continue the species .

[Common Sense]

I have never, NEVER stated this took 6 days as we know days.

I sure wish I had your faith. There is no known way to date those events you spoke of.

OK @Bob...Faith is having a belief without concrete proof. Science and the theories and hypotheses they come up with are based on demonstrable evidence. Radiometric dating is fairly accurate but these are round numbers somewhere in the ballpark.

So you've dismissed the general scientific consensus...how do you think we came about? What sort of timescale are we looking at? Are we a product of evolution, or not?

[lynn]

While we may struggle with the idea of purpose for our existence, the evidence points to a purpose from the dominate microbial DNA that makeup 90% of our DNA of each individual body form of life. No matter how hard science sticks to the story of evolution as random accidents that result in all of the various features that describe each species, each one of those features is the result of activities of bio-conversion from bacteria.

Each part of our body plans (the remaining 10% of our DNA) is thoroughly explained of its origin and the reason it is needed for the body form of life to survive. This implies purpose and its success is observed in its use in all future generations since its origin.

The evidence of purpose comes from the gut's microbial DNA (our second brain) which has a strong influence on the brain (your head) that characterizes the part that creates "You"

[Chris]

I have never, NEVER stated this took 6 days as we know days.

I sure wish I had your faith. There is no known way to date those events you spoke of.

Odd that you conflate faith with science, bob. By your earlier logic then you can't prove God, God is something you question.

People say the funniest things sometimes just for the sake of arguing.

[Chris]

Sigh, must you be taught what appeal to authority really means?

My comments are just a suggestion of a very good book you might find very interesting.

Appeal to authority is what you do all the time. You point to a person, declare he knows it all, but you never tell us what that person knows that might even begin to establish his authority.

[Chris]

While we may struggle with the idea of purpose for our existence, the evidence points to a purpose from the dominate microbial DNA that makeup 90% of our DNA of each individual body form of life. No matter how hard science sticks to the story of evolution as random accidents that result in all of the various features that describe each species, each one of those features is the result of activities of bio-conversion from bacteria.

Each part of our body plans (the remaining 10% of our DNA) is thoroughly explained of its origin and the reason it is needed for the body form of life to survive. This implies purpose and its success is observed in its use in all future generations since its origin.

The evidence of purpose comes from the gut's microbial DNA (our second brain) which has a strong influence on the brain (your head) that characterizes the part that creates "You"

I think you put the cart before the horse. It's the old watchmaker's argument.

[Polecat]

it can be...if we let it. We all know people who are a waste of the air they breathe and we also know those who make a real difference. I think we have to choose....because I don't believe its all predetermined.

This very option has failed to "evolve" in any other species. I rest my case.

[Ngc1514]

But but, though I have not take a formal class, for many years I have studied this to the point I read Professor Schopf amazing book. There is no known selection or mutation process that converts bacteria to higher life forms. I highly recommend you study the good professors awesome book called the Cradle of Life.

I know you've recommended this book before, but I am not sure how the book reconciles your "no known selection process" or the bit about "There is no known way to date those events you spoke of." with Schopf's identification of microfossils dating back more than 3 billion years ago. Does this mean Schopf was blowing smoke when he published:

Eleven taxa (including eight heretofore undescribed species) of cellularly preserved filamentous microbes, among the oldest fossils known, have been discovered in a bedded chert unit of the Early Archean Apex Basalt of northwestern Western Australia. This prokaryotic assemblage establishes that trichomic cyanobacterium-like microorganisms were extant and morphologically diverse at least as early as ∼3465 million years ago and suggests that oxygen-producing photoautotrophy may have already evolved by this early stage in biotic history.

How does Schopf explain the change in morphology between those Archaen era fossils and those found almost 3 billion years later in the Cambrian Explosion deposits. How did he determine the dates of those fossils? The book remains on my reading list, but it's down a way.