Organisms and QM

[foodchain]

QUOTE]

 

To me, the idea of 100% random means flipping a coin means I might get an elevator back, I just want to have that settled. Obviously being life for the most part is dependent on DNA which is composed of purines and pyrimidines we cant have utter randomness in that respect. For that matter I would think the current chemistry of life would only allow for so much in a giving scope of time via evolution, not so much as maybe structure, but the internal chemistry of an organism. For instance, I don’t know if its impossible for life to make cells walls with titanium playing a large roll currently, but via evolution is such impossible period? I personally don’t think that question can be answered and again we only currently have the biodiversity of life to look at in regards to this.

 

I mean look at the human eye, its composed of various elements into some specific structure that allows for various wavelengths of light to be register by yet more structures into something that a brain, composed of various chemicals can work with. So what do we have there in general? Energy and matter with interactions between the two? Sounds awfully physical in my humble opinion. Yet to date what human can construct solely from just chemistry such complex "machines" really? It just proves a point about the vast complexity of it all. Going from natural selection and the enormous amounts of life that did not make it, and the various issues that still plague life and that survival is not guaranteed, it really roots natural selection as the mechanism that’s guiding life if anything is currently, But natural selection is just words, is it one simple variable that composes such a phrase. Like the use of oxygen, or O2 molecular oxygen by life for the most part, or the proton gradient in cells, or the fact that Epinephrine as called in the U.S or adrenaline can increase memory in times of sever stress or flight or fight. I seriously doubt for all mechanisms or the reality of natural selection to be fully understood, more so in respects to Aves in the other thread that some birds made it and some simply did not? They were all birds right?

 

Natural selection does not stand at 100% objective understanding, the concept is empirically proven and sound, but not fully understood is all, or I doubt for many questions to still be existing in biology in general because evolution is the backbone or cornerstone or springer stone of such a field in regards to scientific understanding.

 

For instance, life at sea vents is probably very acute in regards to stressors, compare to say other ecologies on the earth, I would imagine this reflects in the species that come to inhabit such, so right there you have your natural selection because the biology of such life is adapted to such extreme environments and not all life can be simply put there and expected to survive, nor can you simply put sea vent organism in other ecologies. Environments in general have species generally adapted to exist in such, from a woodpecker to carpenter ants. I also fear the misuse of the term adapting, it puts to much of a choice in the hands of an organism, such as a bacteria.

 

For instance, a study I would love to do would simply be one with microbes. I would love to take a enclosed system, making sure free energy did exist in various forms, and make it so the microbes would be exposed over time to broad variance of environments in general, but never enough to actually kill the population. I mean if bacteria or life in general can come to inhabit environments in the ocean that biology previously to the discovery of such would simply say was impossible, who knows what is possible or what the limits to life happen to be. I understand fully the need to use existing understanding to generate studies and research, but being utterly conservative in every possible manner I think would kill science, and I truly doubt such was the idea behind the construction and general use of the scientific method. Life is a reality of nature and or reality, regardless of current perception at large of such it exists, so does QM, are the two solely independent on one another? Or in large the fundamental laws of physics separate from biology? I don’t think anyone can honestly say that with any integrity. Evolution being a product of reality regardless of opinion, and natural selection also being such, the point I see in it is that such is a naturally occurring product of natural reality, and or history. Its not something derived on a computer using calculus, it just is. So is it only life that operates by such, or is evolution, natural selection and what is behind it an aspect of more naturally occurring objective realities of the universe or nature in general?