By Gayan Sanjeewa –
Dr. Gayan Sanjeewa
Have you ever wondered why a bee sacrifices its own life when it stings? This seemingly paradoxical act reveals profound truths about the forces that govern all living things.
When a bee stings, its barbed stinger lodges in the skin of its target, causing the bee to die from the resulting injury. This seems paradoxical, doesn’t it? Why would an animal evolve to commit suicide? Isn’t evolution all about survival and reproduction? The answer to this question provides a profound insight into our own existence.
This seemingly suicidal act is tied to the concept of kin selection, a form of natural selection that favors behaviors benefiting relatives. The death of a single worker bee is a small price to pay for the protection of the hive, which contains thousands of bees and the queen. The survival and reproduction of the queen and other hive members ensure that the genes of the bees are passed on to future generations.
Servants of Our Genes
This phenomenon illustrates how we, as animals, have evolved to become servants of our genes. Our behaviors, consciousness, and emotions are fine-tuned by evolution for one purpose: to pass our genes on to the next generation. Thus, the reality we experience is like a movie projected by our consciousness to ensure our survival and reproduction.
The Director: DNA
This movie of life is directed by DNA. Just as a movie director guides actors’ performances to align with the film’s vision, DNA guides our lives to align with the vision of life: passing our genes to the next generation. By continuously running this movie of life, DNA has successfully survived on this planet for about 3.5 billion years—almost one-fourth of the age of the universe. This process has unfolded through the evolution of millions of species, evidenced by the remarkable genetic similarities across species, from bacteria to plants to dinosaurs to humans.
The Producer: Entropy
But why would DNA want to direct this film? Who provides for this movie, and who profits from it? To answer these questions, we must turn to physics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe always increases. Entropy, a measure of randomness or disorder, drives all spontaneous processes, including the flow of time. The universe has been transitioning from a highly ordered state (low entropy) after the Big Bang to a more disordered state (high entropy).
Living organisms do not contradict this law. Although the formation of living organisms seems like a process of converting highly disordered molecules into a more organized system, life forms collectively increase entropy. We all get our energy from sunlight via photosynthesis. While animals don’t photosynthesize, we obtain energy by consuming plants or animals that have. Ultimately, all living beings return energy to the universe as heat (infrared radiation), which has higher entropy than the absorbed visible light. Thus, living beings act as entropy-increasing machines. In this metaphor, entropy is the producer of our life movie, fueling the processes that drive our existence.
Understanding the Plot
Feeling a bit helpless? Don’t be. There was a significant oversight by the director and producer: giving us the unique ability to understand the plot, the director, and the producer. Human curiosity and rationality have enabled us to unravel the mysteries of our existence to an extent unmatched by other species. Even our closest relatives, chimpanzees, who share more than 95% of our DNA, grasp nature at a level akin to a human toddler.
Rewriting the Script
So, next time you find yourself caught in petty conflicts or overwhelmed by negative emotions, remember: our lives are directed by DNA and powered by entropy. But crucially, we have the power to rewrite our scenes and make the world a better place for everyone.
In the grand production of life, we may be actors following a script written by our genes and fueled by the universe’s drive toward high entropy. Yet, with our understanding and creativity, we hold the potential to direct this movie of life ourselves.
*Dr. Gayan Sanjeewa – is currently a Principal Scientist at a biotechnology company in the USA, with a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and postdoctoral training at Yale University
Leonard Jayawardena / November 27, 2025
Author: “Living organisms do not contradict [the second law of thermodynamics]. Although the formation of living organisms seems like a process of converting highly disordered molecules into a more organized system, life forms collectively increase entropy.”
But how do you explain the origin of the first life form, a highly ordered entity, in the first place even assuming the Earth to be an open system (i.e., receiving energy from the sun)? The spontaneous natural origin of the first life form from non-living matter would violate that law because it would require a significant increase in order and information without a sufficient natural mechanism to produce it. We now know enough to be sure that DNA, which contains the specific information necessary to build life, cannot come into being in a naturalistic, random process. Without DNA life is a non-starter. The mere provision of raw energy (as from the sun) is not sufficient to create such a complex structure as the DNA from a supposed primordial soup of chemicals in the early earth.
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 27, 2025
Continued from above comment.
As for biological evolution, our present knowledge of DNA and its behaviour makes that theory untenable too. Biological evolution, which Darwin proposed, assumes the existence of a first form of life, which then evolves and diversifies over time into millions of other species. Though Darwin was ignorant of it, changes to organisms can happen only at the DNA level, specifically, through genetic mutations. We now know that the DNA is a digital code like computer software with the former using a quaternary code (A, T, C, G). We also know that any tampering with computer codes can wreak havoc with the programs they were designed to run. Most genetic mutations are harmless by themselves, some are lethal and only a very few confer any appreciable benefits to an organism. Genetic mutations on the scale and magnitude that is required for the evolution of millions of species would over time cause organisms to “crash” for certain sooner or later. Anyway, mathematicians have shown that there has not been nearly enough time from the first supposed date of origin of first life for the all the beneficial mutations to have taken place to give rise to the myriads of life forms that have existed on the planet earth.
/
old codger / November 27, 2025
I’m not getting into this argument, but there are very primitive organisms which do not use DNA.
RNA viruses are life forms that do not have DNA as their genetic material. They use RNA instead to store genetic information. Additionally, prions, which are infective proteins, are another example of an entity that can propagate itself but lacks both DNA and RNA, though they are not considered to be alive by all definitions. They caused the famous Mad Cow epidemic.
/
SJ / November 27, 2025
oc
You cannot educate in science someone who rejects the most powerful law of science.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 28, 2025
OC: “I’m not getting into this argument, but there are very primitive organisms which do not use DNA.
RNA viruses are life forms that do not have DNA as their genetic material.”
Two things wrong with this:
1. Viruses are NOT organisms because they are NOT “life forms.”
2. There ARE viruses that have DNA.
Evolution at a macro level is applicable only to organisms (from bacteria up), all of which have DNA. Viruses can only mutate to become other strains of viruses and they will always remain viruses however much they mutate. Even the author mentions only DNA for the same reason.
Prions are normal proteins converted in an abnormal, misfolded prion form. As you yourself acknowledged, they are not life forms and they “reproduce” by just inducing other normal proteins to misfold. They cannot “evolve” into organisms or any other thing.
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 28, 2025
Continued from above reply to OC.
Anyway, what’s your point? That it is an omission on my part not to mention that there are “life forms” like viruses that do not contain DNA?
MY point with regard to DNA is that the second law of thermodynamics does not allow something so complex as DNA, the basis of all life forms, to come into existence in a naturalistic process. The same also applies to RNA, which is just DNA with U (the nucleobase Uracil) replacing T (thymine) in DNA.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 28, 2025
Correction.
I wrote. “2. There ARE viruses that have DNA.” This is not an error on your part.
What you wrote was: “RNA viruses are life forms that do not have DNA as their genetic material.”
I overlooked the abbrev. “RNA” in front of “viruses.” I thought you wrote, “Viruses are life forms that do not have DNA as their genetic material.”
By the way, you wrote, “I’m not getting into this argument…,” but, on second thoughts, it appears that you DID get into the argument. I think you meant in some vague sense that the existence of RNA viruses invalidated my arguments against evolution–assuming you understood that–but didn’t want to get into a protracted argument on this considering the limits of your knowledge of this subject. Am I right?
/
old codger / November 28, 2025
LJ,
“but didn’t want to get into a protracted argument on this considering the limits of your knowledge of this subject. Am I right?”
It is not the limits of my knowledge that are relevant, or yours. You and I know that the reason you got into this was to prove the existence of a Creator. I know from experience that if I start on that, you will accuse me of going off at a a tangent, malle pol, et al. So be it.
/
SJ / November 28, 2025
oc
Far more fierce than the Catholic Church were America’s Southern Protestant Christians in opposing the theory of evolution.
They clutched at straws to destroy Darwin’s theory by willfully ignoring its essence.
Dalton was far from the current understanding of atomic structure, but without his atomic theory, Chemistry would still at best be an advanced version of alchemy.
There are many who are anti-science because science, which while constantly contesting itself, demolishes their blind faith.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 28, 2025
OC:
“I know from experience that if I start on that, you will accuse me of going off at a a tangent, malle pol, et al. So be it.”
So you have no confidence in your knowledge of this subject to be able to present arguments in favour of evolution that would not be deemed irrelevant to the issue? Given that and the fact you have already demonstrated your lack of qualification to engage with my comments by your first part-true, part-false first comment–the part true part being irrelevant to the two arguments advanced against evolution in my two comments that preceded yours–my question to you is, Why the heck did you stick your neck out to reply to my comments in the first place and start something you couldn’t possibly finish?
BTW, the last was only a rhetorical question and you don’t really have to respond to it. 😊
/
old codger / November 29, 2025
LJ,
“two arguments advanced against evolution in my two comments “
Okay, so what is your alternative to evolution?
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 29, 2025
The obvious and the sole alternative to (naturalistic) evolution is, of course, intelligent design (creation). I use the qualifying word “naturalistic” because there is a variety of evolutionists called “theistic evolutionists,” that is, those who believe in God-directed evolution. But the leading and the most thoroughgoing evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are naturalistic evolutionists, i.e., those who believe that the entire process of evolution took place without supernatural or intelligent intervention.
/
SJ / November 30, 2025
oc
One must be stupid to waste time with this nonsense.
/
Lester / November 30, 2025
Leonard:
“The obvious and the sole alternative to (naturalistic) evolution is, of course, intelligent design (creation).”
The issue with the creationist argument is this: they are assuming a complex system was built instantly. In fact, evolution occurred over millions of years. That is plenty of time for Nature or the Universe or whatever you call it to “self-automate.” Think about the amount of “trial-and-error” that natural selection undertook over that time span.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 30, 2025
Lester
What do you mean by a “complex system”? DNA, the other components of a cell, including the proteins, an entire multicellular organism are all “complex systems.” What is your problem with, for example, a super intelligent power instantly creating unicellular organisms–quadrillions of it–once the earth has been prepared for them in the ancient past (billions of years ago), then gradually populating the earth with various new species in stages over eons–some would call it progressive creation. The fossil record in the geological strata supports the idea of progressive creation.
An evolutionary origin of species involves
1. Chemical evolution–the process by which simple inorganic molecules are thought to have evolved into complex organic molecules that are the building blocks of life.
2. Abiotic creation of the first form of life in the primeval earth (i.e., the origin of life from the combination of complex molecules formed by chemical evolution).
3.The gradual evolution of the life form so formed into the myriads of species that have existed on the planet earth (biological evolution).
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 30, 2025
Continued from above reply to Lester.
The Earth said to be about 4.5 billion years old and even that period is not at all enough for even a simple protein found in living systems to be assembled from the 20 biologically-occurring amino acids by chance. In 1983 Sir Fred Hoyle, famed British cosmologist, calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one-celled organism by chance at 1 in 10 to the power 40,000! To put it in perspective, even the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be 10 to the power 80. Forget about life coming into being from non-life! Time is NOT the hero of the plot!
With regard to biological evolution, as explained in my second comment under this article, the DNA code is analogous to the digital code used in computer software and just as tampering with computer codes can cause the program to crash, so genetic mutations of the order and magnitude necessary to produce from simple life forms the myriads of life forms that have existed on earth would sooner or later cause organisms to “crash.” Do you have any comment on that?
/
Lester / December 1, 2025
Leonard:
Evolution isn’t some mystery.
https://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/History/Evolution/images/human-evolution-800px.jpg
You can match the various stages to higher cognitive function.
Regarding life from non-life, every scientific model of abiogenesis assumes:
Nonliving chemistry + energy + time → self-replicating chemical system → early life.
The same chemicals that govern life also govern non-life.
For example, the carbon in your DNA is the same carbon found in soot.
Clearly, it is the organization of the parts, not the parts themselves, that make intelligent life unique.
Regarding computer software, it did not evolve instantly. The computer itself can be thought of as a complex counting machine that evolved from primitive counting machines, such as the abacus.
The computer is particularly interesting because no supernatural intervention was required for its construction. A computer:
1. did not appear fully formed
2. was not created in a single supernatural act
3. emerged gradually from simpler tools
4. accumulated improvements over millennia
5. grew in complexity through iterative refinement
6. is governed entirely by physical laws
Next phase: make computers (AI systems) that are more intelligent than humans. Here the “creator” is a human. If humans can do such a task, why can’t the laws of nature, aka evolution?
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
Lester
I have posted my replies to your last comment under this thread as new, separate posts below (qv).
/
old codger / November 30, 2025
“The obvious and the sole alternative to (naturalistic) evolution is, of course, intelligent design (creation).”
Would you be able to give a timescale for this?
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 30, 2025
OC
I don’t have a problem with the currently accepted scientifically-determined age of the earth. The fossil record suggests that various species have been created on Earth over eons in stages.
/
Native Vedda / November 29, 2025
old codger
–
“I’m not getting into this argument, but there are very primitive organisms which do not use DNA.”
–
You mean you find these primitive organisms in Lester, old fossils, Sangahas, Mahinda, Weerasekera, Wimal, … ……
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 27, 2025
Author: “When a bee stings, its barbed stinger lodges in the skin of its target, causing the bee to die from the resulting injury. This seems paradoxical, doesn’t it? Why would an animal evolve to commit suicide? Isn’t evolution all about survival and reproduction? …
This seemingly suicidal act is tied to the concept of kin selection, a form of natural selection that favors behaviors benefiting relatives.”
Okay, a worker bee sacrifices its for the greater good of the hive but how do you explain a very valuable member of a human community putting his/her life at risk and then actually losing it to save a relatively worthless member of that community as, for example, when the latter is drowning? Hasn’t that community lost rather than gained from an evolutionary perspective?
/
SJ / November 28, 2025
The Kamikaze warriors of Japan are still held in high esteem in Japan.
Then there were the Black Tigers.
The suicide of the bee is in a far more legitimate cause.
/
SJ / November 28, 2025
“…the second law of thermodynamics does not allow something so complex as DNA”: So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false!
“As for biological evolution, our present knowledge of DNA and its behaviour makes that theory untenable too. “
So there was no biological evolution because Darwin was not fully informed!
How profound!
/
Lester / November 29, 2025
Leonard,
” how do you explain a very valuable member of a human community…”
You would have to define “valuable” more precisely. Since morality has no meaning from the point of view of evolution.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 29, 2025
Lester
I couldn’t agree with you more that morality has no meaning in evolution, a conundrum to even Richard Dawkins, who has admitted that he doesn’t get his sense of morality from evolution–then from where? Belief in a naturalistic origin of man and subscribing to morality are mutually exclusive.
By “a valuable of a human community” I meant “valuable” also in a Darwinian sense: good genes for health, good-looking, high I.Q., physically strong, etc. with the “relatively worthless member” possessing the opposite traits.
/
Lester / November 29, 2025
Leonard,
Thanks for the clarification. I see you are well read in both biology and philosophy (well done on that front). My reference to morality was aligned with Adam Smith’s claim that people cooperate for selfish reasons. Later on, game theory proved that when it comes to strategic decision-making such a motivation does not preclude the optimal outcome from materializing.
You would be knowing that morality is more or less learned behavior. Defined by cultural norms and future expectations. So in the type of society outlined by Golding in “Lord of The Flies”, the alpha male would try to save the beta male from drowning, as the population size is already constrained and more hunters are needed. On the other hand, a firefighter in today’s society would put his life at risk to go near the flames, since not doing so would result in both the loss of a job and allegations of moral cowardice. In all cases, the motivation is still self-preservation.
/
Native Vedda / November 29, 2025
Lester
–
“I see you are well read in both biology and philosophy (well done on that front).”
–
Well said.
–
Ah yes, the famous “install-more-statues-to-stop-natural-disasters” strategy.
–
Could it be possible for you and your Sinhala/Buddhist mates to calculate the number of Buddhist Vihares and Statues you need to install in the North East to prevent Cyclones, Rain, Flood, … famine, …. without the support of Hindia.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 30, 2025
Lester
“In all cases, the motivation is still self-preservation.”
But how does it answer the question I asked in my first comment, which started this thread and is reproduced below?
“Okay, a worker bee sacrifices its [life] for the greater good of the hive but how do you explain a very valuable member of a human community putting his/her life at risk and then actually losing it to save a relatively worthless member of that community as, for example, when the latter is drowning? Hasn’t that community lost rather than gained from an evolutionary perspective?”
BTW, why don’t you write in plain English avoiding gobbledygook language, which, while it may make sense in an academic paper with all the other material and the context to elucidate it, is out of place in a CT comment and serves no purpose other than obfuscating your points and keeping the less informed at a respectful distance. How many do you think understood this sentence: “[G]ame theory proved that when it comes to strategic decision-making such a motivation does not preclude the optimal outcome from materializing”?
No further comments on the subject of morality as it does not form part of my original comment.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 30, 2025
Lester
To my above reply to your post, I would add the following supplementary question: How has the Good Samaritan (and his/her offspring) in this example gained from this selfless, self-sacrificial act in a Darwinian sense?
/
Lester / November 30, 2025
The act is only selfless from the point of view of morality. Self-sacrifice cannot be assessed objectively.
Beyond some empirical validation, there is no “right or wrong” in science, since “right or wrong” cannot be quantified within the framework of value-judgements. The best approach to the question then is along the lines of strategic decision-making. Did xyz act rationally so as to maximize their output? For example, Palestinian suicide bombers are considered “martyrs” from the point of view of their religion/culture. The family receives a large sum of money and a new house. At the level of payout structure, a suicide attack with guaranteed family compensation resembles a perverse form of life insurance. So this decision to self-destruct is quite rational and preserves the family line, ceteris paribus .
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
Lester
As this thread is getting longer, I have replied to your above post in a new, separate post below (qv).
/
Lester / November 30, 2025
“Self-sacrifice cannot be assessed objectively.”
That is only the case if financial compensation is not a critical factor.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 29, 2025
Correction of typo.
“a valuable MEMBER of a human community”
/
Nathan / November 27, 2025
Latest Comments
SJ on Life: A Movie Directed By DNA, Produced By Entropyoc You cannot educate in science someone who rejects the most powerful
SJ on The Return Of Statue PoliticsLS Rohi is not a bad striker But the man from Vanni
SJ on The Return Of Statue PoliticsJealous? Of you? Get serious! You have lost the battle of the
SJ on The Return Of Statue PoliticsWho bullies by referring to people in offensive ways? Stop your lies,
SJ on The Return Of Statue PoliticsWhere do such names occur to affirm kinship?
SJ on The Return Of Statue PoliticsIs it how the name is recorded? Stop fiddling.
SJ on The Return Of Statue PoliticsGive me a shred of evidence from early Sangam literature that refers
SJ on The Return Of Statue Politicsoc Thanks. There can be the awkward full moon that resists a
SJ on The Return Of Statue PoliticsSimple. Clear your head of some of sectarian prejudices, and you will
….
Do you see what I see?
/
SJ / November 28, 2025
Each sees a part of himself in the other.
I hope that I have not upset you.
/
SJ / November 30, 2025
Sorry to see that you are upset but lack in thumbs.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 28, 2025
Nathan
Yes, I do, though I haven’t seen all the posts you refer to of this individual and so cannot comment specifically. I had seen that a very long time ago.
I think it’s just best to ignore the silly, ignorant, trivial comments of an infantile troll.
/
SJ / November 28, 2025
So says the man who makes wise, well informed and profound comments which somehow fail to be factual.
I need a good laugh and LJ you are too funny to be ignored.
/
old codger / November 28, 2025
What Nathan means is that all the comments (blue highlighted) at that particular time were by SJ. Simple.
/
old codger / November 28, 2025
Nathan,
Are you nominating SJ for a prize? For being Most Visible?
/
Mallaiyuran / November 28, 2025
Old,
“Most Visible”
But himself, totally blind! His illuminations are the story of those five, who felt an elephant with their hands and commented on its appearance.
“Each sees a part of himself in the other”
The best thing for Nathan is that if he sees anything undesirable in his mirror image, not to delay with a second thought, immediately should call a Malayala Manthireekar or even better a Thovil player. Whatever the thing has superimposed on that guy would not leave alone anybody it possesses even if you kick with a scour cleat on its butt.
I feel for the woman fed and nursed and brought up, and the man paid for the university, if they see the current condition !
/
Nathan / November 29, 2025
For being Most Visceral!
/
SJ / November 29, 2025
Can one be intellectual when responding to the bigotry and sectarianisn that one comes across?
/
Lester / November 28, 2025
The author did not mention that entropy affects DNA as well. Telomeres shorten with every replication cycle.
The author is correct that human life is optimized for reproduction, not longevity.
“In the grand production of life, we may be actors following a script written by our genes and fueled by the universe’s drive toward high entropy.”
Quite right. Intelligence is mostly genetic. So even with free education and advances in technology, mean IQ will not increase significantly.
/
nimal fernando / November 29, 2025
“Life: A Movie Directed By DNA, Produced By Entropy”
–
–
What if ……… one man’s DNA permeates an entire nation on a small isle?
–
Without making everything too complicated ………. local Darwin should …….. focus on 153 bus route …….. for all the answers ……….
/
old codger / November 29, 2025
Nimal,
Does John Cleese live on the 154 ?
/
Native Vedda / November 30, 2025
nimal fernando
–
“What if ……… one man’s DNA permeates an entire nation on a small isle?”
–
Was it Genghis Khan who was thought to be a prolific breeder?
–
By the way once upon a time a friend asked me what if Prabaharan decided to inseminate all Tamil child bearing female with his seed?
–
Any thoughts? Was it true?
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
Lester
This is the third round in this thread and you have shown that you have both failed to understand my question and Darwinism itself.
Success in the Darwinian sense is measured by an organism’s ability to leave viable, reproducing offspring who also survive to reproduce. You may be the healthiest, the most-attractive-to-the opposite sex, the strongest, the smartest man on earth, but if you don’t leave offspring you have lost in the evolutionary race. Similarly, even if you have offspring if they don’t survive long enough to reproduce to pass on your genes, still you are a loser. The “selfish gene” concept proposed by Richard Dawkins posits that natural selection favors genes that are most successful at replicating themselves, and that organisms are essentially “survival machines” built by these genes.
The context for my original question was the author’s reference to the self-sacrifice of worker bees in dying for the greater good of the hive. In my hypothetical example of a valuable member of a human community (in the Darwinian sense) sacrificing his life to save the life of a less valuable member I asked how that community was benefited.
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
Continuation of above reply to Lester.
Further, the Good Samaritan in dying to save that worthless member he cuts off his own line and acts against Darwinian instinct for self-survival. His death is also a loss to the community unlike a worker bee dying to save the hive.
You: “So this decision [of the Palestinian suicide bomber] to self-destruct is quite rational [because of financial compensation to the family] and preserves the family line, ceteris paribus.”
Quite apart from this example being irrelevant to my question, what if the suicide bomber is childless and all the family he has are two elderly parents who are past childbearing age? How does that help to preserve the family line?
Lester, responding to a comment doesn’t mean just taking a glance at the content of the comment, just writing malle pol stuff in complete disregard of it and then going on your own merry way. If at least you have now understood my question and argument, why don’t you do the right thing and just admit that you have no good answer to it?
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
Lester
(I am replying here to your post above on this thread as there is no Reply button shown there.)
This is the third round in this thread and you have shown that you have both failed to understand my question and Darwinism itself.
Success in the Darwinian sense is measured by an organism’s ability to leave viable, reproducing offspring who also survive to reproduce. You may be the healthiest, the most-attractive-to-the opposite sex, the strongest, the smartest man on earth, but if you don’t leave offspring you have lost in the evolutionary race. Similarly, even if you have offspring if they don’t survive long enough to reproduce to pass on your genes, still you are a loser. The “selfish gene” concept proposed by Richard Dawkins posits that natural selection favors genes that are most successful at replicating themselves, and that organisms are essentially “survival machines” built by these genes.
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
Sorry, my last comment posted immediately above this was posted by error and duplicates an earlier one.
Note to moderator: Please delete this post.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
Lester
(Posted here because there is no Reply button available for this thread.)
First, as I have already told other CT commenters on a number of occasions in the past, I don’t click links unless the link-giver gives me a good reason for it. I don’t click just bare links as I have better things to do with my time.
You: “Regarding life from non-life, every scientific model of abiogenesis assumes:
Nonliving chemistry + energy + time → self-replicating chemical system → early life.”
Of course, they do. But the question is, Given the improbabilities involved (I have given an example), is it rational to believe in such a naturalistic origin of even the basic building blocks of life like protein, let alone life?
You: “The computer is particularly interesting because no supernatural intervention was required for its construction. A computer did not appear fully formed … is governed by physical laws.”
You are a funny person. You are giving an example that actually supports my position. Have you overlooked the fact that the computer has been made by human INTELLIGENCE, which is analogous to the SUPERINTELLIGENCE that has created the universe and all that is in it?
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
(Continuation of reply to Lester.)
Lester
When the Behistun Inscription in Iran and the Rosetta Stone in Egypt were discovered, noone thought that the characters inscribed on them in different langauges were created by wind and erosion by chance even though noone saw them being inscribed on them. If you landed on a distant planet and discovered a complex machine similar to a say, computer, you would attribute its creation to intelligent beings even if you didn’t know their identity. Similarly, when you see things in nature which are infinitely more complex than the most complex things humans have created, is it not more rational and intuitive to attribute them to some superintelligence rather than blind nature, esp, in view of the fact that their chance creation is demonstrably improbable?
The operation of a computer is governed by physical laws but how about its creation?
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / December 1, 2025
(Third and last reply to Lester under this thread.)
Lester:
You: “Next phase: make computers (AI systems) that are more intelligent than humans.”
So are you admitting at last that AI is not more intelligent than humans? That wasn’t your view at our last exchange. Better late than never! I gave up that discussion in despair calling what you wrote “malle pol,” which is what it was. The difference between that exchange and this is that I have now taken the trouble to engage with your present malle pol! I am sorry to say that none of what you have written under this thread really addresses any of my arguments either and hope you can better in your next post.
Concluded.
/