Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

[ding]

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

From a probabilistic viewpoint life was inevitable. And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

 

[Taz]

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

From a probabilistic viewpoint life was inevitable. And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

So from a probabilistic viewpoint, is there intelligent life somewhere else in the universe besides earth?

 

[ding]

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

From a probabilistic viewpoint life was inevitable. And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

So from a probabilistic viewpoint, is there intelligent life somewhere else in the universe besides earth?

My guess would be yes.

 

[ding]

The universe is an intelligence creating machine. So to speak.

 

[WinterBorn]

You hear all the time that people believe in a higher power but that he is an impersonal God who doesn't care what happens to us.

But is that really what the data would suggest?

So my question is... Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

I say, yes. Yes, Nature has a preference for us to exist.

Nature does not have a preference, as that implies some intelligence outside of nature.

It is not a preference. It is life exploiting a void.

If nature had no preference for life to exist and to evolve then why did it give life the urge to survive and procreate?

First of all, we need for you to define “nature”. Is it all living things? Do you include weather, as many people do? Etc

And as for your question of “why did it give life the urge to survive and pricreate”, the assumption that some vague entity “gave” anything to life forms is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. But the simplest answer is ‘How do you know it did?’ Life forms that have a biological imperative to survive and procreate, do just that. Those without it do not survive or procreate.

 

[BreezeWood]

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

From a probabilistic viewpoint life was inevitable. And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

.

And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

life - to survive and evolve

there are two components to the above statement, the origin of physiology and its spiritual content. both of which have metaphysical origins that combine to produce a physical representation that presently is inseparable.

the physiology for sure can not exist without its spiritual component, disappearing when it is removed and requires nourishment. the spiritual is what is most inexplicable.

 

[Montrovant]

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

From a probabilistic viewpoint life was inevitable. And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

I don't see how one determines that probability.

 

[ding]

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

From a probabilistic viewpoint life was inevitable. And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

I don't see how one determines that probability.

It's a numbers thing. There are approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe.

And that isn't counting the ones that no longer exist that did exist over the 14 billion year life of the universe.

Why do you believe that it is the nature of life to fight to survive and to procreate?

 

[ding]

You hear all the time that people believe in a higher power but that he is an impersonal God who doesn't care what happens to us.

But is that really what the data would suggest?

So my question is... Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

I say, yes. Yes, Nature has a preference for us to exist.

Nature does not have a preference, as that implies some intelligence outside of nature.

It is not a preference. It is life exploiting a void.

If nature had no preference for life to exist and to evolve then why did it give life the urge to survive and procreate?

First of all, we need for you to define “nature”. Is it all living things? Do you include weather, as many people do? Etc

And as for your question of “why did it give life the urge to survive and pricreate”, the assumption that some vague entity “gave” anything to life forms is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. But the simplest answer is ‘How do you know it did?’ Life forms that have a biological imperative to survive and procreate, do just that. Those without it do not survive or procreate.

The question I am asking you is why does life have the urge to survive and procreate? Why is that built into living things?

 

[Montrovant]

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

From a probabilistic viewpoint life was inevitable. And when you factor in nature’s preference for life to survive and evolve it becomes even more obvious that intelligence is a realized intention of existence.

I don't see how one determines that probability.

It's a numbers thing. There are approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe.

And that isn't counting the ones that no longer exist that did exist over the 14 billion year life of the universe.

Why do you believe that it is the nature of life to fight to survive and to procreate?

Without knowing for certain how life arose, coming up with probabilities for it is problematic. And a probability is different from an inevitability.

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

 

[ding]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

 

[Montrovant]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

Actually, there could be all sorts of life forms that did not survive and procreate. We wouldn't know it, because if they didn't survive and procreate, there would likely be no evidence of their ever existing.

But really, it goes back to whether one assumes a purpose behind something simply because it is. Life on this planet does, in large part, fight to survive and procreate. Does that mean it was designed, or inevitable based on the laws which govern the universe, or could it be random chance? Could there be a life form in the universe that does not fight to survive, but because it developed in conditions with few natural dangers, thrived anyway?

And really, does all life on Earth fight to survive? How are you defining fighting to survive? That is a phrase I would normally associate with animal life.

 

[ding]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

Actually, there could be all sorts of life forms that did not survive and procreate. We wouldn't know it, because if they didn't survive and procreate, there would likely be no evidence of their ever existing.

But really, it goes back to whether one assumes a purpose behind something simply because it is. Life on this planet does, in large part, fight to survive and procreate. Does that mean it was designed, or inevitable based on the laws which govern the universe, or could it be random chance? Could there be a life form in the universe that does not fight to survive, but because it developed in conditions with few natural dangers, thrived anyway?

And really, does all life on Earth fight to survive? How are you defining fighting to survive? That is a phrase I would normally associate with animal life.

Procreation and survival are hardwired fundamental properties of life required for itelligence to arise.

So no, there couldn't be that somewhere in the universe as matter and living things are fundamentally the same universally.

Matter has complexified from day one. The continual march has led to the creation of intelligence/consciousness. You can't keep intelligence from emerging from matter because the laws of the universe are such that it will produce it given enough time and the right conditions. Intelligence and consciousness are properties of matter and energy. They are literally the pinnacle of creation.

 

[Montrovant]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

Actually, there could be all sorts of life forms that did not survive and procreate. We wouldn't know it, because if they didn't survive and procreate, there would likely be no evidence of their ever existing.

But really, it goes back to whether one assumes a purpose behind something simply because it is. Life on this planet does, in large part, fight to survive and procreate. Does that mean it was designed, or inevitable based on the laws which govern the universe, or could it be random chance? Could there be a life form in the universe that does not fight to survive, but because it developed in conditions with few natural dangers, thrived anyway?

And really, does all life on Earth fight to survive? How are you defining fighting to survive? That is a phrase I would normally associate with animal life.

Procreation and survival are hardwired fundamental properties of life required for itelligence to arise.

So no, there couldn't be that somewhere in the universe as matter and living things are fundamentally the same universally.

Matter has complexified from day one. The continual march has led to the creation of intelligence/consciousness. You can't keep intelligence from emerging from matter because the laws of the universe are such that it will produce it given enough time and the right conditions. Intelligence and consciousness are properties of matter and energy. They are literally the pinnacle of creation.

That just jumped quickly into assumption and opinion.

 

[ding]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

Actually, there could be all sorts of life forms that did not survive and procreate. We wouldn't know it, because if they didn't survive and procreate, there would likely be no evidence of their ever existing.

But really, it goes back to whether one assumes a purpose behind something simply because it is. Life on this planet does, in large part, fight to survive and procreate. Does that mean it was designed, or inevitable based on the laws which govern the universe, or could it be random chance? Could there be a life form in the universe that does not fight to survive, but because it developed in conditions with few natural dangers, thrived anyway?

And really, does all life on Earth fight to survive? How are you defining fighting to survive? That is a phrase I would normally associate with animal life.

Procreation and survival are hardwired fundamental properties of life required for itelligence to arise.

So no, there couldn't be that somewhere in the universe as matter and living things are fundamentally the same universally.

Matter has complexified from day one. The continual march has led to the creation of intelligence/consciousness. You can't keep intelligence from emerging from matter because the laws of the universe are such that it will produce it given enough time and the right conditions. Intelligence and consciousness are properties of matter and energy. They are literally the pinnacle of creation.

That just jumped quickly into assumption and opinion.

How so? Can you name anything more complex or evolutionary advanced than consciousness and intelligence?

Consciousness and intelligence are realized potentiallities. If you were wondering what matter and energy would grow up to be look no further.

 

[BreezeWood]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

Actually, there could be all sorts of life forms that did not survive and procreate. We wouldn't know it, because if they didn't survive and procreate, there would likely be no evidence of their ever existing.

But really, it goes back to whether one assumes a purpose behind something simply because it is. Life on this planet does, in large part, fight to survive and procreate. Does that mean it was designed, or inevitable based on the laws which govern the universe, or could it be random chance? Could there be a life form in the universe that does not fight to survive, but because it developed in conditions with few natural dangers, thrived anyway?

And really, does all life on Earth fight to survive? How are you defining fighting to survive? That is a phrase I would normally associate with animal life.

Procreation and survival are hardwired fundamental properties of life required for itelligence to arise.

So no, there couldn't be that somewhere in the universe as matter and living things are fundamentally the same universally.

Matter has complexified from day one. The continual march has led to the creation of intelligence/consciousness. You can't keep intelligence from emerging from matter because the laws of the universe are such that it will produce it given enough time and the right conditions. Intelligence and consciousness are properties of matter and energy. They are literally the pinnacle of creation.

That just jumped quickly into assumption and opinion.

How so? Can you name anything more complex or evolutionary advanced than consciousness and intelligence?

Consciousness and intelligence are realized potentiallities. If you were wondering what matter and energy would grow up to be look no further.

.

How so? Can you name anything more complex or evolutionary advanced than consciousness and intelligence?

Consciousness and intelligence are realized potentiallities. If you were wondering what matter and energy would grow up to be look no further.

Can you name anything more complex or evolutionary advanced than consciousness and intelligence?

would that include the reality of its development ...

sorry, your self congratulatory status you grant exclusively for yourself falls far short when observing what already is and becoming as the final chapter that brings not only extinction to humanity but to an entire living planet - as being "complex or evolutionary advanced". subjectively.

at least not by the false desert religions as a guiding example - that has replaced the original religion of antiquity that does accommodate true evolutionary advancements, christian.

 

[DOTR]

You hear all the time that people believe in a higher power but that he is an impersonal God who doesn't care what happens to us.

But is that really what the data would suggest?

So my question is... Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

I say, yes. Yes, Nature has a preference for us to exist.

Absolutely. Life has passed through at least seven sieves that were so highly improbable as to seem that something is pushing life upwards.

 

[DOTR]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

Actually, there could be all sorts of life forms that did not survive and procreate. We wouldn't know it, because if they didn't survive and procreate, there would likely be no evidence of their ever existing.

But really, it goes back to whether one assumes a purpose behind something simply because it is. Life on this planet does, in large part, fight to survive and procreate. Does that mean it was designed, or inevitable based on the laws which govern the universe, or could it be random chance? Could there be a life form in the universe that does not fight to survive, but because it developed in conditions with few natural dangers, thrived anyway?

And really, does all life on Earth fight to survive? How are you defining fighting to survive? That is a phrase I would normally associate with animal life.

Procreation and survival are hardwired fundamental properties of life required for itelligence to arise.

So no, there couldn't be that somewhere in the universe as matter and living things are fundamentally the same universally.

Matter has complexified from day one. The continual march has led to the creation of intelligence/consciousness. You can't keep intelligence from emerging from matter because the laws of the universe are such that it will produce it given enough time and the right conditions. Intelligence and consciousness are properties of matter and energy. They are literally the pinnacle of creation.

However...the universe only produced intelligence once. In fact it has produced life only once. Why would that be?

 

[DOTR]

The will to survive for one. Nature has programmed into us the will to survive. Why?

Thats an easy one. A tendency to replicate is what fuels evolution. And in higher animals a will to survive will count as a tendency to replicate. When you ask that question its like asking why water is wet. Evolution selects for replication and it can be no other way,

 

[Montrovant]

If life wasn't designed by an intelligence, it seems likely that that life which fought to survive and procreate is the life which survived and procreated.

That's the thing though, they all did. It is hardwired into life.

So even if you studied the life forms that died out, you would have still seen these traits. So saying that that is what you would expect to see from the ones that survived still doesn't explain why all of them had the desire to survive and procreate.

Actually, there could be all sorts of life forms that did not survive and procreate. We wouldn't know it, because if they didn't survive and procreate, there would likely be no evidence of their ever existing.

But really, it goes back to whether one assumes a purpose behind something simply because it is. Life on this planet does, in large part, fight to survive and procreate. Does that mean it was designed, or inevitable based on the laws which govern the universe, or could it be random chance? Could there be a life form in the universe that does not fight to survive, but because it developed in conditions with few natural dangers, thrived anyway?

And really, does all life on Earth fight to survive? How are you defining fighting to survive? That is a phrase I would normally associate with animal life.

Procreation and survival are hardwired fundamental properties of life required for itelligence to arise.

So no, there couldn't be that somewhere in the universe as matter and living things are fundamentally the same universally.

Matter has complexified from day one. The continual march has led to the creation of intelligence/consciousness. You can't keep intelligence from emerging from matter because the laws of the universe are such that it will produce it given enough time and the right conditions. Intelligence and consciousness are properties of matter and energy. They are literally the pinnacle of creation.

That just jumped quickly into assumption and opinion.

How so? Can you name anything more complex or evolutionary advanced than consciousness and intelligence?

Consciousness and intelligence are realized potentiallities. If you were wondering what matter and energy would grow up to be look no further.

How so? The laws of the universe inevitably leading to intelligence is assumption. That intelligence and consciousness are the pinnacle of creation is opinion.