quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If it didn't come from some magical, god like intervention that is outside what we know about nature then it is natural (or even without mans influence). That is the standard definition.
Yes, this is where confusion comes from, sometimes. The list of things that can be categorized as "natural" can be shorter or longer, depending on where someone stands (e.g. atheist vs theist). I myself try to stay away from the term, because it has been hi-jacked. Naturalism as a philosophical concept is the position that only things that mainstream science currently accepts as real, are natural.
Under this definition, mysticism falls outside of that term.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the point of the thread much work in genetics is being done to answer the questions that cannot be answered purely from the fossil record.
quote: The Paleogene (/ˈpæliədʒiːn, ˈpeɪliə-/; also spelled Palaeogene or Palæogene; informally Lower Tertiary or Early Tertiary) is a geologic period and system that spans 43 million years from the end of the Cretaceous Period 66 million years ago (Mya) to the beginning of the Neogene Period 23.03 Mya. It is the beginning of the Cenozoic Era of the present Phanerozoic Eon.[7] The Paleogene is most notable for being the time during which mammals diversified from relatively small, simple forms into a large group of diverse animals in the wake of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that ended the preceding Cretaceous Period.[8]
Unfortunately concepts like "direction" are another one of those concepts that in my opinion are missing the point and just more of a distraction and diversion from the overall point in my understanding of "general evolution" or adaptation.
The core building blocks of evolution in my way of understanding it are adaptation, mutation and reproduction. All of these produce an "emergent" chain of events that produce life forms of many variations. Since this is a chain of events based on many numerous individual instances of adaptation and mutation over millions of years, it is not possible to have a single "path" of evolution for all cases of life in any specific environment. Therefore, if there is another planet out there with similar environmental characteristics as the earth, there is no guarantee that it would produce the exact same types of species and life forms as we see on earth. For one thing, if it wasn't for the asteroid that destroyed dinosaurs, mammals would not dominate the planet as they do today, which is a purely random event. But other than that, yes as time goes on one would assume that there would be an increase in biological complexity the longer that chain of evolutionary events are not interrupted and the environment exists to support it. But I would not call it "directionality". I would call it emergent biological complexity.
Directionality implies to me all paths leading to the same place no matter what which is not true as I have noted.
However, many argue against complexity which again is because these folks are "splitting hairs" and instead of understanding these concepts as "meta" principles, as in "metaphysics", they are trying to fit every instance of adaptation or selection into the same pattern which is not the case. Emergent complexity (in my understanding not to be confused with any other formal arguments for or against) covers the "potential" of evolution to produce complex organisms given certain evolutionary processes over time. It does not say that ALL organisms have to possess the same level of biological complexity along that chain at any given time. So it is quite fine to have humans, which are a pinnacle example of biological complexity along with dogs, cats, roaches, ants and everything else. ALL of these variations across ALL of their environmental and evolutionary niche adaptations are the result of complexity as a META principle in my way of looking at it. Unfortunately this all or nothing approach within the current state of evolutionary biology and genetics creates these contradictory arguments which don't make sense in my view.
For example:
quote: 1. Introduction
Is there an overall direction to evolution that is driven by selection? Do evolutionary processes drive the evolution of life in a particular direction? Is evolution headed somewhere?
Various attempts have been made to answer these questions by demonstrating the existence of large-scale directional patterns in evolution. None have yet attracted widespread acceptance.
The hypothesis that seems to have gained most support is that selection tends to drive increasing complexity as evolution proceeds (see McShea, 1991 for an overview). Intuitively, this seems to be a plausible claim. There are many instances of increases in complexity during the evolution of life on Earth. However, strong arguments have been mounted against the claim that this apparent trend is driven by selection that directly favours increased complexity (Gould, 1996, McShea, 1991, McShea, 1994, McShea, 1996).
In particular, it is obvious that complexity per se is not favoured by selection. There are numerous possible changes in organisms that would increase complexity but are not advantageous in evolutionary terms. And changes that are less complex are not always inferior.
Compounding this difficulty, proponents of this claim have been unable to identify how known evolutionary processes would drive the supposed trend towards increasing complexity. This is a serious deficiency that also bedevils other attempts to demonstrate an overall, driven trend in evolution. To demonstrate such a trend, it is not sufficient to identify some supposed large-scale pattern in evolution and to marshal empirical evidence that substantiates the existence of the pattern. The pattern may be an artefact and not driven by selection that directly favours the pattern. It is therefore also necessary to provide the claimed directionality with micro-foundations at the level of natural selection that show how the pattern is driven by selection and related processes.
This has proven particularly challenging because it is not at all obvious how natural selection could drive a trajectory encompassing all living processes, given that it produces only local adaptation to local circumstances (Gould, 1996, Maynard Smith, 1988).
This deficiency obviously cannot be overcome by the postulation of some new general ‘force’, ‘tendency’ or ‘drive’ that is unsupported by appropriate micro-foundations. Nor can it be overcome by teleological explanations that rely on impermissible ‘pulls from the future’.
The weakness of the ‘complexity’ hypothesis is not only due to the absence of a convincing micro-foundational model that demonstrates how accepted evolutionary processes drive increased complexity. It has been further undermined by the demonstrations that show how the apparent pattern of increasing complexity could emerge passively – i.e. that show how complexity could increase without it being actively favoured by selection in any overall sense.
Gould, 1996, Gould, 1988 and McShea (1994) have shown that complexity would be expected to increase as evolution unfolds merely as a consequence of the fact that the first living processes were necessarily simple. Life had nowhere else to go but to become more complex. Evolution necessarily began with the exploration of the possibility space which encompasses simple forms of life. It necessarily continued after that with the progressive exploration of the possibility space for living processes of greater and greater complexity. So as evolution proceeded, more complex forms of life emerged progressively, giving the appearance of a trend. Because life began as simply as possible, there was no countervailing exploration of more simple forms.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If it didn't come from some magical, god like intervention that is outside what we know about nature then it is natural (or even without mans influence). That is the standard definition.
Yes, this is where confusion comes from, sometimes. The list of things that can be categorized as "natural" can be shorter or longer, depending on where someone stands (e.g. atheist vs theist). I myself try to stay away from the term, because it has been hi-jacked. Naturalism as a philosophical concept is the position that only things that mainstream science currently accepts as real, are natural.
Under this definition, mysticism falls outside of that term.
Yes but then again advanced theoretical mathematics can be considered a form of mysticism (again going back to how it was used in ancient times before math, science, religion and everything else got separated)
quote: According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the term μυστήριον in classical Greek meant "a hidden thing", "secret". A particular meaning it took in Classical antiquity was a religious secret or religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to be communicated by them to ordinary mortals. In the Septuagint and the New Testament the meaning it took was that of a hidden purpose or counsel, a secret will. It is sometimes used for the hidden wills of humans, but is more often used for the hidden will of God. Elsewhere in the Bible it takes the meaning of the mystic or hidden sense of things. It is used for the secrets behind sayings, names, or behind images seen in visions and dreams. The Vulgate often translates the Greek term to the Latin sacramentum (sacrament).[web 5]
posted
Thanks for clarifying your views on evolution. In my opinion your understanding of evolution is essentially Darwinian. The reason why I say that is because your take reflects the small and random set of evolutionary processes explained in Origin, but not (a serious openness to) revelations from new physics and other new information that is relevant to evolution. Eventually scientific fields working with evolution will be reformed by such new revelations. When that happens all models of evolution that only acknowledge mutation, drift and natural selection will be abandoned.
The evolutionary processes you acknowledge are based entirely on what science could conceive, measure and infer in the 19th century when Origin was written. We can now conceive of and measure a great deal more. Some of the things we can measure today could never have evolved through the evolutionary processes you've mentioned.
Let me ask you this question. Where do YOU see your views diverge from Darwinism? I don't want to misconstrue your positions, because you did say there are different perspectives on evolution other than Darwinism.
Also, what do you mean with adaptation? What evolutionary processes are driving adaptation, in your view? Can you list them?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks for clarifying your views on evolution. In my opinion your understanding of evolution is essentially Darwinian. The reason why I say that is because your take reflects the small and random set of evolutionary processes explained in Origin, but not (a serious openness to) revelations from new physics and other new information that is relevant to evolution. Eventually scientific fields working with evolution will be reformed by such new revelations. When that happens all models of evolution that only acknowledge mutation, drift and natural selection will be abandoned.
The evolutionary processes you acknowledge are based entirely on what science could conceive, measure and infer in the 19th century when Origin was written. We can now conceive of and measure a great deal more. Some of the things we can measure today could never have evolved through the evolutionary processes you've mentioned.
Let me ask you this question. Where do YOU see your views diverge from Darwinism? I don't want to misconstrue your positions, because you did say there are different perspectives on evolution other than Darwinism.
Also, what do you mean with adaptation? What evolutionary processes are driving adaptation, in your view? Can you list them?
When I say evolution I mean change. Unless someone can show me how mammals sprang fully formed out of the clay of the earth with molecules, genes and cells unrelated to the single cell and multi celled organisms that came before then we can safely assume that it occurred due to change within cellular biology, which includes genetics. I said this earlier. The articles I posted on evolutionary genetics are researching how these changes took place across multiple ancient species to determine just when and how these species emerged. This is the "gap" that came about in the 1800s as Europeans went around the world and found all these fossils everywhere they went. But they only had a limited snapshot of all the fossils and species that ever existed. This gap is what genetics is trying to fill. Unfortunately many of these gaps in data caused new alternate and competing theories which again only miss the overall point of the "meta" principle at play.
And fundamentally cellular biology is a branch of biological chemistry so there is no false dichotomy in my view. Chemistry is not a contradiction to physics as chemistry follows the laws of physics.
So I am not a Darwinist in any sense. I acknowledge change in nature as a fundamental building block in life as a "meta" concept that underlies everything. Evolution is simply part of that fundamental meta principle of change. There is too much baggage being attached to many of the views coming out of "western thinking" that cause divisions and splits which only obfuscate rather than clarify. That is why I avoid labels such as "Darwinism" to avoid being drawn into that battlefield.
In my view, evolution will be disproven if meta-species of animals like Mammals or Apes just sprang up fully formed with no precursors or ancestors out of nowhere. Otherwise, evolution is valid in the sense of one series of events leading to another over time. Again most of the disagreements with evolution come from gaps in the historical record and assumptions that ALL fossils or all the KEY fossils can and will ever be found to provide a complete record of how this happened over millions of years.
Suffice to say much of the work in evolutionary genetics is focusing on just that, trying to untangle how the major species of mammals formed and how the ancestral tree of "Hominoidea" was formed and what the primary branches are.
quote: Evolutionary Genetics First published Fri Jan 14, 2005
Evolutionary genetics is the broad field of studies that resulted from the integration of genetics and Darwinian evolution, called the ‘modern synthesis’ (Huxley 1942), achieved through the theoretical works of R. A. Fisher, S. Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane and the conceptual works and influential writings of J. Huxley, T. Dobzhansky, and H.J. Muller. This field attempts to account for evolution in terms of changes in gene and genotype frequencies within populations and the processes that convert the variation with populations into more or less permanent variation between species. In this view, four evolutionary forces (mutation, random genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow) acting within and among populations cause micro-evolutionary change and these processes are sufficient to account for macro-evolutionary patterns, which arise in the longer term from the collective action of these forces. That is, given very long periods of time, the micro-evolutionary forces will eventually give rise to the macro-evolutionary patterns that characterize the higher taxonomic groups. Thus, the central challenge of Evolutionary Genetics is to describe how the evolutionary forces shape the patterns of biodiversity observed in nature.
The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift. The force of migration or gene flow has effects on genetic variation that are the opposite of those caused by random genetic drift. Migration limits the genetic divergence of populations and so impedes the process of speciation. The effect of each of these evolutionary forces on genetic variation within and among populations has been developed in great detail in the mathematical theory of population genetics founded on the seminal works of Fisher, Wright, and Haldane.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When I say evolution I mean change. Unless someone can show me how mammals sprang fully formed out of the clay of the earth with molecules, genes and cells unrelated to the single cell and multi celled organisms that came before then we can safely assume that it occurred due to change within cellular biology, which includes genetics. I said this earlier.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In my view, evolution will be disproven if meta-species of animals like Mammals or Apes just sprang up fully formed with no precursors or ancestors out of nowhere. Otherwise, evolution is valid in the sense of one series of events leading to another over time. Again most of the disagreements with evolution come from gaps in the historical record and assumptions that ALL fossils or all the KEY fossils can and will ever be found to provide a complete record of how this happened over millions of years.
Remember that the aspects of reality and organisms that we are now learning are crucial to evolution are only beginning to be detected with modern state of the art equipment. Theorizing about something when only the tip of the iceberg of that thing is visible, is not science. It's just theorizing while being blind to the facts.
Tukuler's link on the universe being conscious, as well as evidence of human consciousness interfering with controlled lab experiments, fit in a long line of evidence that at the very least calls for investigations on how that changes our understanding of the origin of life. It seems very obvious to me that if the denial of and hostility to such 'consciousness' phenomena was crucial for the mainstream model of evolution to get accepted, their vindication shows that this model is out of touch with reality. But despite all the information that was posted on these phenomena (some of which you have posted yourself), you seem to insist on evolution being a purely random chemical process. You seem to be saying that human consciousness in ancient temples leading to math and other ancient knowledge is perfectly possible, as long as it doesn't have implications that go against a purely random chemical basis of evolution.
Like I said, to each his own.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Then let Dennett explain why these so-called "tricks in the brain" can go outside of the brain and interact with the real world.
yuu posted a page from one of his books earlier, now you're mad again?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
How can you tell I'm mad from challenging that Dennet quote you posted? And why are you making it about me? You posted a quote, and I responded to its contents. Can you do the same in return? You might have been able to do the same if you bothered to read a book on the subject before getting involved.
I only posted that book again because I don't want to create the impression that I get my positions from youtube or google. Like I said, that Dr Quantum link is no substitute for doing research. The link with the animated explanation is only for the benefit of people who are not familiar with these findings.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quantum Mmechanics is not understood well. It can't be used to dismiss aspects of evolutionary theory
What "consciousness" is can only be speculated. It can't be used to dismiss aspects of evolutionary theory
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Quantum Mmechanics is not understood well. It can't be used to dismiss aspects of evolutionary theory
What "consciousness" is can only be speculated. It can't be used to dismiss aspects of evolutionary theory
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the value of doing research. Sometimes the instant google expertise on this site is getting out of hand.
If you can't articulate in your own words and analysis why you take a position, your opinion is not valid. You can't be opinionated on a topic you have no familiarity with.
Luckily, some still do research on and offline way before a topic comes up on Egyptsearch.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The whole Universe/Multiverse is Intelligent. Got nothing to do with any deity concept nor our human intelligence or a dolphin's even.
Of course, the central issue here that ties this to evolution, is that these results are not supposed to be happening in Darwinism. Members of the Darwinian church don't like influences on evolution that compete with natural selection. Therefore, anything that even looks like it could potentially have contributed to evolution is dismissed without allowing science to do its work and investigate. This is the real reason behind the clamping down on certain types of research. The Darwinian church thinks in terms of loyalty and disloyalty to its doctrines, not in terms of evidence. Galileo vs the Catholic church all over again.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When I say evolution I mean change. Unless someone can show me how mammals sprang fully formed out of the clay of the earth with molecules, genes and cells unrelated to the single cell and multi celled organisms that came before then we can safely assume that it occurred due to change within cellular biology, which includes genetics. I said this earlier.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In my view, evolution will be disproven if meta-species of animals like Mammals or Apes just sprang up fully formed with no precursors or ancestors out of nowhere. Otherwise, evolution is valid in the sense of one series of events leading to another over time. Again most of the disagreements with evolution come from gaps in the historical record and assumptions that ALL fossils or all the KEY fossils can and will ever be found to provide a complete record of how this happened over millions of years.
Remember that the aspects of reality and organisms that we are now learning are crucial to evolution are only beginning to be detected with modern state of the art equipment. Theorizing about something when only the tip of the iceberg of that thing is visible, is not science. It's just theorizing while being blind to the facts.
Tukuler's link on the universe being conscious, as well as evidence of human consciousness interfering with controlled lab experiments, fit in a long line of evidence that at the very least calls for investigations on how that changes our understanding of the origin of life. It seems very obvious to me that if the denial of and hostility to such 'consciousness' phenomena was crucial for the mainstream model of evolution to get accepted, their vindication shows that this model is out of touch with reality. But despite all the information that was posted on these phenomena (some of which you have posted yourself), you seem to insist on evolution being a purely random chemical process. You seem to be saying that human consciousness in ancient temples leading to math and other ancient knowledge is perfectly possible, as long as it doesn't have implications that go against a purely random chemical basis of evolution.
Like I said, to each his own.
What do you means "I seem to believe"? I am not sure what you are getting at? I said that change is the fundamental process of everything in nature and the universe and evolution is just the biological aspect of it. My point is it doesn't make sense to nit pick about how that change occurred because that doesnt't alter the process at any level. That is why I don't buy into these silly schisms that exist within the scientific community over such things. "Natural selection" means ocurring in nature free from "outside intervention" as in "divine intervention" according to my definition as I already stated. I am not trying to get my views tangled up in these stupid rhetorical or ideological camps. If it didn't come purely from nature, which includes physics, chemistry and biology it isn't natural. And sense from all we have found so far there is no evidence of "divine intervention" we must assume that the most basic way of defining "natural selection" does indeed hold true. This goes all the way to the cellular level and from that comes the basis of all evolution even in complex multi cellular organisms.
And to the point of the thread this is where the idea of "directed" evolution has its biggest impact:
quote: Mutations are random Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:
Resistant strains of lice were always there — and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death.
Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.
Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.
Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.
In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.
The Lederberg experiment In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by "stamping" the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.
I don't look at this as an either or debate. Random mutations AND natural selection work together to produce adaptation. But that is my general understanding and hypothesis and I am not really trying to align myself into any specific camp on this topic.
Like I said, unless they find that ancient species just sprang fully formed out of nowhere with no precursors and those precursors didn't come from even earlier precursors, then we should accept that evolution as a description of change in biological anthropology exists. "Randomness" is part of the process but not all of it. There are potentially billions or trillions of genetic codes that can be unlocked within all cellular organisms on the planet. Some of those codes do indeed arise from random mutations. But that is not the entire process. And of course how this happens is not well understood. That does not disprove or invalidate the concept of "change" within biological chemistry as a fundamental "meta" principle that can be classified as "evolution".
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "Randomness" is part of the process but not all of it. There are potentially billions or trillions of genetic codes that can be unlocked within all cellular organisms on the planet. Some of those codes do indeed arise from random mutations. But that is not the entire process.
Wait, what? So which is it? Is evolution purely a result of random processes or not?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "Randomness" is part of the process but not all of it. There are potentially billions or trillions of genetic codes that can be unlocked within all cellular organisms on the planet. Some of those codes do indeed arise from random mutations. But that is not the entire process.
Wait, what? So which is it? Is evolution purely a result of random processes or not?
Randomness is one part of the complex bio-chemical process that underlies evolution. But randomness by itself does not tell you how the first cells formed and how chromosomes developed.
quote: The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of singleand double-stranded DNA molecules. Recent data from comparative genomics, structural biology and traditional biochemistry have revealed that several of these enzymatic activities have been invented independently more than once, indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought. The distribution of the different protein families corresponding to these activities in the three domains of life (Archaea, Eukarya, and Bacteria) is puzzling. In many cases, Archaea and Eukarya contain the same version of these proteins, whereas Bacteria contain another version. However, in other cases, such as thymidylate synthases or type II DNA topoisomerases, the phylogenetic distributions of these proteins do not follow this simple pattern. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these observations, including independent invention of DNA and DNA replication proteins, ancient gene transfer and gene loss, and/or nonorthologous replacement. We review all of them here, with more emphasis on recent proposals suggesting that viruses have played a major role in the origin and evolution of the DNA replication proteins and possibly of DNA itself.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But randomness by itself does not tell you how the first cells formed and how chromosomes developed.
Speak for yourself. You don't speak for others. That is indeed what they're saying--that the things you mention evolved by pure chance alone. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. After pushing back against 'direction', you're now talking about "invention of DNA" to explain these cell structures. Someone could argue that "invention of DNA" necessarily means divine intervention, since there is nothing else to account for it.
You're not making any sense talking about "unlocked genetic codes that aren't random" and "invention of DNA and RNA" when you've already committed to "natural processes" (as opposed to any sort of 'intervention'). You were very specific about what causes evolutionary change on the first couple of pages:
Cellular biology and division is shown to be based on genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are based on environmental feedback. That is the basis of all evolutionary change in living organisms. --Doug M
Not that I expect you to make sense of your contradictions. You're never addressing inconsistencies people see in your views. You just steamroll over what they're saying by posting walls of text and repeating things that completely miss the point. But go ahead, try to make sense of these contradictions without doing more gymnastics.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice how the same two people in this thread are constantly trying to change the rules in various ways. Natural selection is, in fact, a random process. Stop trying to change the rules because you're uneasy with the implications in your own beliefs.
random adjective UK /ˈræn.dəm/ US /ˈræn.dəm/
happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan:
random checks/tests/attacks We asked a random sample/selection of people what they thought.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But randomness by itself does not tell you how the first cells formed and how chromosomes developed.
Speak for yourself. You don't speak for others. That is indeed what they're saying--that the things you mention evolved by pure chance alone. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. After pushing back against 'direction', you're now talking about "invention of DNA" to explain these cell structures. Someone could argue that "invention of DNA" necessarily means divine intervention, since there is nothing else to account for it.
No you are confused because you keep trying to interpret words I say as being 'part of some ideological camp'. So I am speaking for myself. You just don't understand what I am saying. Biochemical processes as in the "rules" which say "under so and so circumstances cellular organisms and chromosomes will arise" are not "random events". You keep trying to take the WHOLISTIC process that constitutes the development of life and boil it down to ONE THING. It doesn't work like that. Evolution combines BOTH random mutations within genetic reproduction AND the environmental pressures which act to filter the mutations and produce those most suited to a particular condition. But underlying all of that is organic bio-chemistry which is the basis of all cells and cells are the basis of all life forms on earth. Trying to nit pick and isolate one part from another is what leads to confusion and people putting down stakes and pushing narrowly focused ideologies that make no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're not making any sense talking about "unlocked genetic codes that aren't random" and "invention of DNA and RNA" when you've already committed to "natural processes" (as opposed to any sort of 'intervention'). You were very specific about what causes evolutionary change on the first couple of pages:
Cellular biology and division is shown to be based on genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are based on environmental feedback. That is the basis of all evolutionary change in living organisms. --Doug M
Not that I expect you to make sense of your contradictions. You're never addressing inconsistencies people see in your views. You just steamroll over what they're saying by posting walls of text and repeating things that completely miss the point. But go ahead, try to make sense of these contradictions without doing more gymnastics.
No you aren't making any sense trying to find something to nitpick. I told you that I am not into these games yet you persist.
Technically genetic mutations ARE affected by direct environmental feedback, but this is not exactly what I was getting at. This affects the evolution of single cell organisms most directly but multi-celled organisms can also be affected. All the cells in multi celled organisms are constantly reproducing themselves. So cellular reproduction and the mutations that arise from cellular reproduction are part of all organisms. That said you are splitting hairs like I said, trying to find contradictions by nitpicking. Nowhere was I contradicting "evolution".
What I said
quote: Personally it sounds more like splitting hairs versus "divine intervention". All mutations and change in life is based on natural processes. Chemistry and all that lies within the universe is a natural process. Rules and laws that govern the universe and natural processes within it are understandable and can be shown to be consistent. Cellular biology and division is shown to be based on genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are based on environmental feedback. That is the basis of all evolutionary change in living organisms.
Now that said, there are some who do not agree with the process of cellular development as purely based on natural selection.
All aspects of biological diversification ultimately trace to evolutionary modifications at the cellular level. This central role of cells frames the basic questions as to how cells work and how cells come to be the way they are. Although these two lines of inquiry lie respectively within the traditional provenance of cell biology and evolutionary biology, a comprehensive synthesis of evolutionary and cell-biological thinking is lacking. We define evolutionary cell biology as the fusion of these two eponymous fields with the theoretical and quantitative branches of biochemistry, biophysics, and population genetics. The key goals are to develop a mechanistic understanding of general evolutionary processes, while specifically infusing cell biology with an evolutionary perspective. The full development of this interdisciplinary field has the potential to solve numerous problems in diverse areas of biology, including the degree to which selection, effectively neutral processes, historical contingencies, and/or constraints at the chemical and biophysical levels dictate patterns of variation for intracellular features. These problems can now be examined at both the within- and among-species levels, with single-cell methodologies even allowing quantification of variation within genotypes. Some results from this emerging field have already had a substantial impact on cell biology, and future findings will significantly influence applications in agriculture, medicine, environmental science, and synthetic biology.
Environmental feedback operates at many levels, part of it is directly on the cells themselves and genomes within them and indirectly via natural selection. There is no contradiction as you are trying to say there is. There are multiple interrelated processes at work within biology and evolution and the fact that people keep trying to narrow down and isolate one part of these biochemical processes from another as the "whole process" is the problem.
quote: The expression of genes in an organism can be influenced by the environment, including the external world in which the organism is located or develops, as well as the organism's internal world, which includes such factors as its hormones and metabolism. One major internal environmental influence that affects gene expression is gender, as is the case with sex-influenced and sex-limited traits. Similarly, drugs, chemicals, temperature, and light are among the external environmental factors that can determine which genes are turned on and off, thereby influencing the way an organism develops and functions.
quote: Gene mutations can be classified in two major ways:
Hereditary mutations are inherited from a parent and are present throughout a person’s life in virtually every cell in the body. These mutations are also called germline mutations because they are present in the parent’s egg or sperm cells, which are also called germ cells. When an egg and a sperm cell unite, the resulting fertilized egg cell receives DNA from both parents. If this DNA has a mutation, the child that grows from the fertilized egg will have the mutation in each of his or her cells.
Acquired (or somatic) mutations occur at some time during a person’s life and are present only in certain cells, not in every cell in the body. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun, or can occur if an error is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed to the next generation.
Genetic changes that are described as de novo (new) mutations can be either hereditary or somatic. In some cases, the mutation occurs in a person’s egg or sperm cell but is not present in any of the person’s other cells. In other cases, the mutation occurs in the fertilized egg shortly after the egg and sperm cells unite. (It is often impossible to tell exactly when a de novo mutation happened.) As the fertilized egg divides, each resulting cell in the growing embryo will have the mutation. De novo mutations may explain genetic disorders in which an affected child has a mutation in every cell in the body but the parents do not, and there is no family history of the disorder.
Somatic mutations that happen in a single cell early in embryonic development can lead to a situation called mosaicism. These genetic changes are not present in a parent’s egg or sperm cells, or in the fertilized egg, but happen a bit later when the embryo includes several cells. As all the cells divide during growth and development, cells that arise from the cell with the altered gene will have the mutation, while other cells will not. Depending on the mutation and how many cells are affected, mosaicism may or may not cause health problems.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice how the same two people in this thread are constantly trying to change the rules in various ways. Natural selection is, in fact, a random process. Stop trying to change the rules because you're uneasy with the implications in your own beliefs.
random adjective UK /ˈræn.dəm/ US /ˈræn.dəm/
happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan:
random checks/tests/attacks We asked a random sample/selection of people what they thought.
Swenet I was looking at some of Doug's remarks and he seems to be educated in this topic.
The word "random" is relative.
quote:
se·lec·tion/səˈlekSH(ə)n/ noun the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable. a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.
So if we are dealing with Natural selection the offspring that survive is not random, they are the offspring that have particular traits that are more suited to the particular environmental circumstances that they are living in. Doug said the same
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan:
this leads us directly to the question of what a plan is
quote:
plan/plan/ noun a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something. an intention or decision about what one is going to do. a detailed diagram, drawing, or program, in particular. verb decide on and arrange in advance. design or make a plan of (something to be made or built).
If you look at a weather pattern or a growth pattern most scientists would not call it a weather plan or growth plan.
That is because "plan" it implies a being similar to an animal with a brain, more specifically similar to a human that plans something based on a desire they have to produce a particular outcome. They execute a series of methodical steps to produce the outcome
Let's look at the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami It effected several countries, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and others. A a total of 227,898 people died
Do you think that was planned by an intelligent being?
_____________________________
Here's another variation
First before I get to that, a man is sleeping in the forest in a tent. A storm breaks out and a tree falls onto the tent and kills the man. Somebody might say "that was supposed to happen, it was planned by a higher being for that particular man to be killed. Nothing is random, everything happens for a reason."
But here's a variation: An intelligent being created the man, the tree, a grizzly bear, a flower, etc. These things were planned out. But the planner then placed them into a universe but was not involved in how they interacted.
-------------------------------- let's get down to the nitty as well as the grittyPosts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the universe works as Darwinists think (i.e. everything arose on its own) then selective pressures are always random. In the Darwinian model, there is no reason why the temperature, predators and other selective pressures need to be as they are on earth. They could have been configured any other way. Not all these other ways support life, but I'm saying you could for instance have had some thing resembling the tropics on the north pole if the earth was at the right distance from the sun (presumably).
In mainstream scientific thought, if you throw the dice with the formation of the universe, you could have other configurations of the earth and therefore other selective pressures. And selective pressures themselves vary over time as well, in a way that is necessarily random (ultimately) if one rejects 'divine intervention' at all levels.
People need to make up their minds. You can't dismiss 'divine intervention' yet try to insert signs of 'divine intervention' in your model and insist you're being rational. This has been boggling my mind since page one, where you have people co-signing mysticism, yet dismiss direction in evolution. Is your problem a lack of education or something else? If you dismiss direction and support a purely chemical basis of life, then you can't have authentic consciousness and therefore no mysticism. At best you may have some sort of pseudo consciousness of the kind Dennet describes, where consciousness is just an illusory by-product of electro-chemical activity in the brain. Needless to say, that type of consciousness can't lead to mystical experiences. It can't collapse the wave function, either. Yet that is exactly what humans have been observed doing in controlled laboratory settings. This is why life could never have arisen due to a purely chemical process.
Everyone in the real world understands what's at stakes very well, which is why the topic of consciousness is so polarized and politicized. Only here on ES do you have people who don't understand that you can't have consciousness/mysticism evolving out of a purely chemical basis of life. It's always the same handful of people weirdly combining claims that are internally inconsistent.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
People need to make up their minds. You can't dismiss 'divine intervention' yet try to insert signs of 'divine intervention' in your model and insist you're being rational. This has been boggling my mind since page one, where you have people co-signing mysticism, yet dismiss direction in evolution. Is your problem a lack of education or something else? If you dismiss direction and support a purely chemical basis of life, then you can't have authentic consciousness and therefore no mysticism....
Everyone in the real world understands what's at stakes very well, which is why the topic of consciousness is so polarized and politicized. Only here on ES do you have people who don't understand that you can't have consciousness/mysticism evolving out of a purely chemical basis of life. It's always the same handful of people weirdly combining claims that are internally inconsistent.
You are trying to interject subjective concepts like "direction" and things that are unknown like what "consciousness" is into science that can only analyze what is measurable, testable or pattern recognition
quote: direction noun 1.a course along which someone or something moves. 2. the management or guidance of someone or something.
You propose mysticism = "direction" Doug used the word "mysticism" but let's leave that out of the conversation for the moment
This goes back to my previous post and you haven't clarified terms, what you mean by direction and you don't give examples. If you were to do this it would resolve your position
referring to definition 1. you are holding a rock in your hand. You turn your hand upside down and the rock drops. It is directed by gravitation and prediction can be made by science as to when it hits the ground, velocity, etc. It is understood that the revolving earth creates the gravitational pull and in space you don't have this pull, the rock just floats
Why gravity exists science doesn't know
A person is walking in snow covered mountains an avalanche occurs So presumably you think "direction" is involved. Somebody else thinks the event is entirely random
So what do you mean by direction? definition 2. is different, in involves management, a director is involved
An avalanche could be cause by things like an earth tremor or a build up of snow or rain and then the force of gravity.
so what type of direction are you referring to?
a) An intelligence directed the creation of gravity and structure of snow flakes and chemistry of water but the avalanche was a random event. There was no reason it killed the man. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The avalanche was not random in the sense that other factors in the environment caused it but it was random in the sense that it killed the man. The man didn't do anything to cause it. Nor was it pre-ordained that he die at this particular moment. Not everything was directed. Things were directed when they were first created but then let alone to reproduce, grow and evolve and interact on their own
b) Everything is directed. Everything happens for a reason. Some kind of intelligence decided, directed that it was time for this person to dieand for that reason directed the avalanche to happen
So you will have to clarify what type of direction you are referring to if you want this conversation not to go in circles
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You are trying to interject subjective concepts like "direction" and things that are unknown like what "consciousness" is into science that can only analyze what is measurable, testable or pattern recognition
Okay expert. What do I know? Because you're definitely well-read on the subject. It's not like you're just googling everything people are saying and parroting whatever comes up in the search results.
Time to wrap up here. I'm definitely not jumping through your hoops. If you can disprove my positions with your own analysis, I'm all ears. But I'm not going to be lead by the nose jumping through your hoops so you can lecture people on subject matter you've never looked into.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should behave more like a moderator and stop taking positions you can't even articulate. Do you see me trying to lecture Tukuler on hieroglyphs or Elite Diasporan on African American history, or Sudaniya on Sudanese history or Djehuti on ethnographic details. No. I stay in my own lane and if I don't understand I don't barge into topics trying to lecture people with google as my lifeline to prop me up.
Bottom line is, you can't take a position on something you haven't researched. To do so means you're biased. You are low key one of the most biased people on this site since you do this on a lot of topics.
Go read a book.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You are trying to interject subjective concepts like "direction" and things that are unknown like what "consciousness" is into science that can only analyze what is measurable, testable or pattern recognition
Okay expert. What do I know? Because you're definitely well-read on the subject. It's not like you're just googling everything people are saying and parroting whatever comes up in the search results.
Time to wrap up here. I'm definitely not jumping through your hoops. If you can disprove my positions with your own analysis, I'm all ears. But I'm not going to be lead by the nose jumping through your hoops so you can lecture people on subject matter you've never looked into.
I advise people stop debating Swenet on this topic, that is why Tyrannohotep bailed out early he knows Swenet won't define this subjective philosophical, not scientific concept of "direction"
Without clarifying precisely the terminology one uses, what type of direction they are referring to it is a purposeful obfuscation and attempt to bring in abstract detail in order to cover up intent, smoke an mirrors
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. I've already defined what I mean with direction. I've done so multiple times, most recently in my posts to Elite Diasporan. I didn't see him have any complaints as far as the gist of my argument.
But you definitely need to start behaving more like a moderator. smh.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There's nothing requiring moderation, just somebody trying to mask an agenda
You say I'm masking an agenda. Based on what? I gave you books to read. You never read them. I gave you lectures, you presumably never watched them. How can you possibly know I'm trying to mask an agenda when you haven't even looked at my sources? Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There's nothing requiring moderation, just somebody trying to mask an agenda
You say I'm masking an agenda. Based on what? I gave you books to read. You never read them. I gave you lectures, you presumably never watched them. How can you possibly know I'm trying to mask an agenda when you haven't even looked at my sources?
You don't know what I've read or not read or looked at or not looked at
That is also irrelevant
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then on what basis are you making the accusation that I'm trying to mask an agenda?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The term ‘mysticism,’ comes from the Greek μυω, meaning “to conceal.” In the Hellenistic world, ‘mystical’ referred to “secret” religious rituals. In early Christianity the term came to refer to “hidden” allegorical interpretations of Scriptures and to hidden presences, such as that of Jesus at the Eucharist. Only later did the term begin to denote “mystical theology,” which included direct experience of the divine (See Bouyer, 1981). Typically, mystics, theistic or not, see their mystical experience as part of a larger undertaking aimed at human transformation (See, for example, Teresa of Avila, Life, Chapter 19) and not as the terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, ‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.
Under the influence of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, heavily centered on people's conversion experiences, most philosophers' interest in mysticism has been in distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting “mystical experiences.” Philosophers have focused on such topics as the classification of mystical experiences, their nature in different religions and mystical traditions, to what extent mystical experiences are conditioned by a mystic's language and culture, and whether mystical experiences furnish evidence for the truth of their contents. Some philosophers have begun to question the emphasis on experience in favor of examining the entire mystical complex (See Jantzen, 1994 and 1995, and section 9 below, and Turner, 1996). Since this article pertains to mysticism and philosophy, it will concentrate chiefly on topics philosophers have discussed concerning mystical experience.
1. Mystical Experience Because of its variable meanings, even in serious treatments, any definition of ‘mystical experience’ must be at least partly stipulative. Two, related, senses of ‘mystical experience’ will be presented, one in a wide definition reflecting a more general usage, and the second in a narrow definition suiting more specialized treatments of mysticism in philosophy.
1.1 The Wide Sense of ‘Mystical Experience’ In the wide sense, let us say that a ‘mystical experience,’ is:
A (purportedly) super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection. We can further define the terms used in the definition, as follows:
The inclusion of ‘purportedly’ is to allow the definition to be accepted without acknowledging that mystics ever really do experience realities or states of affairs in the way described.
A ‘super sense-perceptual experience’ includes perception-like content of a kind not appropriate to sense perception, somatosensory modalities (including the means for sensing pain and body temperature, and internally sensing body, limb, organ, and visceral positions and states), or standard introspection. Some mystics have referred to a “spiritual” sense, corresponding to the perceptual senses, appropriate to a non-physical realm. A super sense-perceptual mode of experience may accompany sense perception (see on “extrovertive” experience, Section 2.1). For example, a person can have a super sense-perceptual experience while watching a setting sun. The inclusion of the supersensory mode is what makes the experience mystical.
A ‘sub sense-perceptual experience’ is either devoid of phenomenological content altogether, or nearly so (see the notion of “pure conscious events,” in Sections 5 and 6), or consists of phenomenological content appropriate to sense perception, but lacking in the conceptualization typical of attentive sense perception (see below on “unconstructed experiences”).
‘Acquaintance’ of realities means the subject is aware of the presence of (one or more) realities.
‘States of affairs’ includes, for example, the impermanence of all reality and that God is the ground of the self. ‘Acquaintance’ of states of affairs can come in two forms. In one, a subject is aware of the presence of (one or more) realities on which (one or more) states of affairs supervene. An example would be an awareness of God (a reality) affording an awareness of one's utter dependence on God (a state of affairs). In its second form, ‘acquaintance’ of states of affairs involves an insight directly, without supervening on acquaintance, of any reality. An example would be coming to “see” the impermanence of all that exists following an experience that eliminates all phenomenological content.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If the universe works as Darwinists think (i.e. everything arose on its own) then selective pressures are always random. In the Darwinian model, there is no reason why the temperature, predators and other selective pressures need to be as they are on earth. They could have been configured any other way. Not all these other ways support life, but I'm saying you could for instance have had some thing resembling the tropics on the north pole if the earth was at the right distance from the sun (presumably).
In mainstream scientific thought, if you throw the dice with the formation of the universe, you could have other configurations of the earth and therefore other selective pressures. And selective pressures themselves vary over time as well, in a way that is necessarily random (ultimately) if one rejects 'divine intervention' at all levels.
People need to make up their minds. You can't dismiss 'divine intervention' yet try to insert signs of 'divine intervention' in your model and insist you're being rational. This has been boggling my mind since page one, where you have people co-signing mysticism, yet dismiss direction in evolution. Is your problem a lack of education or something else? If you dismiss direction and support a purely chemical basis of life, then you can't have authentic consciousness and therefore no mysticism. At best you may have some sort of pseudo consciousness of the kind Dennet describes, where consciousness is just an illusory by-product of electro-chemical activity in the brain. Needless to say, that type of consciousness can't lead to mystical experiences. It can't collapse the wave function, either. Yet that is exactly what humans have been observed doing in controlled laboratory settings. This is why life could never have arisen due to a purely chemical process.
Everyone in the real world understands what's at stakes very well, which is why the topic of consciousness is so polarized and politicized. Only here on ES do you have people who don't understand that you can't have consciousness/mysticism evolving out of a purely chemical basis of life. It's always the same handful of people weirdly combining claims that are internally inconsistent.
Again Swenet, when I discuss "mysticism" I am talking about the evolution of HUMAN THINKING about the process of creation as ultimately a "hidden LANGUAGE" within ones own mind as a result of interacting with the physical world. That same process of human cognitive thought function is what is the basis of all modern THEORIES of creation, whether it be evolution or divine intervention. All of it comes from human cognitive abilities that do not exist in other species. Rabbits don't sit around pontificating about the origins of the universe. The ability for abstract thought in humans leads to the creation of ARCHTYPES as stand ins or symbols for complex processes in nature which humans have seen and experienced since the beginning. Therefore most of the "gods" in history are SYMBOLS FOR complex processes in nature that have been given human forms and other attributes. And from this ability to generate symbols for things in nature comes the ability to create language and then ultimately writing and then more abstract symbolic concepts such as math. You cannot ignore this history of ultimately all these things as originating in human cognitive function. Ptah, Hermes and many of the earlier dieties or even Christ Logos are PHILOSOPHICAL SYMBOLS of this evolution in cognitive thought unique to humans, same as Buddha. And all of these systems have a symbolic language that describe some of these more meta principles of creation in a "mystical" or hidden way. From this pattern comes ALL of the modern sciences and philosophical frameworks we use today. So theoretical physics and science is a modern form of cosmology based on its own form of "hidden" language which is math.
In saying that I am not saying that mysticism is an argument for divine intervention in the way that you claim it is. Mysticism in its most ancient form is just a way of explaining how things came to be with its own "hidden language" for revealing the patterns within nature as "meta" principles which form the basis of reality. These "meta" principles being abstracted into symbols or archetypes which later "rationalists" sometimes confuse as "gods". For example, Christ the Logos is an ancient symbol of cognition within the human creature AND the concept of a "idea realm" of non manifest ideas that can be "born" into existence. This is a philosophical and mystical "meta principle". Jesus Christ then becomes the "manifestation" of the "idea of a human" born from the "holy spirit".
quote: In Christology, the Logos (Greek: lit. "Word", "Discourse", or "Reason") is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity.
In the philosophical sense, logos is the root of ontology and the concept of "how things came to be".
quote: Logos, (Greek: "word," "reason," or "plan")plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.
The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heracleitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century-ad Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists, philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of the 4th-century-bc Greek master philosopher Plato, the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.
Therefore, in the original "mysticism" of Greece and Egypt or the East, divine intervention did not always mean that "god" literally came down and formed humans out of clay (even though in some cases it did). It meant that the laws of nature were the "hidden language" of the gods and that all of the universe was a physical reflection of the "hidden mind" of god. And thus all branches of math and science were intertwined with the cosmologies and "mysticism" of cognitive thought.
However, Christian doctrine is based on the literal acceptance of Christ as a flesh and blood creature for the purpose defining the "divine word" of the Bible as the basis for secular law and authority. Therefore, the symbolic and "mystical" aspects were downplayed in terms of how Christianity was taught to the masses as a form of blind obedience to Christ (and Christian based secular authority).
And from that literal acceptance of Christ in the West came the rise of Christian biblical literalism. At the same time there came the rise of scientific rationalism. And this is what created the split we know as evolutionism vs creationism. This is a more recent debate based on "literal" acceptance of the bible where if it says that god created the universe in "seven days" then it must be interpreted literally as opposed to the "rationalist" view of science of being devoid of any concept of divinity. That is not how ancient philosophers necessarily looked at creation in all cases.
I am not saying that am in any camp, as opposed to describing how these ideas and concepts came to be and therefore somewhat are illogical in that they ignore the history of their own existence.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Slime molds are among the world’s strangest organisms. Long mistaken for fungi, they are now classed as a type of amoeba. As single-celled organisms, they have neither neurons nor brains. Yet for about a decade, scientists have debated whether slime molds have the capacity to learn about their environments and adjust their behavior accordingly.
For Audrey Dussutour, a biologist at France’s National Center for Scientific Research and a team leader at the Research Center on Animal Cognition at Université Paul Sabatier in Toulouse, that debate is over. Her group not only taught slime molds to ignore noxious substances that they would normally avoid, but demonstrated that the organisms could remember this behavior after a year of physiologically disruptive enforced sleep. But do these results prove that slime molds—and perhaps a wide range of other organisms that lack brains—can exhibit a form of primitive cognition? ...
posted
Okay, Doug. But I don't see how you can co-sign Tukuler's initial post if you think humans are purely a result spontaneous chemical reactions with no other types of processes of any kind, at any stage.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
As I said before, I see the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of cognitive modernity in the human lineages over millions of years, as two examples where I see direction in the fossil record.
The seven book pages below give a good explanation of why the Cambrian explosion disproves the mainstream models of evolution. Note that the author rejects evolution. I don't agree with that. Many of my ideas that challenge Darwinism, require micro and macro evolution (e.g. the fossil record provides evidence that cognitive modernity evolved; it just didn't evolve by Darwinian processes). I'm only citing these pages to explain why the fossil record does not support Darwinism. This is the only book I could get previews from on books.google, that gets many of my points across in only a couple of pages.
Note that the author rejects evolution. I don't agree with that.
As I said before, I see the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of cognitive modernity in the human lineages over millions of years, as two examples where I see direction in the fossil record.
Apparently Swenet thinks evolution was directed
(the Church of Directed Darwinism)
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness. Stick to pop music and entertainment news. Intellectual conversations apparently fly over your head.
Strawmen attacks aside, I never said all evolution is directed. What I did say repeatedly, is that I see evidence for both natural selection (including micro and macro evolution) and direction in the fossil record. I've already stated why, and I bet no one is going to try to take on the evidence. Because they can't.
Notice that everyone is contributing to the topic except lioness, who can only copy and paste, antagonize forum members and parrot researchers to make it seem like she has researched the topic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The whole Universe/Multiverse is Intelligent. Got nothing to do with any deity concept nor our human intelligence or a dolphin's even.
It's not an intelligence of or in thinking.
That is true
Pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity,or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal anthropomorphic god and instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity
Many traditional and folk religions including African traditional religions and Native American religions can be seen as pantheistic, or a mixture of pantheism and other doctrines such as polytheism and animism. According to pantheists, there are elements of pantheism in some forms of Christianity
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lioness. Stick to pop music and entertainment news. Intellectual conversations apparently fly over your head.
I am a few steps ahead of you. You use the word "direction" and that is vague
directed by what or whom?
Directed by a God god who watches over us and judges our behavior?
Or
directed by an innate structure of the universe that has no particular care for humans?
These are basic questions which you won't answer. In an intellectual conversation these would have been addressed and answered early on. That is why I'm ahead of you and you are walking in circles - intentionally because you like to
Instead we have a psuedo-intellctual game where you hide your view as vaguely as possible using the word "direction" which just means the path of an object in motion and won't even use the word "plan" just to keep things on an intentionally ambiguous smokey level so you can escape through the trap door and then reappear when convenient
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are basic questions which you won't answer.
I don't have to answer anything. I do have to post evidence for claims I make, which I did. I don't have to elaborate on claims I've never made. And I don't have to tell you why or answer to you or jump through your troll hoops.
Like I said, you need to stop making up fake rules, talking about "you're obligated to interpret your evidence or it means you're hiding". Where do these fake rules come from? Not from science. Just from lioness insatiable appetite for trolling, antagonizing and prodding for weaknesses.
Stick to the entertainment section, please. Thanks.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are basic questions which you won't answer.
I don't have to answer anything. I do have to post evidence for claims I make, which I did. I don't have to elaborate on claims I've never made. And I don't have to tell you why or answer to you or jump through your troll hoops.
You don't want to answer basic questions because you don't want to stick your neck out and say you believe in God.
"DIRECTION" IS NOT AN EXPLANATION FOR EXISTENCE it is just a vague word. Assassinating Darwin does not leave you with an explanation, you will still need to fill in the blank,
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The irony is that many top scientists at the forefront of evolution-related research don't seem to share the blind faith of the Darwinian church members who are far removed from the fields that matter. smh.
Since "natural selection" comprises the essential core of Darwin's theory, Fodor's paper presented a serious challenge to the scientific integrity of evolution. As a result, in July 2008, 16 of the world's leading evolution- ary scientists met in a castle in Altenberg, Austria, to discuss these serious threats to evolutionary science. Details of the conference were written up by science iournalist Suzan Mazur.19 She reports interviews and comments from attendees and other thought leaders in the area of evolution. 'Ihey highlight the growing realization by these scientists that if natural selection is now rejected or marginalized as the underpinning evolutionary process, then Darwin's theory is dead. Dr. Jerry Fodor is quoted as saying, "Basically I don't think anybodv knows how evolution works."
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Both of you guys (Doug M and Tukuler) raise good points. Reading Doug's points about African religions, I would add that any African accepting Darwinian evolution is hopelessly lost. The idea is foreign and runs completely counter to African philosophies and values (let alone religion). If westerners want to only understand the origin of life from the perspective of pseudo-science like naturalism and materialism (which Darwinism promotes and is thoroughly steeped in), then let them. Europeans have old traditions of entertaining spontaneous generation and today members of the Darwinian church parade that under the guise of science (i.e. abiogenesis). That doesn't mean others have to go along with that. It's not science. It's science fiction. And it's a European philosophy foreign to the vast majority of traditions and values of most countries worldwide. Other than Europeans, very few cultures in history are compatible with the notion that all life can be explained purely in terms of coincidence and necessity.
Contrary to the doctrines of the church of Darwinism, there is nothing wrong with accepting evolution, while at the same time rejecting Darwinian evolution. That is purely a philosophical choice, and has nothing to do with science vs pseudoscience, or rationality vs religious fanaticism.
Darwin was wrong and experiment as well as observation prove it.
Change in species has virtually nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" or "adaptation". It is driven chiefly by behavior which ends in population bottlenecks or random chance exercised causing population bottlenecks. Secondarily it is the result of mutation.
Behavior is critical in most population bottlenecks and all behavior is driven by consciousness. Therefore in a very real way evolution truly is by "intelligent" design.
Which brings up one of the confusions which is "intelligence" as humans perceive it doesn't really exist at all!! Intelligence isn't really a condition at all but is rather an event. Those who think faster or more clearly (in modern language) are more likely to experience "cleverness". People used to think in Ancient Language and those who knew more language were more likely to experience cleverness.
Mebbe we should say life arose by "clever design".
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've cited a source above on why I see the Cambrian explosion as undermining Darwinism. Let's now look at why I see cognitive modernity as delivering another fatal blow to Darwinian evolution. I've explained this already in the other thread, but it's only alluded to here. Months later from now the connection between the older thread and this spin-off thread will be less obvious, so let me reiterate it here for the sake of clarity.
Basically, according to the premises of Darwinism, all organisms evolve in trajectories that are predetermined by previous adaptations. This explains, for instance, why pigs don't evolve wings, despite the fact that it may be advantageous for them to do so:
quote:Another source of information or structure for evolving organisms is what Fodor calls channeling. Natural selection, as a scientific theory, has the job of explaining why organisms are the way they are, and hence by implication why organisms are not the way they are not. In particular, it has to explain why there are no such things as winged pigs. There is plenty of selection pressure (as it is sometimes called) for pigs to develop wings: they would certainly be handy in escaping predators, finding food, getting to mates, and so on. Fodor’s explanation is very plausible: “To add wings to a pig, you’d also have to tinker with lots of other things. In fact, you’d have to rebuild the pig whole hog: less weight, appropriate musculature, …a streamlined silhouette and god only knows what else.” Pigs are already stuck in a very different channel of evolutionary strategy: they use their size and strength to advantage by employing powerful legs to move them swiftly about. No matter how loudly their environment may demand flight as a adaptive modification, they are stuck by virtue of their genealogical history in an incompatible channel of development. It is channeling, therefore, that explains their winglessness. Past adaptations restrict current adaptation to specific channels.
Now let's look at the evolution of anatomical and cognitive modernity, with this quote in mind.
Under this model I've just described, where organisms can only evolve in a narrow set of predetermined pathways, all the archaic human lineages above, already sharing increments towards modernity with modern humans, should continue these increments on their own. After all, in the Darwinian model the predetermined pathways allowing for continued increments in cognitive modernity were already preselected in these archaic humans. This potential for further increments towards modernity would have been dormant in their genes, awaiting additional mutations and selection. At least, according to Darwinian models of evolution.
With all archaic humans already on the same evolutionary trajectory as the lineage that leads to living humans, this is how we would expect cognitive modernity to evolve under the Darwinian model:
Under the Darwinian model, the human lineage we descend from is nothing special. It predicts that many archaic humans were on track to evolve into something analogous to modern humans. Not the same, but analogous. So, the big question here is, do we see archaic humans continue their own increments towards modernity? The answer is a big NO.
In the past, the answer seemed to be a big YES. For instance Neanderthal tools (the Mousterian) seemed fully analogous to the tools made by modern humans.
quote:Both Neanderthals and the Skhul-Qafzeh Modem Humans shared a Middle Palaeolithic technology, with a small range of tool types . . .
So it LOOKED like Neanderthals were making these increments towards modernity on their own. This was one of several examples seemingly supporting that Darwinism can explain the evolution of cognitive modernity.
However, the notion of Neanderthals making increments towards modernity on their own was recently undermined. Among other revelations, it turned out that Neanderthals are poor representatives of the Neanderthal-Denisovan common ancestor. That is, Neanderthals differed from their own Eurasian ancestors because several OOA migrations had changed them by the time they appear in the fossil record:
quote:The expert consensus now is that Homo sapiens evolved at least 300,000 years ago in Africa. Only much later — roughly 70,000 years ago — did a small group of Africans establish themselves on other continents, giving rise to other populations of people today.
To Johannes Krause, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human History in Germany, that gap seems peculiar. “Why did people not leave Africa before?” he asked in an interview. After all, he observed, the continent is physically linked to the Near East. “You could have just walked out.”
In a study published Tuesday in Nature Communications, Dr. Krause and his colleagues report that Africans did indeed walk out — over 270,000 years ago.
Based on newly discovered DNA in fossils, the researchers conclude that a wave of early Homo sapiens, or close relatives of our species, made their way from Africa to Europe. There, they interbred with Neanderthals.
Then the ancient African migrants disappeared. But some of their DNA endured in later generations of Neanderthals.
“This is now a comprehensive picture,” Dr. Krause said. “It brings everything together.”
So, not only does this prove that Neanderthals had AMH (anatomically modern human) ancestry. It also indicates that true Neanderthals appear in the fossil record only after this early admixture event and subsequent admixture events. This means that all supposed evidence of Neanderthal increments towards modernity rests on Neanderthals who were already admixed with Africans. The tools support this. Neanderthal tool industries are variants of industries that are much older in Africa.
So guess what implications these revelations have for the recent cave art hyped as Neanderthal art:
quote:Except it is not unique to Homo sapiens at all. The potentially epoch-making announcement in the journal Science this week of a new dating for art in some of Spain’s painted caves includes the astounding discovery that a stencilled hand in Maltravieso cave is at least 66,700 years old – a date reached by testing the calcite deposits that have encrusted it over the millennia.
That is long before modern humans are known to have reached Europe on their migration out of Africa. It is also more than 25,000 years before the first paintings made by Homo sapiens in Europe were created at in France. The hand is not human, at least not Homo sapiens. It has to be that of a Neanderthal, the early species that hunted the big beasts of ice age Europe before our lot came along, only to about 40,000 years ago, soon after our arrival.
^These examples of Neanderthal art were not made by a pure archaic European lineage. They were made by a subspecies whose emergence was not just affected by repeated AMH migrations, but their emergence as a population depended on it. There are no Neanderthals before African migration to Europe (only pre-Neanderthals):
So, unless Darwinism can explain why African AMHs are repeatedly exporting cognitive modernity to archaic humans in Eurasia, it's done. This happened over a period of >1my. Natural selection is not supposed to be biased to one human lineage over >1 million years. Even if you theorize that Africa presented some sort of unique environment conducive to the evolution of cognitive modernity, you can only say Africa favoured increments to cognitive modernity. You can't say natural selection acted selectively over >1 million years in Africa. To say that means you're evoking teleology, which is (ironically) the only way for Darwinian church members out of these problems.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Both of you guys (Doug M and Tukuler) raise good points. Reading Doug's points about African religions, I would add that any African accepting Darwinian evolution is hopelessly lost. The idea is foreign and runs completely counter to African philosophies and values (let alone religion). If westerners want to only understand the origin of life from the perspective of pseudo-science like naturalism and materialism (which Darwinism promotes and is thoroughly steeped in), then let them. Europeans have old traditions of entertaining spontaneous generation and today members of the Darwinian church parade that under the guise of science (i.e. abiogenesis). That doesn't mean others have to go along with that. It's not science. It's science fiction. And it's a European philosophy foreign to the vast majority of traditions and values of most countries worldwide. Other than Europeans, very few cultures in history are compatible with the notion that all life can be explained purely in terms of coincidence and necessity.
Contrary to the doctrines of the church of Darwinism, there is nothing wrong with accepting evolution, while at the same time rejecting Darwinian evolution. That is purely a philosophical choice, and has nothing to do with science vs pseudoscience, or rationality vs religious fanaticism.
Darwin was wrong and experiment as well as observation prove it.
Change in species has virtually nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" or "adaptation". It is driven chiefly by behavior which ends in population bottlenecks or random chance exercised causing population bottlenecks. Secondarily it is the result of mutation.
Behavior is critical in most population bottlenecks and all behavior is driven by consciousness. Therefore in a very real way evolution truly is by "intelligent" design.
Which brings up one of the confusions which is "intelligence" as humans perceive it doesn't really exist at all!! Intelligence isn't really a condition at all but is rather an event. Those who think faster or more clearly (in modern language) are more likely to experience "cleverness". People used to think in Ancient Language and those who knew more language were more likely to experience cleverness.
Mebbe we should say life arose by "clever design".
Yes. Behaviour plays an important role in evolution as a mechanism distinct from traditional Darwinian mechanisms. Findings from epigenetics show that the environment interacts with our genes:
Darwinism can explain things like sickle cell, cold adaptation, lactase persistence, depigmentation, etc. Presumably also some examples of speciation. But when it comes to the fossil record, Darwinism runs into major problems. And these problems just keep getting bigger.
It's interesting to see how many more times Darwinists are going to try to reconcile Darwinism with new unforeseen problems before they realize it's become messy and internally inconsistent. Epigenetics is a good example of Darwinists pretending Darwinism can incorporate new evolutionary mechanisms. In reality, they're just creating a bloated patchwork theory that has lost its original simplicity and essence. What's the next bombshell revelation they're going to accommodate clumsily, while pretending their original premises are intact?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Darwin was wrong and experiment as well as observation prove it.
Change in species has virtually nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" or "adaptation". It is driven chiefly by behavior which ends in population bottlenecks or random chance exercised causing population bottlenecks. Secondarily it is the result of mutation.
Behavior is critical in most population bottlenecks and all behavior is driven by consciousness. Therefore in a very real way evolution truly is by "intelligent" design.
what causes a single cell animal to evolve into a multi cell animal?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Okay, Doug. But I don't see how you can co-sign Tukuler's initial post if you think humans are purely a result spontaneous chemical reactions with no other types of processes of any kind, at any stage.
OK. Lets agree that humans have "intelligence". So if that is true and there is no proof of "divine intervention" in the creation of humans outside of standard biochemical processes, does that not mean the universe is therefore "intelligent"? As in the sum of all things within the universe includes a pattern of "design" which gives rise to "intelligence"? This is what I am agreeing with. Again, this is a META principle. I am not saying that the universe is a "cognitive creature". I am saying that the universe has the ability to generate "intelligence" within US which means there is a form of "intelligent design" at work at a "meta level" and the sum of all things within the universe are part of that "cognitive intelligence" at a macro and micro level. All things within the universe are tied together as part of being within this pattern.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic