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?
It appears to be the same for every species; primarily population bottlenecks and mutation. It does seem improbable that behavior and consciousness play as large a role in simpler species but every indication is they are still relevant.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| 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.
If you use the word "design" or the word Swenet uses "directed" if implies a designer or director. The word "consciousness" implies a "cognitive creature"
The word structure or pattern don't have this connotation
The word "random" is also relative, perhaps even meaningless in the absolute sense Humans label something "random" if it is an event not in their interest
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| 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?
It appears to be the same for every species; primarily population bottlenecks and mutation. It does seem improbable that behavior and consciousness play as large a role in simpler species but every indication is they are still relevant.
A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts) or human activities (such as genocide).
_____________________
Evolutionary theory is not dependent on bottlenecks but bottlenecks can be a part of it
Evolutionary theory says a individuals of species have spontaneous mutations. By chance some of these mutations work better in a given environment and others don't. So the ones that are lucky to have the advantageous mutation survive better and reproduce more thus altering the overall traits of the species over time.
This is like a trial and error process and some people don't like to see themselves and the universe as part of a trail and error process.
You said population bottlenecks and mutation cause a species to evolve. So if you want to remove selection you are still left with mutation. Then if you enter in bottlenecks the outcome is even more "random" It would mean there are spontaneous mutations but none of them are advantageous or deleterious in an environment the only way that the population changes is if some special event occurs changing the environment such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts. The population is randomly reduced by deaths and it's diversity reduced, the survivors were just lucky they weren't near the volcano when it erupted
We see mutations to be spontaneous or random because it strikes us that a deleterious mutation is not leading to more life. It seems like a fail. What about death? Is that a fail? What about a baby antelope getting eaten by a lion? Is that a fail on the antelopes part ?
If someone were to speculate as their being a reason behind the life of an antelope one could say it is to produce more antelopes, for the species to survive But they could also speculate that is only part of the reason for their existence, part of it is to be food for lions.
So then you could also speculate that a trail and error process involves random mutation on an individual level but it is not random in a larger scheme because this trail and error process results in a better product at the end.
And another way one could look at something is that if a person was born blind that has a purpose we don't know about
Or it doesn't have a purpose.
We can't ever really know if purpose exists or it's just a mental abstraction.
However we can observe some cause and effect sometimes
Posts: 42988 | 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.
Let's look at this statement in particular:
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"? --Doug
If an engineer tries to make a chemical structure with chemical building blocks and chemical processes, and he tries to endow it with as many human functions as possible, it will never be a conscious object. He'd need to also work with physics, since that field allows us understand consciousness and (eventually) describe it and possibly work with it. Without that he'd just be creating a mechanical machine. What you're suggesting is a machine + human consciousness will eventually come out of chemical processes, even though the mechanisms you're pointing to are much 'dumber' than the engineer trying to replicate a human. So you're not just working with the wrong substances (chemistry is not enough), but your mechanisms (chemistry, cellular processes) are too dumb to create more than organic machines.
Darwinists recognize this problem. To get around this problem they simply say that consciousness doesn't exist and that chemistry is sufficient to explain everything. By denying consciousness, they can continue cramming evolution in their Newtonian worldview without confusing themselves.
What I see you doing is you agree that chemistry is enough, but then you want to cross the boundary of what mainstream science calls "natural processes" and dabble with "forbidden science" (i.e. going beyond the currently accepted Newtonian worldview). Let's face it, Doug. The notion that chemistry is enough to explain life originates with a dated view of nature (i.e. the Newtonian view). But if the foundation (Newtonian physics) has crumbled, then the postulations that grew out of it (i.e. evolution being purely cellular and chemical) have to be revisited and updated.
That's all I have to say about it. I'm not interested in changing beliefs or forcing my view on people. But if you insist in this thread that cellular chemistry is the basis of all evolution, then it's fair game to say you're being inconsistent when you also talk about celestial matter being intelligent. Because if such matter is intelligent, then you can't put a lid on the implications by saying "oh, but I know for a fact that it definitely didn't interfere with evolution!". How can you possibly rule that out, and call it science?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 1952, scientist Stanley Miller performed an experiment that may explain what occurred on primitive Earth billions of years ago. He sent an electrical charge through a flask of a chemical solution of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. This created organic compounds including amino acids. As the building blocks of proteins, amino acids are linked to almost every life process, but they also have key roles as precursor compounds in many physiological processes.
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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, 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.
This might be an even better than the NYtimes article on African AMHs mixing with Neanderthals. They certainly see the relevance of the 300ky Moroccan Irhoud remains near Neanderthal Europe (something that mainstream articles have yet to connect to the human-Neanderthal "allele sharing" which is currently misinterpreted as 100% Neanderthal in origin [leading to misleading Neanderthal estimates, for instance in Taforalt and IAM]).
Mainstream science is lagging behind, hindered by its own biases and confusions. Aint nobody got time to wait on their approval. Luckily the people in the know are starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The discovery of African ancestry in Neanderthals (and to a lesser extent in Denisovans) is HUGE on many levels. One of these levels being the fact that cognitive modernity evolved exclusively in Africa as far as we can tell, in the lineage that leads to living humans.
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.
Let's look at this statement in particular:
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"? --Doug
Like I said, when I say evolution I don't mean Darwinism. Also when I say "intelligent design" it doesn't mean "conscious creature". The human body is an example of "intelligent design". Now unless you are going to claim that "something divine" came down and created humans through processes outside the normal process of biochemical and natural evolutionary processes, then the Universe expresses intelligent design through how it functions as a set of interrelated rules and laws.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If an engineer tries to make a chemical structure with chemical building blocks and chemical processes, and he tries to endow it with as many human functions as possible, it will never be a conscious object. He'd need to also work with physics, since that field allows us understand consciousness and (eventually) describe it and possibly work with it. Without that he'd just be creating a mechanical machine. What you're suggesting is a machine + human consciousness will eventually come out of chemical processes, even though the mechanisms you're pointing to are much 'dumber' than the engineer trying to replicate a human. So you're not just working with the wrong substances (chemistry is not enough), but your mechanisms (chemistry, cellular processes) are too dumb to create more than organic machines.
You don't just make humans by mixing base chemicals together. Humans are created from genetics which is a form of biochemistry with biochemical molecules, not a simple combination of base chemicals. "Consciousness" is the result of a human growing from a single cell into a fully grown adult through the process of genetic sexual reproduction. Humans do not have the ability to "build a brain" without genetics. The basis of consciousness is in the biochemical structure of the human brain. And to reconstruct that you have to use genetics which is the "code" that defines how the cells within the brain are created and function. So your example is flawed because you treat "consciousness" as an "add on" or "separate" from the physical organs from which it arises. And those organs arise by the codes within the genes which are based on chemical processes within complex molecules. By that logic you are claiming that consciousness can be anywhere and in anything because we don't understand what it is. And if we can't see "consciousness" or don't know where it comes from, then one could argue that the universe "is consciousness", even though that is not exactly what I am saying.
Intelligent design is the design that produces humans and everything we see and know in the universe. You are trying to claim that "consciousness" and "intelligence" are separate from the brain as if "consciousness" is not the result of the biochemical evolution of the brain. Cognition is the basis of intelligence and consciousness. Being able to think is a form of cognition. So if you claim cognition is the result of evolution then it is the result of biochemical processes in nature and hence "intelligence" is the result of chemical processes and not separate from it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Darwinists recognize this problem. To get around this problem they simply say that consciousness doesn't exist and that chemistry is sufficient to explain everything. By denying consciousness, they can continue cramming evolution in their Newtonian worldview without confusing themselves.
Fine. But all of modern evolutionary theory is not limited to the ideas and beliefs of Darwin. And logically, unless you can show me that "consciousness" is a result of divine intervention, then it is simply an emergent pattern rising out of natural evolutionary events and the physical brain.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What I see you doing is you agree that chemistry is enough, but then you want to cross the boundary of what mainstream science calls "natural processes" and dabble with "forbidden science" (i.e. going beyond the currently accepted Newtonian worldview). Let's face it, Doug. The notion that chemistry is enough to explain life originates with a dated view of nature (i.e. the Newtonian view). But if the foundation (Newtonian physics) has crumbled, then the postulations that grew out of it (i.e. evolution being purely cellular and chemical) have to be revisited and updated.
And as I said we are back to semantics again and trying to assign people to "camps" based on the words they use. What is "forbidden science" in the study of evolution? Evolutionary theory has expanded way beyond the dogmas and ideas of the 19th century:
There are a lot more things going on in the realm of evolutionary theory than simply a blind following of Darwin and all his beliefs or the beliefs of any single individual like "Newton". This is where the problem arises because science in many ways is a very broad set of disciplines and ideas about many things and there are many different people with different opinions on things. And I keep saying I am trying to avoid that minefield (understanding you explicitly want to run into it in this thread). I am not in any of these camps.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's all I have to say about it. I'm not interested in changing beliefs or forcing my view on people. But if you insist in this thread that cellular chemistry is the basis of all evolution, then it's fair game to say you're being inconsistent when you also talk about celestial matter being intelligent. Because if such matter is intelligent, then you can't put a lid on the implications by saying "oh, but I know for a fact that it definitely didn't interfere with evolution!". How can you possibly rule that out, and call it science?
And no I am not trying to change your opinion. The point I am making is that words have been hijacked and this whole debate just becomes a jumble of arguments about which definition of a word one believes in or what 'ideological camp' one belongs to when one uses the word. Evolution does not equal Darwinism in my book. The process of change in nature is not limited to one process or event. There are many interrelated processes and events related to evolution. And this is why there is so many debates about it in academic circles. The Cambrian explosion does not "disprove evolution". It may disprove some of Darwin's theories but again "evolution" as a word in my way of looking at it isn't simply an issue of blindly following the ideas and dogma defined by Darwin. In fact, modern science has in many ways moved on from Darwin as the primary model of evolution.
The problem again, as I mentioned before is the hubris and arrogance of the "rationalists" who believe that every aspect of how life took form on earth can and will be understood any time soon. Therefore, as new discoveries are found and studies you get folks who try to claim that "evolution is dead" but that is just what happens when words like "evolution" are hijacked to mean "Darwinism". It is just as absurd to say that "evolution is dead" in general because some aspect of Darwin's beliefs have been disproven as it is to say physics is dead because some aspects of Newtons theories have been challenged. This is the point I am making.
Like I said, when I say evolution I don't mean Darwinism. Also when I say "intelligent design" it doesn't mean the universe is a "conscious creature". The human body is an example of "intelligent design". Now unless you are going to claim that "something divine" came down and created humans through processes outside the normal process of biochemical and natural evolutionary processes, then the Universe expresses intelligent design through how it functions as a set of interrelated rules and laws.
quote: Alternatives to evolution by natural selection, also described as non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution,[2] have been proposed by scholars investigating biology since classical times to explain signs of evolution and the relatedness of different groups of living things. The alternatives in question do not encompass religious points of view such as young or old earth creationism or intelligent design, but are limited to explanations proposed by biologists, though one was confusingly named 'theistic evolution' by Asa Gray.
Where the fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained. Different factors motivated people to propose non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection, with its emphasis on death and competition, did not appeal to some naturalists because they felt it immoral, leaving little room for teleology or the concept of progress in the development of life. Some who came to accept evolution, but disliked natural selection, raised religious objections. Others felt that evolution was an inherently progressive process that natural selection alone was insufficient to explain. Still others felt that nature, including the development of life, followed orderly patterns that natural selection could not explain.
By the start of the 20th century, evolution was generally accepted by biologists but natural selection was in eclipse.[3] Many alternative theories were proposed, but biologists were quick to discount theories such as orthogenesis, vitalism and Lamarckism which offered no mechanism for evolution. Mutationism did propose a mechanism, but it was not generally accepted. The modern synthesis a generation later claimed to sweep away all the alternatives to Darwinian evolution, though some have been revived as molecular mechanisms for them have been discovered.
"yes the universe is intelligent, has consciousness, but it's definitely not a cognitive creature!". --Doug M
"yes, this intelligent universe is involved in evolution in some way, but god forbid it interfered in the process of evolution aka cellular chemistry!". --Doug M
"yes, mysticism involves the genuine extraction of math, astronomy and other ancient knowledge from the universe, but there is definitely no exchange going on between humans and the cosmos! Mysticism just involves basic electro-chemical impulses twirling around in the brain and nothing more!". --Doug M
Sounds to me like you're just talking about 'divine intervention' in evolution and in mysticism/transmission of ancient knowledge. You just want to call it something else and window dress it. Okay, Doug. Got it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Then if you enter in bottlenecks the outcome is even more "random" It would mean there are spontaneous mutations but none of them are advantageous or deleterious in an environment the only way that the population changes is if some special event occurs changing the environment such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts. The population is randomly reduced by deaths and it's diversity reduced, the survivors were just lucky they weren't near the volcano when it erupted
We see mutations to be spontaneous or random because it strikes us that a deleterious mutation is not leading to more life. It seems like a fail. What about death? Is that a fail? What about a baby antelope getting eaten by a lion? Is that a fail on the antelopes part ?
If someone were to speculate as their being a reason behind the life of an antelope one could say it is to produce more antelopes, for the species to survive But they could also speculate that is only part of the reason for their existence, part of it is to be food for lions.
So then you could also speculate that a trail and error process involves random mutation on an individual level but it is not random in a larger scheme because this trail and error process results in a better product at the end.
And another way one could look at something is that if a person was born blind that has a purpose we don't know about
Or it doesn't have a purpose.
We can't ever really know if purpose exists or it's just a mental abstraction.
However we can observe some cause and effect sometimes
I believe it's irrelevant if change in species (there's no such thing as evolution) is random or "trial and error". In very real ways it is neither and both.
What is relevant is that there is no such thing as "species" and there are only individuals who use consciousness to survive. Change inb species occurs when some specific behavior is eradicated by nature and this behavior is shared by most members of a "species". For instance if a species tends to always live in fields and some solar event, meteorite, or cataclism kills all those out in the open only a few individuals who each CHOSE to be under cover at that moment will survive. It is largely genetics that determine animal behavior so these survivors will have different genes and immediately create a new species with no missing links.
Free will, consciousness, and cleverness drive change in species and survival. Darwin was wrong pretty much across the board. He assumed that bottlenecks were nonexistent but this is where new species arise. Life is far older than Darwin imagined.
It is probably true that "survival of the fittest" is important to genetic diversity within species but even here localized bottlenecks are more important.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, to sum it up. You're saying:
"yes the universe is intelligent, has consciousness, but it's definitely not a cognitive creature!". --Doug M
"yes, this intelligent universe is involved in evolution in some way, but god forbid it interfered in the process of evolution aka cellular chemistry!". --Doug M
"yes, mysticism involves the genuine extraction of math, astronomy and other ancient knowledge from the universe, but there is definitely no exchange going on between humans and the cosmos! Mysticism just involves basic electro-chemical impulses twirling around in the brain and nothing more!". --Doug M
Sounds to me like you're just talking about 'divine intervention' in evolution and in mysticism/transmission of ancient knowledge. You just want to call it something else and window dress it. Okay, Doug. Got it.
Aww stop trying to paraphrase what I said.
I was pretty explicit in what I meant. You are stuck because you haven't grasped what I am saying.
If humans are intelligent and no "divine force" created them, then the processes in nature that created them are an expression of intelligence. MEANING that intelligence exists in nature as the result of the processes and tangible by products of those processes. Otherwise, humans can't be intelligent because humans were created by nature and therefore if nature is not intelligent and cant "design intelligence" without something "outside of nature" or "outside of natural forces" within the universe being responsible for them. Which means us talking on this thread isn't real intelligence because we cannot find the "natural sources" of our ability to write words and communicate.
It is either nature created humans as an expression of 'intelligent design' or there is no intelligence AT ALL anywhere.
Like I said, the roots of math, science and religion all lay in mysticism. Your attempts to summarize what I said as something other than that is the problem. Mysticism in many examples starts with human cognition and the ability to observe, think, question and develop ideas, symbols and concepts about reality. From that comes language and math as the pattern REFLECTING the hidden language of nature that created man, the universe and everything including human "consciousness".
But whatever, I see you will attempt to spin that because you can't comprehend words without reinterpreting them through the prism of "rationalist" contradictions which is not how math, language and writing came about in the first place.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, to sum it up. You're saying:
"yes the universe is intelligent, has consciousness, but it's definitely not a cognitive creature!". --Doug M
"yes, this intelligent universe is involved in evolution in some way, but god forbid it interfered in the process of evolution aka cellular chemistry!". --Doug M
"yes, mysticism involves the genuine extraction of math, astronomy and other ancient knowledge from the universe, but there is definitely no exchange going on between humans and the cosmos! Mysticism just involves basic electro-chemical impulses twirling around in the brain and nothing more!". --Doug M
Sounds to me like you're just talking about 'divine intervention' in evolution and in mysticism/transmission of ancient knowledge. You just want to call it something else and window dress it. Okay, Doug. Got it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, to sum it up. You're saying:
"yes the universe is intelligent, has consciousness, but it's definitely not a cognitive creature!". --Doug M
"yes, this intelligent universe is involved in evolution in some way, but god forbid it interfered in the process of evolution aka cellular chemistry!". --Doug M
"yes, mysticism involves the genuine extraction of math, astronomy and other ancient knowledge from the universe, but there is definitely no exchange going on between humans and the cosmos! Mysticism just involves basic electro-chemical impulses twirling around in the brain and nothing more!". --Doug M
Sounds to me like you're just talking about 'divine intervention' in evolution and in mysticism/transmission of ancient knowledge. You just want to call it something else and window dress it. Okay, Doug. Got it.
Aww stop trying to paraphrase what I said.
I was pretty explicit in what I meant. You are stuck because you haven't grasped what I am saying.
If humans are intelligent and no "divine force" created them, then the processes in nature that created them are an expression of intelligence. MEANING that intelligence exists in nature as the result of the processes and tangible by products of those processes. Otherwise, humans can't be intelligent because humans were created by nature and therefore if nature is not intelligent and cant "design intelligence" without something "outside of nature" or "outside of natural forces" within the universe being responsible for them. Which means us talking on this thread isn't real intelligence because we cannot find the "natural sources" of our ability to write words and communicate.
It is either nature created humans as an expression of 'intelligent design' or there is no intelligence AT ALL anywhere.
Like I said, the roots of math, science and religion all lay in mysticism. Your attempts to summarize what I said as something other than that is the problem. Mysticism in many examples starts with human cognition and the ability to observe, think, question and develop ideas, symbols and concepts about reality. From that comes language and math as the pattern REFLECTING the hidden language of nature that created man, the universe and everything including human "consciousness".
But whatever, I see you will attempt to spin that because you can't comprehend words without reinterpreting them through the prism of "rationalist" contradictions which is not how math, language and writing came about in the first place.
Doug these are the contradictions coming out of your own posts.
Yes, ptah is the archetype of the "conscious universe". So is Christ the Logos, Buddha and so forth. They all represent that cognitive evolutionary process and theory of one unified expansion of conscious in creation. With the human conscious being the pinnacle of that expansion and prism through which you can see the inner and outer universe. --Doug M
To anyone reading your posts you seem to be flip flopping between "natural processes" and "non-natural processes". You just stated point blank humans have ESP (extrasensory perception). You can't clean that up with nice-sounding scientific words, like "structures in the brain that evolved with cellular chemistry". You are talking about topics that open pandora's box of the 'divine' and 'paranormal', yet when people are drawing attention to it, you want to close the lid and disown what you just said. smh.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, to sum it up. You're saying:
"yes the universe is intelligent, has consciousness, but it's definitely not a cognitive creature!". --Doug M
"yes, this intelligent universe is involved in evolution in some way, but god forbid it interfered in the process of evolution aka cellular chemistry!". --Doug M
"yes, mysticism involves the genuine extraction of math, astronomy and other ancient knowledge from the universe, but there is definitely no exchange going on between humans and the cosmos! Mysticism just involves basic electro-chemical impulses twirling around in the brain and nothing more!". --Doug M
Sounds to me like you're just talking about 'divine intervention' in evolution and in mysticism/transmission of ancient knowledge. You just want to call it something else and window dress it. Okay, Doug. Got it.
Aww stop trying to paraphrase what I said.
I was pretty explicit in what I meant. You are stuck because you haven't grasped what I am saying.
If humans are intelligent and no "divine force" created them, then the processes in nature that created them are an expression of intelligence. MEANING that intelligence exists in nature as the result of the processes and tangible by products of those processes. Otherwise, humans can't be intelligent because humans were created by nature and therefore if nature is not intelligent and cant "design intelligence" without something "outside of nature" or "outside of natural forces" within the universe being responsible for them. Which means us talking on this thread isn't real intelligence because we cannot find the "natural sources" of our ability to write words and communicate.
It is either nature created humans as an expression of 'intelligent design' or there is no intelligence AT ALL anywhere.
Like I said, the roots of math, science and religion all lay in mysticism. Your attempts to summarize what I said as something other than that is the problem. Mysticism in many examples starts with human cognition and the ability to observe, think, question and develop ideas, symbols and concepts about reality. From that comes language and math as the pattern REFLECTING the hidden language of nature that created man, the universe and everything including human "consciousness".
But whatever, I see you will attempt to spin that because you can't comprehend words without reinterpreting them through the prism of "rationalist" contradictions which is not how math, language and writing came about in the first place.
Doug these are the contradictions coming out of your own posts.
Yes, ptah is the archetype of the "conscious universe". So is Christ the Logos, Buddha and so forth. They all represent that cognitive evolutionary process and theory of one unified expansion of conscious in creation. With the human conscious being the pinnacle of that expansion and prism through which you can see the inner and outer universe. --Doug M
To anyone reading your posts you seem to be flip flopping between "natural processes" and "non-natural processes". You just stated point blank humans have ESP (extrasensory perception).
And this is what I mean about people not reading properly and understanding words.
When you sit around and think about anything, isn't that "inner communication"? I can't seriously believe that you see this as "ESP". Don't you even know what that means? Not to mention, even in belief systems that practice meditation, NOBODY calls that ESP. They are two separate things.
You are confused because you keep trying to apply your own meanings to words outside what has been written. And this is why I have been saying since two pages ago this minefield is because of various "camps" repurposing words to mean what THEY want them to mean, whether other people intend it that way or not. "Evolution" in modern in science is NOT simply "Darwinism". They are two separate things. I keep saying this yet you insist on ignoring it. All physics is not "newtonian" either. You are just mixing up things and not making any sense.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You can't clean that up with nice-sounding scientific words, like "structures in the brain that evolved with cellular chemistry".
Its called english and it isn't about being "nice sounding" it is about communicating. You refuse to accept the words intent and would rather present your own interpretations of these words whether they make any sense or not.
Notice you didn't even address the point of humans not simply being chemicals mixed in a jug. LOL. And you have the nerve to talk about science and pandora's box. Biology is not separate from chemistry. I can't believe you are making up distinctions where none exist. Making a human is not "basic chemistry". It is organic chemistry. It involves molecules with DNA. "Consciousness" or rather "cognition" arises from organic compounds found in nature, ie the cells in your brain and the DNA within them.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You are talking about topics that open pandora's box of the 'divine' and 'paranormal', yet when people are drawing attention to it, you want to close the lid and disown what you just said. smh.
What is "non-natural" about consciousness? I don't understand your point. You are not making a cogent argument. Are you saying consciousness is not "real" and does not exist in nature, ie your brain?
You really not saying anything.
So like I said you really have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. Debates in philosophy about the nature of consciousness are old as the hills and any basic course on philosphy goes over these arguments. You are just throwing stuff on the wall and hoping it sticks. That is not pandora's box it is called logical argument and debate.
Here is a link to a scientific journal. It is not pandora's box.
Inner speech is a common experience for many but hard to measure empirically. The Varieties of Inner Speech Questionnaire (VISQ) has been used to link everyday phenomenology of inner speech – such as inner dialogue – to various psychopathological traits. However, positive and supportive aspects of inner speech have not always been captured. This study presents a revised version of the scale – the VISQ-R – based on factor analyses in two large samples: respondents to a survey on inner speech and reading (N = 1412) and a sample of university students (N = 377). Exploratory factor analysis indicated a five-factor structure including three previous subscales (dialogic, condensed, and other people in inner speech), an evaluative/critical factor, and a new positive/regulatory factor. Confirmatory factor analysis then replicated this structure in sample 2. Hierarchical regression analyses also replicated a number of relations between inner speech, hallucination-proneness, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and dissociation.
quote: Your inner experience includes your thoughts, feelings, sensations, tickles, etc., whatever 'appears before the footlights of your consciousness'. Your inner experience is the most intimate thing you have and are: what you attend to or ignore, what you think about and how you think it, how you feel about something—these experiences shape (and are shaped by) your existence.
However, despite its apparent importance, the science of psychology has largely abandoned the careful study of inner experience. Inner experience is private—your inner experience presents itself to you and to no one else—and that is a challenge for science. I have created a method, Descriptive Experience Sampling (DES), designed to overcome that and other challenges and thus to present high fidelity glimpses of inner experience. My colleagues and I have used DES to describe the inner experience of a variety of individuals including bulimic, schizophrenic, depressed, borderline personality, and anxious, as well as non-clinical individuals.
Nobody here is talking about ESP in any of these papers.
What are YOU arguing here? You haven't even declared what you believe yet you want to pretend to be saying something?
quote: The Origins of Psychology
The discipline of psychology is relatively young. The human mind is not. So, were humans simply unconcerned with how their minds worked prior to the development of formal psychology in the 19th century? Of course not! The human mind has fascinated people for as long as we can tell. In fact, psychology as we know it actually descends from some of the earliest intellectual movements in Western history. For that, we have to balance on the edge of science, and of philosophy. Ancient Greek Philosophy
The first structured examinations of the human mind were not strictly scientific. Why? Because science, as we understand it, wasn't developed as a distinct discipline until the 17th century CE. European intellectual culture itself began much earlier, back around the 5th century BCE. In ancient Greece, all intellectual pursuits were studied holistically, as individual parts of greater human experiences. Thus, what we call science was originally part of philosophy, connected to Greek morality and systems of explaining existence. It was within these frameworks that the first attempts to systematically understand the human mind were made.
Socrates and Introspection
The studies of the human mind are almost as old as Greek philosophy itself, starting with Socrates, who died around 399 BCE. Socrates, often considered the founder of all Western philosophy, claimed that one of the oldest wisdoms in Greek thought was ''know thyself''. Know thyself. What does that mean?
Basically, Socrates' mantra (originally attributed to the divine Oracle of Delphi) is meant to evoke a simple idea: truth must be found within. In an era when moral structures were first truly being defined, Socrates argued that moral truth had to come from examining one's own sense of self and one's own mind. In psychology today, conscious reflection on your own feelings and thoughts is known as introspection.
Introspection and Plato
Introspection is a fundamental concept in psychology. The devotion to self-reflection dates back to Socrates, but we get an even better understanding of its importance from his student, Plato. Everything we know about Socrates comes from the writings of Plato, who also wrote out his own theories. Plato focused heavily on understanding how humans are capable of knowing things, and specifically how they are capable of knowing the truth. He reasoned that if moral, scientific, and philosophical truths existed then they must be knowable, but how are we to know them? His answer: reason and logic.
To Plato, human purpose was defined by the human ability to consciously rationalize thought. This was what allowed humans to find the philosophical truths of the universe. Of course, this meant that like Socrates, Plato saw introspection as one of the most important activities in human existence. Conscious examination of one's own thoughts and feelings was the foundation upon which all truths could be understood.
Yeah, I guess the ancient Greeks believed in ESP then. And of course these concepts existed in Eastern cultures long before that, such as Ptah. In fact, the phrase "Man know theyself" likely goes back to the pyramids. Speaking of pyramids:
posted
You are talking about ESP and exchanging information 'with the divine', but you want to call it something else because you're confused. And you know what happens when Doug gets confused. That's when he stops making sense with every post getting less coherent.
Yes, ptah is the archetype of the "conscious universe". So is Christ the Logos, Buddha and so forth. They all represent that cognitive evolutionary process and theory of one unified expansion of conscious in creation. With the human conscious being the pinnacle of that expansion and prism through which you can see the inner and outer universe. --Doug M
^This is not extrasensory perception? Oh ok. Got it. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
1. organisms produce more offspring that can survive
2.variations occur among individuals of a species
3.variations are passed from parent to offspring
4.some variations help individuals survive and reproduce better than others
5.over time the more helpful variations become more common in a population
^^ So when Doug says "evolution" he means something other than this, that this is wrong. He's just as vague as what he's accusing Swenet of
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You are talking about ESP and exchanging information 'with the divine', but you want to call it something else because you're confused. And you know what happens when Doug gets confused. That's when he stops making sense with every post getting less coherent.
Yes, ptah is the archetype of the "conscious universe". So is Christ the Logos, Buddha and so forth. They all represent that cognitive evolutionary process and theory of one unified expansion of conscious in creation. With the human conscious being the pinnacle of that expansion and prism through which you can see the inner and outer universe. --Doug M
^This is not extrasensory perception? Oh ok. Got it.
You are the only one talking about ESP in this thread. Anybody familiar with a basic history of philosophy would know what I am talking about. Nobody is talking about ESP except you.
What is it with you and understanding english:
quote: Yes, ptah is the archetype of the "conscious universe". So is Christ the Logos, Buddha and so forth. They all represent that cognitive evolutionary process and theory of one unified expansion of conscious in creation. With the human conscious being the pinnacle of that expansion and prism through which you can see the inner and outer universe.
Conscious universe is in quotes. It does not mean "conscious animal/creature". I already said this yet you keep going on about it. It represents the fact that consciousness itself as in human consciousness is a reflection of processes within the universe. You are part of the universe. Your brain is part of the universe. The atoms in your body and the molecules and cells all are constructs of the same materials and processes that are within the universe. Hence if you are conscious then you represent the innate potential for consciousness in the universe. This concept is not ESP. You are just making up stuff to make yourself sound good. I already posted the references and citations of this as basic and fundamental aspect of the history of human understanding. Nowhere in any of that did I say exchanging information with the divine. You are just making up strawmen at this point. What I did say was if your brain is the result of 'natural' evolutionary processes and NOT the divine then your consciousness and cognition is comes from the physical universe. You keep ducking and dodging this for some reason. I also said Ptah and other ancient dieties were "archetypes". Do you know what that even means? Seems to me the only one invoking "divinity" and ESP as an explanation for consciousness is you at this point. But I never made any such claim.
Archetypes are symbols. The ability to develop symbols to represent concepts and ideas is part of human mental and cognitive ability. That is why the earliest languages were pictorial, as in heiroglyphs. And from that evolution of symbolic thinking came letters. All of this happened in KMT a long time ago. Ptah and Djehuti are archetypes or symbols representing this evolution of cognition in humans and the META PRINCIPLE of how consciousness emerged from creation (in humans) but in a more abstract sense, how consciousness therefore is an "innate" function of creation within the universe. From all these ancient patterns of thought and ideas came the basis of language, math and science but originally all of these things were seen as part of the same "whole knowledge" of the mind, creation, the universe and so forth. Only much later did things get broken out into separate "fields of study". At this point you are trolling as I gave you all the references required to understand what I am saying.
The whole concept of ESP is recent and has absolutely NOTHING to do with these ancient patterns of thought. The word ESP was created in the 1900s. No ancient system of religion or mysticism had anything approaching ESP.
A psychologist having you sit on a couch and talk about your inner desires and thoughts is not ESP either.
As I said, the whole idea that the "natural forces" of the universe could even create something like "human conscious" and the various forms of consciousness found in other animals, was considered "as divine" by various ancient cultures on a basic level. And hence symbols or archetypes were created to represent how this was seen as a "divine" or "miraculous" element within nature itself as in Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc. But on another level these symbols were also representations of "META" physical or natural patterns at work in creation and the universe. Hence "sun" gods represents the "power" of the sun and the development of time based on the movement of the sun. So in a real sense "man makes god in his own image" not the other way around. Meaning man is the archetype for emergent complexity in the universe that SOME PEOPLE would interpret as a sign of the existence of "a god" or "gods".
And this concept of archetypes or symbols within human cognition is the basis of Jungian Psychology:
quote: In Jungian psychology, archetypes are highly developed elements of the collective unconscious. The existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by using story, art, myths, religions, or dreams. Carl Jung understood archetypes as universal, archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious and are the psychic counterpart of instinct.[1] They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.[2] They are autonomous and hidden forms which are transformed once they enter consciousness and are given particular expression by individuals and their cultures.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I already said this yet you keep going on about it. It represents the fact that consciousness itself as in human consciousness is a reflection of processes within the universe. You are part of the universe. Your brain is part of the universe. The atoms in your body and the molecules and cells all are constructs of the same materials and processes that are within the universe. Hence if you are conscious then you represent the innate potential for consciousness in the universe.
As I already explained several times, all things humans have created have the same connection with the universe as what you're talking about here. But I don't see a table communicating with me. I don't see my smartphone collapse the wave function. I don't see the chemicals in my food become more or less "intelligent" when I add more salt/seasoning/chemical reactions. smh. No man-made chemical object has ever been been observed to fill the gap in consciousness between ordinary objects and humans. I mean, why even need evolution in the first place if, as you claim, intelligence is already a given through "connection with the universe"?
You're definitely confused and no debate with you is possible. The last time I said no man-made object obtains consciousness through chemistry you started ranting about biochemistry and genes, which testifies to your deep confusion. Making humans seem special by talking about genes doesn't address the fact that no human creation will ever obtain consciousness through chemistry. Whether you add genes or not. (And BTW, DNA itself is a molecule, so you sound super confused trying to claim I'm "forgetting about DNA" when I say chemistry is not the basis of consciousness). The fact that you think genes, basically codes--are somehow instrumental in getting a man-made object to become conscious even contradicts your other claim that intelligence comes from "connection with the universe". Consciousness has nothing to do with genes, whatsoever. Humans have fewer genes than grapes do. And humans definitely don't stand out genetically compared to less complex life forms.
You are seriously confused and going in circles, constantly missing the point and chasing your own tail like a dog. But go ahead. Misrepresent/ignore what I said in this post with more incoherent non sense. You're denying that mysticism involves extrasensory perception, so there is no telling what other non sense you're capable of.
========
To people reading this. Bottom line, you can't create or evolve consciousness through chemistry and so all mainstream evolutionary mechanisms are incomplete at best. They're starting out with the wrong substances. Physics is more fundamental than chemistry. Any evolutionary theory needs to start with, and be grounded in, physics.
posted
And yes, the findings from physics really do suggest that the universe is a cognitive creature. A link highlighting the on-going conversations physicists are having about this, was already posted on the first page. But it's a common sight with some people here, that they somehow keep going backwards instead of building on evidence that was posted thread pages ago. Most of the conversations/ridicule/ignorance/questions in this thread IGNORE what was already posted on the first page.
Even in that context, Gregory Matloff’s ideas are shocking. The veteran physicist at New York City College of Technology recently published a paper arguing that humans may be like the rest of the universe in substance and in spirit. A “proto-consciousness field” could extend through all of space, he argues. Stars may be thinking entities that deliberately control their paths. Put more bluntly, the entire cosmos may be self-aware. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956
Three decades ago, Penrose introduced a key element of panpsychism with his theory that consciousness is rooted in the statistical rules of quantum physics as they apply in the microscopic spaces between neurons in the brain. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956
In 2006, German physicist Bernard Haisch, known both for his studies of active stars and his openness to unorthodox science, took Penrose’s idea a big step further. Haisch proposed that the quantum fields that permeate all of empty space (the so-called "quantum vacuum") produce and transmit consciousness, which then emerges in any sufficiently complex system with energy flowing through it. And not just a brain, but potentially any physical structure. Intrigued, Matloff wondered if there was a way to take these squishy arguments and put them to an observational test. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956
So I don't know what Doug is going on about, trying to hijack conversations in physics and ancient texts and distorting them by presuming to speak for other people. Speak for yourself. Egyptians said what they said. The physicists said what they said. Whether these ideas are factual or not is one thing, but you're flagrantly distorting the on-going conversations. If you believe all these conversations are humans anthropomorphizing processes in nature, then that is your own arbitrary opinion. Don't equate your arbitrary opinions with these schools of thought. Your opinions are incoherent and self-contradicting enough as they are.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yes, the number of human genes is another fatal blow to the notion that evolution is a purely chemical process that is recorded fully in the DNA molecule. You can tell it's a fatal blow, because biologists expected humans to have more genes to account for their complexity.
Somehow the Darwinian church managed to sweep this bombshell revelation under the rug without much pushback and demands for answers. Only 23000 genes to account for human complexity? smh
quote:Leaving aside the difficulty in defining terms such as “complexity” and “gene“, there has been for many decades an underlying assumption that there ought to be some relationship between morphological complexity and the number of protein-coding genes within a genome. This is a holdover from the pre-molecular era of genetics, when it was at first thought that total genome size should be related to gene number, and thus to complexity. Indeed, the constancy of DNA content within chromosome sets (“C-values”) was taken as evidence that DNA is the substance of heredity, and yet it was recognized as early as 1951 that there is no clear relationship between the amount of DNA per genome and organismal complexity (e.g., Mirsky and Ris 1951; Gregory 2005). By 1971, this had become known as the “C-value paradox” because it seemed so self-contradictory (Thomas 1971). (The solution to the C-value paradox was that most eukaryotic DNA is non-coding, although this raises plenty of questions of its own).
Nevertheless, one sometimes encounters arguments that there is a positive correlation between complexity and genome size, even in the scientific literature. Let me put to rest the notion that genome size is related to complexity on the broad scale of eukaryotic diversity. Here is a figure from Gregory (2005) showing the known ranges and means for more than 10,000 species of animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea (click image for larger view).
The notion that gene number and complexity should be related has survived largely intact into the post-genomic era, in no small part due to the popular tendency to describe genomes as “blueprints”. Genomes are not blueprints because there is no direct correspondence between a given bit of the genome and a particular piece of the organism. If one must have an analogy for how genomes operate, then a far more appropriate one is with recipes and cakes. No single word in a recipe specifies a particular crumb of a cake, but following the recipe correctly will result in a cake nonetheless. It probably does not need spelling out, but genomes are the recipe, development is the process of mixing ingredients and baking, and organisms are the cake.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I already said this yet you keep going on about it. It represents the fact that consciousness itself as in human consciousness is a reflection of processes within the universe. You are part of the universe. Your brain is part of the universe. The atoms in your body and the molecules and cells all are constructs of the same materials and processes that are within the universe. Hence if you are conscious then you represent the innate potential for consciousness in the universe.
As I already explained several times, all things humans have created have the same connection with the universe as what you're talking about here. But I don't see a table communicating with me. I don't see my smartphone collapse the wave function. I don't see the chemicals in my food become more or less "intelligent" when I add more salt/seasoning/chemical reactions. smh. No man-made chemical object has ever been been observed to fill the gap in consciousness between ordinary objects and humans. I mean, why even need evolution in the first place if, as you claim, intelligence is already a given through "connection with the universe"?
I didn't say that salt seasoning equals intelligence. What I actually said was Ptah, Buddha and other "gods" were symbols or archetypes of human consciousness as an example of the "logos" or "consciousness" arising from within a blue print or pattern in the universe. And I said that folks like Socrates, Plato and many other "mystics" used their brains to understand the mysteries of the mind and the universe because of their "cognitive abilities" they have in their brains. And from this tradition comes most of the systems of knowledge we have today from philosophy, math, pshychology, physics and so forth.
I also said that the fact that the brain is a product of evolution and not the result of divine intervention means that NATURE and the UNIVERSE can produce consciousness as an expression of itself or from within itself. And the processes that produced consciousness in humans on earth can happen elsewhere. Which means that nature and the physical universe can express consciousness purely from within itself and without outside divine intervention. You are just confused.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're definitely confused and no debate with you is possible. The last time I said no man-made object obtains consciousness through chemistry you started ranting about biochemistry and genes, which testifies to your deep confusion. Making humans seem special by talking about genes doesn't address the fact that no human creation will ever obtain consciousness through chemistry. Whether you add genes or not. (And BTW, DNA itself is a molecule, so you sound super confused trying to claim I'm "forgetting about DNA" when I say chemistry is not the basis of consciousness). The fact that you think genes, basically codes--are somehow instrumental in getting a man-made object to become conscious even contradicts your other claim that intelligence comes from "connection with the universe". Consciousness has nothing to do with genes, whatsoever. Humans have fewer genes than grapes do. And humans definitely don't stand out genetically compared to less complex life forms.
Swenet you are not making sense. I never said that man could make consciousness. Man is a creature with consciousness. You just keep making up strawmen to argue against that I never said. I really believe the problem here is you never had a good course on philosophy in college because EVERYTHING I am talking about is part of such courses. The mysteries of the mind and the philosophical arguments about what conscious is and isn't are not new. I already posted numerous references. The point being that there have been many who have made serious philosophical arguments about this topic from various angles and you aren't even referencing any of them instead of making up things that were not said to argue against.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You are seriously confused and going in circles, constantly missing the point and chasing your own tail like a dog. But go ahead. Misrepresent/ignore what I said in this post with more incoherent non sense. You're denying that mysticism involves extrasensory perception, so there is no telling what other non sense you're capable of.
The only one confused here is you. I say the universe creates human consciousness and therefore has an 'innate ability' to produce consciousness through chemical means and YOU claim this means man can produce consciousness from chemistry. LOL! Man is not "the universe" and certainly does not have the capacity to "make consciousness" by simply mixing chemicals in a cup. And on top of that, biology as a branch of chemistry about working with cells, which are the building blocks of any life form. Humans do not fully understand the process of how cells formed in history. They have a general idea and there are many theories and most follow general evolutionary principles, but science has not gotten to the point of being able to mix chemicals in a cup and produce living cells. That is why HUMANS cant produce 'living beings' through chemistry.
Stop trying to claim things outside of science. Science does not claim such things and you aren't making any sense, scientifically or philosophically.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
========
To people reading this. Bottom line, you can't create or evolve consciousness through chemistry and so all mainstream evolutionary mechanisms are incomplete at best. They're starting out with the wrong substances. Physics is more fundamental than chemistry. Any evolutionary theory needs to start with, and be grounded in, physics.
quote: Understanding the origin of cellular life on Earth requires the discovery of plausible pathways for the transition from complex prebiotic chemistry to simple biology, defined as the emergence of chemical assemblies capable of Darwinian evolution. We have proposed that a simple primitive cell, or protocell, would consist of two key components: a protocell membrane that defines a spatially localized compartment, and an informational polymer that allows for the replication and inheritance of functional information. Recent studies of vesicles composed of fatty-acid membranes have shed considerable light on pathways for protocell growth and division, as well as means by which protocells could take up nutrients from their environment. Additional work with genetic polymers has provided insight into the potential for chemical genome replication and compatibility with membrane encapsulation. The integration of a dynamic fatty-acid compartment with robust, generalized genetic polymer replication would yield a laboratory model of a protocell with the potential for classical Darwinian biological evolution, and may help to evaluate potential pathways for the emergence of life on the early Earth. Here we discuss efforts to devise such an integrated protocell model.
The emergence of the first cells on the early Earth was the culmination of a long history of prior chemical and geophysical processes. Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings. This assumption allows us to focus on the various spontaneous and catalyzed assembly processes that could have led to the formation of primitive membranes and early genetic polymers, their coassembly into membrane-encapsulated nucleic acids, and the chemical and physical processes that allowed for their replication. We will discuss recent progress toward the construction of laboratory models of a protocell (Fig. 1), evaluate the remaining steps that must be achieved before a complete protocell model can be constructed, and consider the prospects for the observation of spontaneous Darwinian evolution in laboratory protocells. Although such laboratory studies may not reflect the specific pathways that led to the origin of life on Earth, they are proving to be invaluable in uncovering surprising and unanticipated physical processes that help us to reconstruct plausible pathways and scenarios for the origin of life.
The universe produces life and consciousness. Man can't.
quote: Scientists create new life form in a lab, altering the fundamentals of DNA
The work has been able to 'lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions'
For as long as life on Earth has existed, all of it has been made up of only four letters. DNA has been written in just those four letters – G, T, C and A – which together create the code that underlies every living thing ever known.
That's until now. Scientists have announced that they have created living organisms using an expanded genetic code. That could in turn lead to the creation of entirely new lifeforms, using combinations of DNA that couldn't possible have existed before.
Two researchers created a bacterium that not only uses the four natural bases, but also uses a pair of synthetic ones known as X and Y. In doing so, the researchers say that they have been able to "lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions".
But they started with existing genes and hence it is "semi-synthetic".
This is the closest they have come to making "synthetic" life:
quote: Geneticists have established the minimum needed for life. They have designed and created a synthetic cell which can survive and replicate with just 473 genes. Humans and fruit flies have more than 20,000 genes each.
The finding is a landmark in biological understanding. It could illuminate the mysterious story of life’s evolution in the primal oceans more than three billion years ago. It could provide the basis for a new generation of made-to-order organisms designed specifically to produce new antibiotics, new fuels and new drugs. And it is the climax of decades of theory and experiment.
The new organism, officially known as JCVI Syn3.0 is the smallest, simplest self-replicating cell known. It doubles in its laboratory dish every three hours. And it comes with a discovery that its begetter, Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute of La Jolla, California, described as “very humbling”. The makers still do not know what one third of the genes do.
Hi Chris and other scientists. I listen to your podcast weekly. Love them. Has there been any progress in creating a living organism from basic elements (CHONPS) and some heat? Seems like with so many advances in human biology, science should be able to produce a simple organism in the lab. Bob Archibald Berkeley Ca Answer
Hannah - We put this to Professor Lee Cronin from Glasgow University:
Lee - This is a really important question because it allow us to define life beyond the current toolbox that is used in biology on planet Earth. But to answer this question, we need to side step the definition of life and instead ask a different question which is, what is the minimal unit of matter on planet Earth that can exhibit and undergo Darwinian evolution in an autonomous fashion? And the result is both obvious and startling. It's a very simple cell - bacterial cell, amoeba and so on. So what we've tried to do in my lab is to engineer all inorganic cells to see if we can put these features together. So by using molybdenum or tungsten oxides, we've been able to make very large clusters containing many hundreds of units. But not only that. We can have different building blocks templating the clusters. So we almost have an analogy to DNA, RNA and proteins in the clusters built in. So the question now is, can we get this system to boot up to replicate and evolve? And for that, you need to watch the space.
Hannah - So, our version of life uses DNA and protein building blocks. But you can create a different type of building block by making clusters of basic metallic elements that can form structures similar to membranes and enzymes. But, getting these clusters to replicate, mutate, and evolve by themselves has not yet happened. So, we're not quite there yet.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The universe produces life and consciousness. Man can't.
But I thought you said that nothing ever intervened in evolution? You said that cellular processes (mutations and environmental feedback) are the basis of all evolution
You've argued against the universe driving evolution at the cellular level. But then the next moment you say that human consciousness is a reflection of the intelligence of the universe. So is human consciousness purely a result of cumulative adaptations over time (emergent complexity, as you called it), or are humans incubators for the universe's intelligence to develop in?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never said that man could make consciousness. Man is a creature with consciousness.
This is what you said:
1) cellular chemistry and environmental feedback are the basis of all evolution
2) there was no intervention of any kind in evolution
3) human consciousness is the human brain, nothing more
4) evolution is based on consistent laws that can be understood
Again, here is your 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. --Doug M
^Based on this, engineers should be able to replicate consciousness in a lab eventually using chemistry. So why isn't it possible to replicate consciousness in the lab with chemistry, Doug?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is the closest they have come to making "synthetic" life:
Contradicting yourself again? I thought you said man can't create life, only the universe can.
In any case, what you're posting is not an example of creating life with chemistry and causing it to evolve. They're just tinkering with existing life and rearranging existing cell parts. And I wasn't even talking about creating life. I was talking about creating consciousness, which is not the same. Again, physicists are saying that inorganic and abiological matter can have consciousness. So I don't know where you get it from that consciousness is the brain or that consciousness is by definition impossible to replicate. Are you making things up?
And this might be my last reply on this topic to you. You seem to be all over the place and changing your positions constantly.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the ultimate questions are: what is the PURPOSE of the universe and what is the MEANING of the universe.
In all of this, human life just seems to be an unimportant(in the grand scheme of things)and contingent byproduct of fortuitous biochemical fusions.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The universe produces life and consciousness. Man can't.
But I thought you said that nothing ever intervened in evolution? You said that cellular processes (mutations and environmental feedback) are the basis of all evolution
You've argued against the universe driving evolution at the cellular level. But then the next moment you say that human consciousness is a reflection of the intelligence of the universe. So is human consciousness purely a result of cumulative adaptations over time (emergent complexity, as you called it), or are humans incubators for the universe's intelligence to develop in?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never said that man could make consciousness. Man is a creature with consciousness.
This is what you said:
1) cellular chemistry and environmental feedback are the basis of all evolution
2) there was no intervention of any kind in evolution
3) human consciousness is the human brain, nothing more
4) evolution is based on consistent laws that can be understood
Again, here is your 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. --Doug M
^Based on this, engineers should be able to replicate consciousness in a lab eventually using chemistry. So why isn't it possible to replicate consciousness in the lab with chemistry, Doug?
Why? Why is that even relevant to this discussion? You tell me why.
This isn't a rebuttal to anything I said, it is you making inane talking points that are irrelevant.
So are we to say that the brain and the human body aren't the result of biochemistry?
What you are TRYING to say in a very bad and stupid way is humans cannot figure out how to create life from basic chemical "building blocks". The process is far too complex for humans to recreate in a lab.
Consciousness arises from living organisms with cells that are the basis of all live. Consciousness is not something attached to inert chemicals. That is why mixing basic chemicals or putting together something made out of 'inert' objects won't produce "consciousness" because it isn't alive. This is basic. I can't even believe you even brought this up in a philosophical or even scientific argument. NO scientist claims that rocks and salt have consciousness. No philosopher does either. So your point is meaningless.
You are not refuting that I said the universe created consciousness in humans through the processes and patterns of how life formed through "intelligent design" at a meta level and chemical prcesses. You just proved that man does not know enough to reproduce this process that generated life in the lab. The KEY to it being that life as we know it is based on living cells and the first step is to produce living cells from base chemical compounds. Man cannot do that yet. But just creating a simple single cell organism is far from creating a complex multi-celled creature like a rabbit or even a human.
You know that (I assume) yet you keep making up these stupid talking points which ultimately are irrelevant anyway.
Man not being able to mix chemicals in a cup to produce living "conscious" organisms does not mean that humans aren't conscious and the result of natural forces in the universe and that those forces aren't based on chemical processes.
Your logic is backwards.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is the closest they have come to making "synthetic" life:
Contradicting yourself again? I thought you said man can't create life, only the universe can.
In any case, what you're posting is not an example of creating life with chemistry and causing it to evolve. They're just tinkering with existing life and rearranging existing cell parts. And I wasn't even talking about creating life. I was talking about creating consciousness, which is not the same. Again, physicists are saying that inorganic and abiological matter can have consciousness. So I don't know where you get it from that consciousness is the brain or that consciousness is by definition impossible to replicate. Are you making things up?
And this might be my last reply on this topic to you. You seem to be all over the place and changing your positions constantly.
Swenet, I think you just have a problem with English. Your "talking points" aren't coherent. They don't make any sense.....
Certainly if humans can't even make synthetic single cell organisms, this means they are definitely far from making life with "consciousness".
And of course where did I say something intervened in the process of the universe making life and consciousness? What is it with you making up things I didn't say.
Like I said, the concept of the universe being able to express consciousness (as in humans) is a META principle. Rather than trying to pretend that you know how this works why don't you read up on some of this stuff yourself. I am not trying to convince you of anything other than these are not new arguments and ideas and that this is the process of "human thought evolution" that led to science and math as we know it today. The key being there is a well organized body of argument and debate from various thinkers who have attacked this from many angles. You are not even forming a decent argument.
quote:Like mathematics, metaphysics is a non-empirical study which is conducted using analytical thought alone. Like foundational mathematics (which is sometimes considered a special case of metaphysics applied to the existence of number), it tries to give a coherent account of the structure of the world, capable of explaining our everyday and scientific perception of the world, and being free from contradictions. In mathematics, there are many different ways to define numbers; similarly in metaphysics there are many different ways to define objects, properties, concepts, and other entities which are claimed to make up the world. While metaphysics may, as a special case, study the entities postulated by fundamental science such as atoms and superstrings, its core topic is the set of categories such as object, property and causality which those scientific theories assume. For example: claiming that "electrons have charge" is a scientific theory; while exploring what it means for electrons to be (or at least, to be perceived as) "objects", charge to be a "property", and for both to exist in a topological entity called "space" is the task of metaphysics.
There are two broad stances about what is "the world" studied by metaphysics. The strong, classical view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist independently of any observer, so that the subject is the most fundamental of all sciences. The weak, modern view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of an observer, so the subject becomes a form of introspection and conceptual analysis. Some philosophers, notably Kant, discuss both of these "worlds" and what can be inferred about each one. Some philosophers, such as the logical positivists, and many scientists, reject the strong view of metaphysics as meaningless and unverifiable. Others reply that this criticism also applies to any type of knowledge, including hard science, which claims to describe anything other than the contents of human perception, and thus that the world of perception is the objective world in some sense. Metaphysics itself usually assumes that some stance has been taken on these questions and that it may proceed independently of the choice -- the question of which stance to take belongs instead to another branch of philosophy, epistemology.
quote: Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence, being and the world. Arguably, metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy: Aristotle calls it "first philosophy" (or sometimes just "wisdom"), and says it is the subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of things".
It asks questions like: "What is the nature of reality?", "How does the world exist, and what is its origin or source of creation?", "Does the world exist outside the mind?", "How can the incorporeal mind affect the physical body?", "If things exist, what is their objective nature?", "Is there a God (or many gods, or no god at all)?"
Originally, the Greek word "metaphysika" (literally "after physics") merely indicated that part of Aristotle's oeuvre which came, in its sequence, after those chapters which dealt with physics. Later, it was misinterpreted by Medieval commentators on the classical texts as that which is above or beyond the physical, and so over time metaphysics has effectively become the study of that which transcends physics.
Aritstotle originally split his metaphysics into three main sections and these remain the main branches of metaphysics:
Ontology (the study of being and existence, including the definition and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change) Natural Theology (the study of God, including the nature of religion and the world, existence of the divine, questions about the creation, and the various other religious or spiritual issues) Universal Science (the study of first principles of logic and reasoning, such as the law of noncontradiction)
Metaphysics has been attacked, at different times in history, as being futile and overly vague, particularly by David Hume, Immanuel Kant and A.J. Ayer. It may be more useful to say that a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable, testable or provable. Existence and Consciousness
Existence (the fact or state of continued being) is axiomatic (meaning that it does not rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises) because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth (a denial of something is only possible if existence exists). "Existence exists" is therefore an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing.
Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies things that exist. In his famous formulation "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am"), René Descartes argued that consciousness is axiomatic, because you cannot logically deny your mind's existence at the same time as using your mind to do the denying.
But that said, I wasn't trying to distract from the purpose of the thread which was Darwin, other than to say that science has moved on from Darwin in many ways even though many of Darwin's ideas are still used, a lot of them are not.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I noticed you (interestingly) avoided this question.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You've argued against the universe driving evolution at the cellular level. But then the next moment you say that human consciousness is a reflection of the intelligence of the universe. So is human consciousness purely a result of cumulative adaptations over time (emergent complexity, as you called it), or are humans incubators for the universe's intelligence to develop in?
I see what you did there. So I'm going to keep this post nice and simple, so as to not give you an excuse to not answer the question. Can you answer the question? Thanks.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But I noticed you (interestingly) avoided this question.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You've argued against the universe driving evolution at the cellular level. But then the next moment you say that human consciousness is a reflection of the intelligence of the universe. So is human consciousness purely a result of cumulative adaptations over time (emergent complexity, as you called it), or are humans incubators for the universe's intelligence to develop in?
I see what you did there. So I'm going to keep this post nice and simple, so as to not give you an excuse to not answer the question. Can you answer the question? Thanks.
I argued FOR the universe driving evolution at the cellular level..... You are still making up absurd talking points as strawmen to argue against.
And human intelligence is one example of the fact that the Universe can produce consciousness through natural processes without the need for divine interaction. Given that we don't know the size and history of the universe we have to assume that if it happened on earth then it can happen in other places as well. In fact we know that there are other forms of conscious life on earth along with humans. So we see that humans are not the sole incubators for consciousness in the universe.
quote: Every now and again I receive an email message I ignore after reading the subject line. I know I'm not alone in following this rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read "Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious". I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. However, it wasn't.
My colleague Michael Mountain published a summary of a recent meeting held in Cambridge, England at which "Science leaders have reached a critical consensus: Humans are not the only conscious beings; other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too." At this gathering, called The Francis Crick Memorial Conference, a number of scientists presented evidence that led to this self-obvious conclusion. It's difficult to believe that those who have shared their homes with companion animals didn't already know this. And, of course, many renowned and award-winning field researchers had reached the same conclusion years ago (see also).
Michael Mountain was as incredulous as I and many others about something we already knew. It's interesting to note that of the 15 notables who spoke at this conference only one has actually done studies of wild animals. It would have been nice to hear from researchers who have conducted long-term studies of wild animals, including great apes, other nonhuman primates, social carnivores, cetaceans, rodents, and birds, for example, to add to the database. Be that as it may, I applaud their not so surprising conclusion and now I hope it will be used to protect animals from being treated abusively and inhumanely.
Some might say we didn't really know that other animals were conscious but this is an incredibly naive view given what we know about the neurobiology and cognitive and emotional lives of other animals. Indeed, it was appeals to these very data that led to the conclusions of this group of scientists. But did we really need a group of internationally recognized scientists to tell us that the data are really okay? Yes and no, but let's thank them for doing this.
quote: Questions about animal consciousness — in particular, which animals have consciousness and what (if anything) that consciousness might be like — are both scientific and philosophical. They are scientific because answering them will require gathering information using scientific techniques — no amount of arm-chair pondering, conceptual analysis, logic, a priori theory-building, transcendental inference or introspection will tell us whether a platypus, an iguana, or a squid (to take a few examples) enjoy a life of subjective experience — at some point we'll have to learn something about the animals. Just what sort(s) of science can bear on these questions is a live question, but at the least this will include investigations of the behavior and neurophysiology of a wide taxonomic range of animals, as well as the phylogenetic relationships among taxa. But these questions are deeply philosophical as well, with epistemological, metaphysical, and phenomenological dimensions. Progress will therefore ultimately require interdisciplinary work by philosophers willing to engage with the empirical details of animal biology, as well as scientists who are sensitive to the philosophical complexities of the issue.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I argued FOR the universe driving evolution at the cellular level..... You are still making up absurd talking points as strawmen to argue against.
So, in your view, your post below argues that the intelligent universe drove evolution at a cellular level?
quote: Originally posted by Doug M 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.
Either you have trouble articulating yourself or you're seriously confused. Everything you've said here suggests spontaneity, not intelligent nature driving evolution at the cellular level. There is not one example of an intelligent evolutionary mechanism in any of your posts. By definition, 'adaptation' means becoming adjusted to the current environment. By definition adaptation is very anti-complexity and anti-intelligent. Adaptation is not a mechanism through which intelligent nature can effectively drive evolution to give rise to intelligence. And mutation is even more of an anti-complexity mechanism. These processes are spontaneous, and 'dumb' and the fossil record proves it, since the fossil record (e.g. phylum representatives suddenly appearing in the record during Cambrian explosion) doesn't show them as contributing that much to evolution. But somehow you think putting these 'dumb' evolutionary mechanisms together, you'll eventually get intelligence and complexity. Somehow the fingerprint of nature's intelligent hand is showing in adaptation?
It seems to me you are very irrational and incoherent. But if that's what you want to believe, then more power to you. Just don't get mad when your contradictions lead to questions.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like Swenet doesn't understand the most elementary things about evolutionary adaptation.
"Nature" creates groups of similar things. But each one has a slight variation.
These things reproduce. The ones that happen by coincidence to have a survival advantage in the particular environment they are in reproduce more.
Their improved survival is directed by the particular environment they are in
Later into this process we see these "random" mutations occurring in the group lead to non-"random" outcomes, outcomes that the species as a whole starts to become better "designed"
So how can anyone one call such a process "dumb" when the result is ever improving "design" ?
"spontaneity" doesn't happen in isolation. In a broader context it has "purpose"
Dumbness would to be to have a permanent blueprint for salamander. No matter what changed in the environment the salamander would only exist in it's original form.
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Later into this process we see these "random" mutations occurring in the group lead to non-"random" outcomes, outcomes that the species as a whole starts to become better "designed"
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So how can anyone one call such a process "dumb" when the result is ever improving "design" ?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "spontaneity" doesn't happen in isolation. In a broader context it has "purpose"
Prove with examples that adaptations are necessarily preserved over time and accumulate to produce complexity in a consistent way. Until you can give examples I'm not wasting my time arguing you on this topic.
I can corroborate what I'm saying. Can you do the same?
In the grand scheme adaptation is an anti-complexity ('dumb') process that pushes organisms to evolve in all sorts of directions (including 'back and forth'), depending on the selection pressures. It's 'dumb' because it's anti-complexity, not because I'm denying it helps in survival. However, any benefit is only relative to the 'short-lived' environmental pressures. There is no evidence that adaptation is accumulative in the sense that it consistently leads to complexity. Can you prove otherwise?
quote:Evolution can be predicted in the short term from a knowledge of selection and inheritance. However, in the long term evolution is unpredictable because environments, which determine the directions and magnitudes of selection coefficients, fluctuate unpredictably. These two features of evolution, the predictable and unpredictable, are demonstrated in a study of two populations of Darwin’s finches on the Gala´pagos island of Daphne Major. From 1972 to 2001, Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) and Geospiza scandens (cactus finch) changed several times in body size and two beak traits. Natural selection occurred frequently in both species and varied from unidirectional to oscillating, episodic to gradual. Hybridization occurred repeatedly though rarely, resulting in elevated phenotypic variances in G. scandens and a change in beak shape. The phenotypic states of both species at the end of the 30-year study could not have been predicted at the beginning. Continuous, long-term studies are needed to detect and interpret rare but important events and nonuniform evolutionary change.
Adaptations are tweaks relative to the highly unpredictable environment, not to some ideal like "better design" or "complexity" or "intelligence".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Adaptations are tweaks relative to the highly unpredictable environment, not to some ideal like "better design" or "complexity" or "intelligence".
quote:Long-term studies of evolution involving annual or more frequent sampling have many potential benefits. These include documentation and understanding of slow and cryptic directional evolutionary change, perhaps in association with gradual global warming, reversals in the direction of evolution, rare events with strong effects such as genetic bottlenecks caused by population crashes, phenomena recurring at long intervals, and processes with high interannual variability such as erratic and intermittent gene flow. These benefits are beginning to be realized (8–15), but few studies have persisted long enough for us to be able to generalize about the temporal pattern and predictability of basic evolutionary processes in unconstrained natural populations. Here, we report the results of a 30-year study of evolution of size and shape traits in two populations of Darwin’s finches based on annual sampling and measurement. Distinctive features of the study are its length, continuity, entirely natural environmental setting, the availability of pedigree information to construct and interpret evolutionary change, and the macroevolutionary context of an adaptive radiation. The study reveals the irregular occurrence, frequency, and consequences of two evolutionary processes that are more often inferred than directly studied: natural selection and introgressive hybridization. Natural selection and evolution. Populations of Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) and G. scandens (cactus finch) have been studied on the Gala´pagos island of Daphne Major every year since 1973; adults that year were born (hatched) no later than 1972. Survival of marked and measured individuals has been recorded every year, and reproduction of most individuals has been recorded in most years (16). Six measured traits on adults whose growth has ceased have been reduced by principal components analyses to three interpretable synthetic traits: body size, beak size, and beak shape (17–20). The null expectation is that, subject to sampling error, means of these traits have remained constant across the period of study. This expectation of no change is clearly not supported by the data (Fig. 1). Lack of independence of samples in successive years precludes year-by-year significance testing of the total samples. Nevertheless, comparisons across years show nonoverlapping 95% confidence estimates of the means at different times. Mean body size and beak shape were markedly different at the end of the period (2001) than at the beginning (1973) in both species (21). Between these two times mean body and beak size of G. fortis initially decreased, then increased sharply, and decreased again more slowly (Fig. 1, A and B). Beak shape abruptly became more pointed in the mid-1980s and remained so for the next 15 years (Fig. 1C). G. scandens, a larger species, displayed more gradual and uniform trends toward smaller size and blunter beaks (Fig. 1, D to F), thereby converging toward G. fortis in morphology. Apart from random sampling effects, annual changes in morphological means are caused by selective losses, as a result of mortality and emigration, and selective gains, as a result of breeding and immigration (22). Previous work has demonstrated directional natural selection on beak and body size traits associated with survival, in G. fortis at three times and in G. scandens once, when a scarcity of rain caused a change in the composition of the seed supply that forms their dryseason diets (23–25). Evolutionary responses of G. fortis to the two strongest selection episodes occurred in the following generations (26), as expected from the high heritabilities of the morphological traits [h2 5 0.5 to 0.9 after corrections for misidentified paternity arising from extrapair copulations (18, 27)]. Figure 2 provides the long-term perspective of repeated natural selection in both species (28). There are four main features of the figure. First, body and beak size traits were subject to selection more often than was beak shape. Setting a at 0.01, to allow for the lack of complete independence of the traits (29), we find that body size was subject to selection about once every 3 years in both species (30), that is, once each generation of 4.5 years (G. fortis) or 5.5 years (G. scandens) (31) on average. Second, considering only the statistically significant selection differentials, the species differed in the directions of net selection on size traits. G. fortis experienced selection in both directions with equal frequency (Fig. 2, A to C), whereas G. scandens experienced selection that repeatedly favored large body size and in no instance favored small beak size (Fig. 2, D and E). Third, unidirectional selection occurred in successive years, up to a maximum of 3 years in both species (Fig. 2, A, D, and E). Fourth, selection events in the two species were usually not synchronous, except in the late 1970s, when large size was selectively favored in both species during a drought (23). The demonstration here of natural selection occurring repeatedly in the same populations over a long time complements the widespread detection of natural selection in many different species of plants and animals over much shorter times (32, 33, 34). As in these broad surveys, and in three studies of birds lasting for 11 to 18 years (15, 35, 36), the magnitude of selection on the finch populations was usually less than 0.15 SD and rarely more than 0.50 SD (33, 34). Median values (0.03 to 0.06) are well within the normal range (0.00 to 0.30) of other studies (34). Evolution followed as a consequence of selection in both species because all traits are highly heritable (18, 20, 27). We compared the mean of a trait before selection with the mean of the same trait in the next generation by one-tailed t tests (P , 0.05) (26). Significant evolutionary events occurred in G. fortis eight times (body size, four; beak size, three; beak shape, one) and in G. scandens seven times (body size, two; beak size, five). Evolution below the level of statistical detectability may have followed other instances of directional selection, may have been masked by annual variation in environmental effects on growth to final size (37), or may have been nullified by countervailing selection on correlated traits not included in the analyses (32). Magnitudes of evolution of the two independent beak traits (size and shape) are correlated with values predicted from the products of selection differentials and heritabilities (Fig. 3). Similar results were obtained in analyses of the direct effects of selection on the six measured traits of G. fortis at two times of intense selection, taking into account genetic correlations among them (26). Thus evolution, as an immediate response to selection, was predictable.
quote:Conclusion. The long-term study of Darwin’s finch populations illustrates evolutionary unpredictability on a scale of decades. Mean body size and beak shape of both species at the end of the study could not have been predicted at the beginning. Moreover, sampling at only the beginning and at the end would have missed beak size changes in G. fortis in the middle. The temporal pattern of change shows that reversals in the direction of selection do not necessarily return a population to its earlier phenotypic state. Evolution of a population is contingent upon environmental change, which may be highly irregular, as well as on its demography and genetic architecture (33, 46). The study also illustrates how the value of long-term studies increases with time. Not only is regular monitoring at short intervals desirable, but sampling for many years is to be recommended, especially for long-lived organisms like vertebrates and perennial plants. Yet evolutionary studies are rarely pursued in the field for as many as 10 years (33). If we had stopped sampling after 10 years, our conclusions would have been different because at that time the only difference from the starting point was in beak size of G. fortis. By persisting beyond then, we witnessed a natural-selection event that affected beak shape in G. fortis, documented interbreeding and morphological effects of introgression on G. scandens, and gained a better quantitative estimate of the frequency of evolutionary events.
posted
The plot thickens. Another example of a pattern in evolution that Darwinism can't explain? I'm really trying to hold it together right now. My first instinct was to smh. Darwinists are so clueless. But let's see first if this can be replicated.
quote:It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations — think ants, rats, humans — will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.
The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler said.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 per cent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?
I'm not convinced that this paper overturns what the authors seem to think is overturned. This paper may demonstrate that our current understandings of population differentiation is incomplete, but it's not what they seem to be thinking. For instance, this paper doesn't prove that humans originated 200-100ky ago. You can't say that based on this data. What they've captured is TMRCA, not the origin of species. Still, it's interesting that some event apparently bottlenecked 'most' species 200-100ky ago, causing variation to reset across the board.
I'm surprised the authors seem to be overreacting to their data, both in terms of their incredulity ("I fought the results") and in terms of how far they seem to be taking it ("this means we don't understand population differentiation"). IMO, the surprise is in what this could MEAN in terms of other evolutionary mechanisms I've been hinting at. Not so much surprise in that something like this is possible.
I'm definitely going to be following this news closely. Someone needs to try to replicate this ASAP.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I argued FOR the universe driving evolution at the cellular level..... You are still making up absurd talking points as strawmen to argue against.
So, in your view, your post below argues that the intelligent universe drove evolution at a cellular level?
No I am arguing trying to slice up and "compartmentalize" natural forces as if they aren't all "produced by nature" is the problem. Nothing in the universe is not driven by natural forces. The point is that whatever you want to call those forces, they have the ability to produce intelligence. And "intelligent design" is used as a way of referring to how those processes work individually and together to produce the life we have on earth today. Our ability to think and reason is a result of those natural forces and processes at work in the universe and is not SEPARATE from it. The opposite of "intelligent design" is a universe where the processes work chaotically, are inconsistent and don't produce intelligent life forms in any way.
Unless you are going to show me that there was some form of "divine intervention" in the process of creating life on earth and human intelligence then it is all the result of "natural" forces in the universe. Those are the only two options at this point. However you choose to describe those forces and whatever terms you want to use doesn't make it less "natural", unless again you are talking of "divine intervention" in the process. Meaning the end result is due to the 'natural processes' at work which themselves have the capacity to produce intelligence and not due to some 'divine intervention" anywhere.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M 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.
Either you have trouble articulating yourself or you're seriously confused. Everything you've said here suggests spontaneity, not intelligent nature driving evolution at the cellular level. There is not one example of an intelligent evolutionary mechanism in any of your posts. By definition, 'adaptation' means becoming adjusted to the current environment. By definition adaptation is very anti-complexity and anti-intelligent. Adaptation is not a mechanism through which intelligent nature can effectively drive evolution to give rise to intelligence. And mutation is even more of an anti-complexity mechanism. These processes are spontaneous, and 'dumb' and the fossil record proves it, since the fossil record (e.g. phylum representatives suddenly appearing in the record during Cambrian explosion) doesn't show them as contributing that much to evolution. But somehow you think putting these 'dumb' evolutionary mechanisms together, you'll eventually get intelligence and complexity. Somehow the fingerprint of nature's intelligent hand is showing in adaptation?
It seems to me you are very irrational and incoherent. But if that's what you want to believe, then more power to you. Just don't get mad when your contradictions lead to questions.
As I said you are playing word games. Evolution means change. You can choose to use whatever words you want. Whatever words you use, unless you are saying that something 'divine' came down and caused these changes, then it is the result of natural forces. This is the problem with trying to split up and compartmentalize things. Adaptation is not how single cell organisms first appeared on the planet. Scientists still are not sure exactly how the first single cell organisms appeared and they are not able to reproduce the process in the lab. Single cell organisms are the beginning of life on earth. Evolution applies primarily to living things not inanimate objects. Going from single cell organisms to multi-cell organisms is not simply a function of adaptation. That is part of it but there are other processes at work also. The point being that cellular specialization, as in the development of skin cells, bone cells, eye cells and complex organs are more complex than simply ONE process all by itself. There are a lot of related processes at work. And humans don't know them all and don't understand them all. So it is impossible for current science to describe in detail how all of this came about.
And it is because modern science still has gaps in knowledge about the process that people argue over different interpretations of what is currently known. But that is a reflection of some folks thinking they can "describe everything" by boiling it down to one process or one subset of related processes when it doesn't work like that. Darwin was working in the 1800s before genetics was scientifically understood. He primarily worked with skeletons and fossils as the basis for his theories along with living species. Many aspects of his views are outdated and science has moved on, even though evolution is still generally accepted. But still the term evolution has many different variant definitions within the scientific community, with Darwinian Evolution being one of the more prominent. That is why I am simply going by a more generic definition of evolution as meaning change within living organisms.
You haven't refuted anything you are just making absurd statements at this point trying to reword and rephrase what I said in order to fit in the argument you want.
Which is fine. I am not directly arguing for direction in evolution which is what the topic is about.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unless you are going to show me that there was some form of "divine intervention" in the process of creating life on earth and human intelligence then it is all the result of "natural" forces in the universe. Those are the only two options at this point.
How did you come to the conclusion that "divine intervention" is not "natural"? Maybe a bell will ring if I try it this way. Because you're blatantly ignoring all the links talking about the universe having consciousness (which you keep misrepresenting as 'intelligence', as if you have something to back up your claim that it's not real consciousness ).
The truth is, you don't know the universe, to know what is or isn't natural. All you can possibly know about nature is what you're experiencing in the macroscopic and visible world. What you call "natural" is a distortion of nature.
So how did you come to the conclusion that "divine intervention" is not "natural"? What scientific findings did you use to define "natural"? You are making a lot of assumptions here that you can't substantiate.
How many of the other dimensions of physics did you explore and familiarize yourself with, before you started to invent your own notion of "natural"?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unless you are going to show me that there was some form of "divine intervention" in the process of creating life on earth and human intelligence then it is all the result of "natural" forces in the universe. Those are the only two options at this point.
How did you come to the conclusion that "divine intervention" is not "natural"? Maybe a bell will ring if I try it this way. Because you're blatantly ignoring all the links talking about the universe having consciousness (which you keep misrepresenting as 'intelligence', as if you have something to back up your claim that it's not real consciousness ).
The truth is, you don't know the universe, to know what is or isn't natural. All you can possibly know about nature is what you're experiencing in the macroscopic and visible world. What you call "natural" is a distortion of nature.
So how did you come to the conclusion that "divine intervention" is not "natural"? What scientific findings did you use to define "natural"? You are making a lot of assumptions here that you can't substantiate.
How many of the other dimensions of physics did you explore and familiarize yourself with, before you started to invent your own notion of "natural"?
Depends on what you mean by "divine". Because one of the underlying definitions of "divine" is "of a god or deity". And "gods" in the traditional sense (or Christian sense) in most people's minds implies operating outside the forces of life/death and therefore physical nature. So you are going down a slippery slope because there are many ways people interpret "divine". When I say "nature" I mean processes that can be quantified and calculated based on observed rules and laws in the physical realm of reality. Gravity is not "divine intervention". Chemistry is not "divine intervention".
At this point you are going back to what I said a few pages ago which is that the "mystics" symbolized the functioning of the universe in many of their "gods" as a symbol of the "intelligent universe" in a META physical way. So you are getting into the whole issue I mentioned earlier that the origin of math,science and physics lay in ancient mans mind attempting to understand the universe and the "nature" of creation and the various ideas and concepts that came out of that cognitive evolution in the brain related to creation and evolution. I can't believe you are trying to almost imply to be presenting a new argument here. These concepts are all related in the history of philosophy, cosmology and theology. So how is what you are saying "new or different" from what I already posted about the history of human thought?
So that being said, how do you "prove" that "divine intervention" is natural?
These terms themselves like "natural", "divine", "physical", "meta physical" are all part of the process of human cognitive evolution and the search for the origins of creation. And as such, these words and their meanings have been debated for many years. The point being if you are going to make an argument, you have to be clear how you are using the terms and what they mean so that your argument is understood. You didn't make an argument. You made a statement but then turned around and asked me to prove what I have read when I have already posted numerous pages of references to the history of human thought and the meaning of various words..... Such as:
quote: "That it is not a science of production is clear even from the history of the earliest philosophers. For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders); therefore since they philosophized order to escape from ignorance, evidently they were pursuing science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian end. And this is confirmed by the facts; for it was when almost all the necessities of life and the things that make for comfort and recreation had been secured, that such knowledge began to be sought. Evidently then we do not seek it for the sake of any other advantage; but as the man is free, we say, who exists for his own sake and not for another's, so we pursue this as the only free science, for it alone exists for its own sake.
"Hence also the possession of it might be justly regarded as beyond human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, so that according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that is suited to him. If, then, there is something in what the poets say, and jealousy is natural to the divine power, it would probably occur in this case above all, and all who excelled in this knowledge would be unfortunate. But the divine power cannot be jealous (nay, according to the proverb, 'bards tell a lie'), nor should any other science be thought more honourable than one of this sort. For the most divine science is also most honourable; and this science alone must be, in two ways, most divine. For the science which it would be most meet for God to have is a divine science, and so is any science that deals with divine objects; and this science alone has both these qualities; for (1) God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle, and (2) such a science either God alone can have, or God above all others. All the sciences, indeed, are more necessary than this, but none is better.
"Yet the acquisition of it must in a sense end in something which is the opposite of our original inquiries. For all men begin, as we said, by wondering that things are as they are, as they do about self-moving marionettes, or about the solstices or the incommensurability of the diagonal of a square with the side; for it seems wonderful to all who have not yet seen the reason, that there is a thing which cannot be measured even by the smallest unit. But we must end in the contrary and, according to the proverb, the better state, as is the case in these instances too when men learn the cause; for there is nothing which would surprise a geometer so much as if the diagonal turned out to be commensurable.
"We have stated, then, what is the nature of the science we are searching for, and what is the mark which our search and our whole investigation must reach.
posted
The question I'm asking is very simple. I'm still waiting on an answer.
What evidence are you using to contrast "divine intervention" with "natural processes"? How do you know for a fact that the latter excludes the former?
When I say "nature" I mean processes that can be quantified and calculated based on observed rules and laws in the physical realm of reality. --Doug M
This definition is open-ended. It's not something you can use to rule out phenomena, unless current knowledge falsifies those phenomena.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The question I'm asking is very simple. I'm still waiting on an answer.
What evidence are you using to contrast "divine intervention" with "natural processes"? How do you know for a fact that the latter excludes the former?
When I say "nature" I mean processes that can be quantified and calculated based on observed rules and laws in the physical realm of reality. --Doug M
This definition is open-ended. It's not something you can use to rule out phenomena, unless current knowledge falsifies those phenomena.
The point is that you don't need to invoke "god" to explain the workings of the physical universe. And actually I already said 3 pages ago that ancient mystics view the workings of the universe as something that can be symbolized as the working of "a god or gods" because of the "ordered workings" of the laws of the universe which they saw as reflecting an "intelligent design". We already went over this two pages ago. Science today in terms of being "rational" does not seek to invoke "gods" to explain the origins of the universe. I made this point already.
So your question makes no sense because modern science does not act on the principle that a "god" is the root of the knowledge of the physical laws and knowledge in the universe.
That was my point and therefore your question makes no sense unless you can show me how "god" is required for someone to understand physics or 2 + 2 = 4 or any other aspect of the physical universe and creation. You are making an "a priori" argument that somehow "we accept" or "it is accepted" that the universe is the result of divine intervention, but you are trying to twist it into a question when I never accepted the premise that the existence of a physical universe "proves" the intervention of a god in creation.
You made the statement and it is not a question for me to answer. Because it is YOUR argument and not mine.
quote: This study is a new look at the question of how God can act upon the world, and whether the world can affect God, examining contemporary work on the metaphysics of causation and laws of nature, and current work in the theory of knowledge and mysticism. It has been traditional to address such questions by appealing to God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but this book claims that this is useless unless it can be shown how these two powers "work." Instead of treating the familiar problems associated with omnipotence and omniscience, this book asks directly whether, and how, causal interactions between God and His world could occur: both between God and the physical world and between God and other minds, as well as between the world and God. Fales examines current thinking about the very nature of causation, laws of nature, and agency.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that you don't need to invoke "god" to explain the workings of the physical universe. And actually I already said 3 pages ago that ancient mystics view the workings of the universe as something that can be symbolized as the working of "a god or gods" because of the "ordered workings" of the laws of the universe which they saw as reflecting an "intelligent design". We already went over this two pages ago. Science today in terms of being "rational" does not seek to invoke "gods" to explain the origins of the universe. I made this point already.
So your question makes no sense because modern science does not act on the principle that a "god" is the root of the knowledge of the physical laws and knowledge in the universe.
Doug is appealing to authority among other fallacies. But what else is new?
"Mainstream researchers don't like to work outside of self-imposed constraints. But these self-imposed constraints are not a problem at all! They come up with an arbitrary list of natural processes and I let them think for me! I love to be a dupe! Where do I sign up?". --Doug M
So much for your supposed stance against white doctrines infiltrating academic institutions and posing as science. For all your whining about "the white man's" indoctrinations and brainwashing, you sure love parroting white philosophies on metaphysics, using code words, like "science" and "physics" to clean up your appeals to authority.
Science is a systematic approach to satisfying curiosity. That is all it is. You, on the other hand, are not talking about science when you make these appeals to authority; you're confusing science with Newtonian doctrines posing as science. You are indoctrinated by white philosophies and you're trying to promote white philosophies as the golden standard of science. You don't even realize the extent of your indoctrination. But you sure love pointing out the speck in other people's eyes when you see perceived Eurocentrism.
In between the Bronze Age and the Information Age we're living in right now, little has changed that can justify the white doctrine that nature is a closed, self-sufficient Newtonian system. I don't mean to use the race card, but I'm just calling it how I see it. The current dominance of Newtonian thinking as nature as a self-propelled 'clockwork' originates with white people. They and their non-white dupes from other countries (like Doug) are just parroting philosophies that have never stood up to scrutiny.
Despite all Doug's fallacies, we're still at square one in terms of figuring out the role of consciousness in the evolution of the universe and life. We have made no progress in this department. The guess of our palaeolithic ancestors who believed in the "divine" (art, burials and grave goods suggesting belief in afterlife, etc.) is not worse or better than Newtonian worldview from a scientific standpoint. Neither provides proof and so nothing has changed historically, that justifies taking a stance one way or the other. Therefore, advocates of the Newtonian worldview can't claim "victory" or some sort of sophistication in this area. To the contrary, new findings in physics are exposing the non sense of Doug's worldview of nature as a closed self-sufficient system.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That was my point and therefore your question makes no sense unless you can show me how "god" is required for someone to understand physics or 2 + 2 = 4 or any other aspect of the physical universe and creation. You are making an "a priori" argument that somehow "we accept" or "it is accepted" that the universe is the result of divine intervention, but you are trying to twist it into a question when I never accepted the premise that the existence of a physical universe "proves" the intervention of a god in creation.
You made the statement and it is not a question for me to answer. Because it is YOUR argument and not mine.
No idea what you're talking about here. Just gibberish to talk yourself out of the fact that you're indoctrinated and confused. But what else is new?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, the phrase "natural processes" in mainstream science is just code for people whose intellectual honesty is constantly compromised by their pre-conceived commitments to Newtonian ideas and/or Darwinism. Most people who use this phrase are not actually interested in studying natural processes. They're lying or they've been duped. The history of mainstream science is filled with examples of censorship and academic persecution whenever new natural processes are uncovered. Here is a good example of how these people think:
quote:The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler said.
Notice how this researcher reacts when he stumbles on an apparent "natural process". He says he was "fighting" it. This is not the language of someone who is interested in studying nature and going where the evidence takes him. This is the language of a man who has already made up his mind about the workings of nature.
Here is another example of how mainstream scientists are resisting new natural processes:
quote:Though what you 'rc saying is correct. presenting this material to nonscientists is the intellectual equivalent of letting children play with loaded guns
And more examples. Physicists are expected to stay within the arbitrary boundaries set up by ideologues who can't handle confrontation with new "natural processes":
quote:One concern of physicists is that some people, seeing the solid science of physics linked with the mystery of the conscious mind, might become susceptible to all sorts of nonsense. We are sensitive to that problem and try to address it. Physicists can also be extremely uncomfortable with their discipline being involved with something so “unphysical.”
quote:Niels Bohr, the theory’s principal interpreter, tells us: “Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not understood it.” But a physicist setting out to design a laser or to explain the behavior of quarks, semiconductors, or stars must concentrate on his or her down-to-earth goal and ignore the theory’s “shocking” implications. That is why, in teaching quantum mechanics to physics, chemistry, and engineering students, we avoid dealing with such things as the nature of reality or consciousness. In fact, even mentioning such issues raises eyebrows. The story is told of a graduate student asking Richard Feynman: “Aside from being a tool for calculation, what actually is the quantum wavefunction?” The only response overheard was: “Shh! First close the door.” As J. M. Jauch puts it: “For many thoughtful physicists, [the deeper meaning of quantum mechanics] has remained a kind of skeleton in the closet.”
quote:But more physicists, especially younger physicists, are increasingly open-minded about ideas beyond Copenhagen. Other, wilder, interpretations proliferate, and we later discuss them. In recent years, concern with consciousness itself (as well as its connection with quantum mechanics) has emerged among philosophers and psychologists — even among neurologists. How come? One explanation offered is that the “mind-expanded” students of the 1960s now run the academic departments. The Copenhagen interpretation was recently summarized as “Shut up and calculate!” That’s blunt, but not completely unfair. It is, in fact, the right injunction for most physicists most of the time. The Copenhagen interpretation is the best way to deal with quantum mechanics for all practical purposes. It assures us that in our labs or at our desks we can use quantum mechanics without needless worrying about what’s really going on. Copenhagen shows us that quantum mechanics is a fully consistent theory and suffi cient as a guide to the physical phenomena around us. Good!
But if you know the history of mainstream science you already know what I mean. No need for extensive documentation. Beneath the veneer of objectivity, these people are not actually interested in studying nature. Whenever they say "natural processes", they are talking about their own models of nature, which they refuse to hold to the scientific standard. That is, they're creating these explanations and then protect them from being overturned, using academic bullying and fallacies.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And here is another gem showing that understanding nature is highly prized by icons of mainstream science
quote:I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.... If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish.. ."
--Charles Darwin
^Darwin freely admitting that his theory is not motivated by trying to understand nature. His theory is simply about Europeans trying to push philosophies that originated on European soil in the European philosophical climate at the time. The "natural processes" notion has nothing to do with science. It's an agenda and if you can read between the lines they're letting you know that it's an agenda. This is where I see that agenda coming from, ultimately:
quote:World-machine A similar concept goes back, to John of Sacrobosco's early 13th-century introduction to astronomy: On the Sphere of the World. In this widely popular medieval text, Sacrobosco spoke of the universe as the machina mundi, the machine of the world, suggesting that the reported eclipse of the Sun at the crucifixion of Jesus was a disturbance of the order of that machine.
This conception of the universe consisted of a huge, regulated and uniform machine that operated according to natural laws in absolute time, space, and motion. God was the master-builder, who created the perfect machine and let it run. God was the Prime Mover, who brought into being the world in its lawfulness, regularity, and beauty. This view of God as the creator, who stood aside from his work and didnÕt get involved directly with humanity, was called Deism (which predates Newton) and was accepted by many who supported the 'new philosophy'.
They went from proposing a biblical version of the clockwork universe, to an atheistic version, by simply removing the biblical god. After all, if these "natural laws" can work on their own, you might as well remove the biblical god completely. Eventually this evolved into the current mainstream scientific view, after some thinkers like Darwin further modified this mechanical worldview.
This is simply about Europeans having an obsession with kicking the biblical god out of science and pretending the models they invent are real representations of reality. These models are never tested by their inventors and were eventually adopted without valid evidence. Again, likely because European scientists have some sort linger subconscious beef with the church and the traumas it has inflicted on the European psyche. But it needs to be clear that this has nothing to do with science.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep the majority of atheist of European descent have MAJOR beefs with religion specifically Christianity and it clouds their judgements. Remember the church ruled Europe for a VERY long time and thats where the beef stems from.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
This is simply about Europeans having an obsession with kicking the biblical god out of science and pretending the models they invent are real representations of reality.
We are on the 4th page of this thread. You could have started on page 1 saying that. I suppose that's your strategy, that the biblical god should be a part of science but you first hide that and try to put holes in what you see as an atheistic science model. Then after a lot of that you come in and say " Europeans having an obsession with kicking the biblical god out of science". Tyranhotep detected that immediately (but that doesn't mean what he believes or doesn't is right either)
Is your strategy sound, because if you say that biblical god should be part of science at the beginning people won't even listen to a critique of scientific godless methods ? - or is it disingenuous?
I think it's a disingenuous strategy and it wastes a lot of time. If you have a theory or belief that should be stated right from the beginning. It's a theme, an opening statement. That is how an essay or article is supposed to start. State the theme in an introduction and then prove it in detail
If we are going to talk about the biblical god, I won't disrespect your belief. I would point out that the fact that the southern half of Africa is mainly Christian is due largely Europeans, Christian missionaries. Ethiopia had Christianity earlier but they did not spread it around to these other parts of Africa.
I would ask you if you are looking at science on a logical reasoning basis and you think god needs to be a part of it, to explain it properly, why the biblical god? If god explains nature why not the deities/gods of African traditional religions?
Also one nature model that includes god could be that creatures evolved from simple to complex according to a plan being mapped out by god. I think even some believers in the biblical god try to make that argument but it is not common. Mainly they say that god created humans and animals instantly fully formed, not in a process of transformation that god set in motion.
If you say that only god could explain the structures and patterns in the universe I would say then by logical reasoning it could be any god of any religion not particular to the biblical god.
That doesn't mean that the biblical god was not the one that created the universe. It just means you can't determine that it was the biblical god and not some other god by logical reasoning. Which god it was goes by faith.
"Intelligent Design" is an established concept like "the biblical god" is an established concept.
One could also start out and say something like "I have my own beliefs based on faith. However on a logical reasoning basis I think in the least that it can be proven that living things were created by an intelligent process and intelligent processes come from some kind of intelligent being"
Do you agree?
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Yep the majority of atheist of European descent have MAJOR beefs with religion specifically Christianity and it clouds their judgements. Remember the church ruled Europe for a VERY long time and thats where the beef stems from.
Yeah. The church's actions in the past as well as superstitions and people like Uri Geller give atheists ammo to fuel their skepticism.
BTW, to be clear (not directed to you ED, just putting this out there, in case someone starts attacking strawmen), I don't have a disagreement with atheists because they don't believe in god. . I don't even know where I stand in terms of the traditional god concept, although I do reject the Abrahamic god (whose early history as a local Sinaitic henotheistic[?] deity seems likely), My disagreement with atheists (i.e. the issue of philosophical materialism) is purely scientific. Naterialism, has already been debunked in the 20th century (e.g. the role of consciousness in the double slit experiment) yet materialism is everywhere in mainstream science. Since they are not interested in understanding nature in the first place, they're immune to new scientific findings that debunk them. They're holding science back. That is my problem with them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is simply about Europeans having an obsession with kicking the biblical god out of science and pretending the models they invent are real representations of reality.
We are on the 4th page of this thread. You could have started on page 1 saying that. I suppose that's your strategy, that the biblical god should be a part of science but you first hide that and try to put holes in what you see as an atheistic science model. Then after a lot of that you come in and say " Europeans having an obsession with kicking the biblical god out of science". Tyranhotep detected that immediately (but that doesn't mean what he believes or doesn't is right either)
Is your strategy sound, because if you say that biblical god should be part of science at the beginning people won't even listen to a critique of scientific godless methods ? - or is it disingenuous?
I think it's a disingenuous strategy and it wastes a lot of time. If you have a theory or belief that should be stated right from the beginning. It's a theme, an opening statement. That is how an essay or article is supposed to start. State the theme in an introduction and then prove it in detail
If we are going to talk about the biblical god, I won't disrespect your belief. I would point out that the fact that the southern half of Africa is mainly Christian is due largely Europeans, Christian missionaries. Ethiopia had Christianity earlier but they did not spread it around to these other parts of Africa.
I would ask you if you are looking at science on a logical reasoning basis and you think god needs to be a part of it, to explain it properly, why the biblical god? If god explains nature why not the deities/gods of African traditional religions?
Also one nature model that includes god could be that creatures evolved from simple to complex according to a plan being mapped out by god. I think even some believers in the biblical god try to make that argument but it is not common. Mainly they say that god created humans and animals instantly fully formed, not in a process of transformation that god set in motion.
If you say that only god could explain the structures and patterns in the universe I would say then by logical reasoning it could be any god of any religion not particular to the biblical god.
That doesn't mean that the biblical god was not the one that created the universe. It just means you can't determine that it was the biblical god and not some other god by logical reasoning. Which god it was goes by faith.
"Intelligent Design" is an established concept like "the biblical god" is an established concept.
One could also start out and say something like "I have my own beliefs based on faith. However on a logical reasoning basis I think in the least that it can be proven that living things were created by an intelligent process and intelligent processes come from some kind of intelligent being"
Do you agree?
So, after everything I've said, this is what you keep coming back to? Trying to dig for evidence that I'm religious? You have weird priorities. You seem to be saying that evidence does not matter, but private off-topic beliefs I have not put up for discussion, do matter? I don't know why you keep second guessing me, even though I've said in this thread I'm not religious. You seem to be only interested in sensationalizing here. You're obviously only interested in antagonizing people and from your comments I can tell you have not studied any of the materials I've posted. I'm not interested in playing your games. Try someone else.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I've been critical of the bible many times here, even in recent conversations with lioness. So I don't know where these "religious" ad hominem are coming from. But it just goes to show how weak and faith-based the position of many atheist really is, that they have to make it personal.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: BTW, I've been critical of the bible many times here, even in recent conversations with lioness. So I don't know where these "religious" ad hominem are coming from. But it just goes to show how weak and faith-based the position of many atheist really is, that they have to make it personal.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
This is simply about Europeans having an obsession with kicking the biblical god out of science and pretending the models they invent are real representations of reality.
Could it be coming from this?
However simply respectful mentioning this does does not qualify as me attacking you
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Could it be coming from this?
That statement of mine you're quoting talks about the origin of the sentiment that "god is not needed in science". It comes from deism and the gradual removal of the biblical god from science because natural laws were thought operate on their own in a 'clockwork universe' ( which we now know, is complete non sense; they don't work on their own).
So what if I said that? How does that signal I'm religious or that I'm treating the bible as a scientific document? The context of that quote talks about a pattern in mainstream science where people are just tinkering with philosophical models and prematurely calling it fact. Darwinism is an example of people being duped by a philosophy that came about by tinkering and manipulating empirical facts (e.g. animals appearing in the fossil record) into an explanation. My point is that tinkering with models and thinking you're on to something is not a valid approach.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: However simply respectful mentioning this does does not qualify as me attacking you
No, it doesn't. But fishing for ulterior motives on my part makes it easy for certain people to distract from what I'm posting. You might as well accuse me of being a Christian. It has the same effect where I now have to explain myself and deny I'm religious. And I still fail to see why you would fish for an admission, unless putting a focus on my credibility is your intention.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that you don't need to invoke "god" to explain the workings of the physical universe. And actually I already said 3 pages ago that ancient mystics view the workings of the universe as something that can be symbolized as the working of "a god or gods" because of the "ordered workings" of the laws of the universe which they saw as reflecting an "intelligent design". We already went over this two pages ago. Science today in terms of being "rational" does not seek to invoke "gods" to explain the origins of the universe. I made this point already.
So your question makes no sense because modern science does not act on the principle that a "god" is the root of the knowledge of the physical laws and knowledge in the universe.
Doug is appealing to authority among other fallacies. But what else is new?
"Mainstream researchers don't like to work outside of self-imposed constraints. But these self-imposed constraints are not a problem at all! They come up with an arbitrary list of natural processes and I let them think for me! I love to be a dupe! Where do I sign up?". --Doug M
So much for your supposed stance against white doctrines infiltrating academic institutions and posing as science. For all your whining about "the white man's" indoctrinations and brainwashing, you sure love parroting white philosophies on metaphysics, using code words, like "science" and "physics" to clean up your appeals to authority.
Science is a systematic approach to satisfying curiosity. That is all it is. You, on the other hand, are not talking about science when you make these appeals to authority; you're confusing science with Newtonian doctrines posing as science. You are indoctrinated by white philosophies and you're trying to promote white philosophies as the golden standard of science. You don't even realize the extent of your indoctrination. But you sure love pointing out the speck in other people's eyes when you see perceived Eurocentrism.
In between the Bronze Age and the Information Age we're living in right now, little has changed that can justify the white doctrine that nature is a closed, self-sufficient Newtonian system. I don't mean to use the race card, but I'm just calling it how I see it. The current dominance of Newtonian thinking as nature as a self-propelled 'clockwork' originates with white people. They and their non-white dupes from other countries (like Doug) are just parroting philosophies that have never stood up to scrutiny.
Despite all Doug's fallacies, we're still at square one in terms of figuring out the role of consciousness in the evolution of the universe and life. We have made no progress in this department. The guess of our palaeolithic ancestors who believed in the "divine" (art, burials and grave goods suggesting belief in afterlife, etc.) is not worse or better than Newtonian worldview from a scientific standpoint. Neither provides proof and so nothing has changed historically, that justifies taking a stance one way or the other. Therefore, advocates of the Newtonian worldview can't claim "victory" or some sort of sophistication in this area. To the contrary, new findings in physics are exposing the non sense of Doug's worldview of nature as a closed self-sufficient system.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That was my point and therefore your question makes no sense unless you can show me how "god" is required for someone to understand physics or 2 + 2 = 4 or any other aspect of the physical universe and creation. You are making an "a priori" argument that somehow "we accept" or "it is accepted" that the universe is the result of divine intervention, but you are trying to twist it into a question when I never accepted the premise that the existence of a physical universe "proves" the intervention of a god in creation.
You made the statement and it is not a question for me to answer. Because it is YOUR argument and not mine.
No idea what you're talking about here. Just gibberish to talk yourself out of the fact that you're indoctrinated and confused. But what else is new?
Come on Swenet. You are just making up more talking points and not addressing what I said. I already posted numerous references to how European thought evolved and the fact that Europeans were not "rational" or "logical" for most of their history and therefore were as "mystical" and superstitious about the origins of the universe as any other culture. I said that the rise of "rationalism" in the 18th century was part of the rise of the industrial capitalist society and philosophy which meant rejecting past beliefs to push a more "materialist" doctrine in terms of science and industry. Of course this is all part of the underlying psychology of European imperialism and global domination in trying to promote itself as "superior" to other "savage" and "primitive" cultures. You aren't addressing anything I said, which already addressed everything you are talking about, including the fact that the origins of math, science and physics lay in the ancient "mystery schools" and other cultural traditions which did not break things out into separate categories the way they are today. Meaning religion, science, god and the universe were all aspects of the same thing in the evolution and development of human cognitive thought processes. And I already said most of the concepts at the core of what we now call math and science came not out of Europe but so called "primitive", "superstitious" cultures like ancient Egypt, Babylon, India and Persia.
Rather than addressing what I said, you sit here and pretend to lecture me on what I already said two pages ago, including your need to project "god" into creation which as I said has been the hallmark of human thought since humans have been on this planet.
Starting off a whole few pages ago I already said that most of this nonsense about Europeans being "rational" is propaganda and that modern science is starting to veer off into areas we would call "mystical" or "superstitious" with alternate dimensions and other forms of quantum theory. The problem is you try to present your self as "discovering" these contradictions in European thought as if nobody else understands this history or these contradictions. Therefore again, like I said before, it isn't an either/or situation, as in either it is rational or it is superstitious. Some aspects of European science are indeed founded on observable patterns and facts within nature and hence do not need "god" to explain them. Modern physics, math and science is not built on "understanding god" or "promoting god". It is built on establishing verifiable and observable facts that can be reproduced and used for further growth and development of techniques within industry and science. That is just the nature of modern industrial culture with the core being based on scientific pursuit and innovation. However, as I also mentioned, there are other aspects of science and math which are much more theoretical and esoteric as they are purely based on mathematical models and hypotheses that cannot be observed directly and only remain theoretical. So you cannot pigeon hole all the thousands of scientists and academics working today as being all of the same mind or following the same beliefs when it comes to their work. Many thousands of people around the world of different religious backgrounds use these scientific principles every day and don't mix or confuse that with their religious belief. In fact most of them separate their "beliefs in god" from their day to day work in the fields of science and math. This is the ultimate result of how the European "rationalist" model of society has affected how people look at science and use science in the modern world.....
Similarly, trying to overload words with baggage and saying that if somebody uses a word it somehow implies they have adopted a cult like following of some thinker or scientist or believes every aspect of that thinkers thoughts and ideas is nonsense. Many scientists generally believe in evolution, but that does not mean they are blind followers of or believers in all of Darwin's theories. That is just absurd. Similarly, most people accept or practice "newtonian" physics in that they use mathematical formulas in practical physical applications every day. That does not mean they are "blind followers" of a "Newtonian model" of the universe or any other such B.S. as you claim. Most people who work in industry and science use what is practical to get the job done. They aren't sitting around trying to understand the "mysteries" of the universe when they apply the principles of "force and mass" calculations in every day problem solving.
The folks who do sit around and think about these things are the philosophers and theoretical mathematicians and physicists who are widely published in their views on these subjects. But they represent a relatively small portion of the total scientific community. If you object to their views you should just state the particular person or views you object to and thats that. But to claim that all people in general in science are minions of and disciples of Darwin or Newton or any other such figure who was influential is nonsense. Most people who have used or been introduced to Newtonian physics or Darwinian evolution don't know all the various ideas and theories of either person to even begin to be disciples of either. Again, these kinds of followings are generally found within the more academic and philosophical or theoretical side of science.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, if you say "natural laws act on their own, in a closed self-sufficient system", you're talking about European philosophies and the hubris of these researchers thinking the universe neatly fits into 'clockwork' models they've invented.
No other people think like that. There are inklings of atheism in other cultures historically, but these people don't subscribe to materialism and 'clockwork universe' non sense. So what you're talking about is not universal knowledge that is compatible with and verifiable by other cultures. You're just being duped with European doctrines posing as science. But if you want to think that natural processes acting on their own is universal science, more power to you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, if you say "natural laws act on their own, in a closed self-sufficient system", you're talking about European philosophies and the hubris of these researchers thinking the universe neatly fits into 'clockwork' models they've invented.
Swenet you are mixing up two different things. I was the one who brought up the arrogance of European thought two pages ago. So I agree with you that there is a limit to "empirical data" and how much in the universe is ultimately "knowable". I already mentioned this already. Whether or not the Europeans are "arrogant" in thinking they will ever know everything about everything is totally separate from and does not justify the idea that things like physics or chemistry requires god to understand. Whatever propaganda Europeans have promoted about the historical processes in human thought that brought about science, that does not "prove" the existence of anything "outside" of nature as the basis of or reason for existence.
You keep trying to argue the "existence of something outside nature" as the basis for how the universe works without committing to the work of actually SHOWING how the European point of view is wrong. Just saying the European view is wrong and "proving" it are two different things. I am not defending European views on anything other than to say the reason why people use "newtonian physics" is because it works in day to day practical applications. And ultimately these ideas aren't even Newtonian to begin with. Humans have been developing these kinds of techniques since long before newton. Not to mention all Europeans don't agree with Newton either and there are alternate models of the universe along side of Newton as well.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No other people think like that. There are inklings of atheism in other cultures historically, but these people don't subscribe to materialism and 'clockwork universe' non sense. So what you're talking about is not universal knowledge that is compatible with and verifiable by other cultures. You're just being duped with European doctrines posing as science. But if you want to think that natural processes acting on their own is universal science, more power to you.
I am not being duped by anything because I am not part of any "camp" which you keep trying to put me in so you can restate what I already said pages ago. People around the world use solutions developed as a result of Newton's ideas every day because they work in solving every day problems, regardless of their religious beliefs. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Athiests, Jews and all other sorts of people use these things and study these things as part of science every day. Most people have already separated "science" from religion and belief a long time ago. People don't build skyscrapers based on "beliefs in supernatural beings". They build skyscrapers based on math and science and physically observable facts and rules. They have always been doing that even when science and religion were closely together in cosmology. Separate from that, people have been pontificating and theorizing about how the universe came about for thousands of years and there are many different schools of thought on this issue. So again, regardless of that, this does not justify a belief that something "outside of nature" created the physical universe.
All I am saying is that the history of math and science is part of the evolution of human symbolic thinking and this ultimately developed into math and "gods" as symbols for the rules and laws or "powers" at work in nature. But that does not mean when it came time to build a temple or a pyramid that these folks believed there was a "supernatural being" or something "outside nature" that was responsible for lifting heavy objects into place. It was math and science that was responsible for that work. And they developed math and science from observing nature and developing theories and recognizing patterns and ultimately developing language and then the symbolic language of math. So this isn't new stuff. In fact much of the "mystique" around some ancient cultures was in the way they shrouded their mathematical and scientific knowledge within their symbolism. This is part of the "art" of science and math. And they were very rigorous and exacting in their application of said knowledge. Hence the pyramids. The pyramid as a symbol of creation, a symbol of the prism of light and sunshine refracted into the physical world, a symbol of the first time of creation and first spark in a continuous chain of events in creation and a symbol of all these concepts and the deities that represented them, was still based on observation of "natural processes" and the development of math as a set of symbols which is not necessarily based on the belief in "non natural" forces at work in the universe when it came to lifting those blocks into place.
You aren't unique in the way you think is all I am saying and whatever the European propaganda may say about the nature of the universe, what people actually think on a day to day basis is totally different and varied. Europeans have been as superstitious, mystical and esoteric in their thinking as much as any other group on the planet.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: BTW, I've been critical of the bible many times here, even in recent conversations with lioness. So I don't know where these "religious" ad hominem are coming from. But it just goes to show how weak and faith-based the position of many atheist really is, that they have to make it personal.
I can't speak for lioness since she's motivated more than anything else by a desire to get under everyone's skin. However, most people who use language like "direction in evolution" and "getting into the realm of spirituality" as well as using "Darwinism" as a synonym for atheism are trying to defend a religious or theistic point of view. It's no secret for example that the "Intelligent Design" movement is predominantly a Trojan horse for creationism. This, combined with earlier statements you made about Afro-Diasporans reconnecting with their ancestors by embracing traditional African religions or spirituality, made me think you were proposing a theistic evolutionary model compatible with certain religious beliefs you held. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but that is where I was coming from.
posted
Theism can't be divorced from what I said. As I've said throughout this thread, if it's true that we live in a participatory universe, then consciousness inevitably predates, and is involved in the evolution of biological life. That obviously has overlap with "theism", "the realm of spirituality", and it amounts to "direction in evolution". But there is nothing 'religious' about saying that. If that's religious then you'll have to call a lot of physicists with similar views, religious. Which is completely absurd.
I don't recall advocating that Aframs take up traditional religions. I said something to the effect that there is a lot of wisdom in African religions that's there for the taking for those who are interested. Recognizing that something can be beneficial is very different from advocating something. And atheists need to stop thinking they are beacons of progress in origin of life topics and that ancient knowledge in these areas is necessarily backward. As long as mainstream scientific literature on the origin of life is littered with science-fiction like abiogenesis, panspermia and Darwinism, then your literature is just as speculative and philosophical.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You said that cellular processes (mutations and environmental feedback) are the basis of all evolution 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
).
Printer-friendly view of this topic