why they all take leaps of faith

[bjk15]

initially, this in regards to evolution
Originally posted by Duemellon
quoted & I state: you are wrong.

however, this is not the thread or forum for that debate, if u wish, make a new one in P/CE & I'll illustrate.
you cannot argue adaptation and/or genetic survival as this is widely accepted even by most religions. however, evolution and the whole concept takes a huge leap of faith and it is just as big as any religion. without new genetic information being added to the deck, no 'new life' evolves. not to mention the topic of irreducible complexity:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)
this is just a small excerpt from Michael Behe's book called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

and don't even start on what darwin initially thought b/c even neo-darwinists only believe in the idea that he had, not what he said. so you will be combating back with hawking and etc, which i expect, but this is enough for a debate i hope...

[Duemellon]

Here, let's compare the degree of faith needed:

Creationism:
Humanity evolved from less than a dozen ppl who were, in fact, the only survivors of a flood that killed all other humans which were, in fact, derived soley from 2 people.

All this took place in less than 6,000 years.

Genetically speaking, within the last 4,000 years (which was the great flood, or something like that) we hav all been fuckin the equivalent of cousins. That's right folx, 1st cousins. We all hav 1/4 of Noah's blood in us.

Noah & his sons were the only male survivors. The sons had wives. That means that these full-blooded brothers's kids had to fuck each other from that point on. 1st cousin-action...

Watch Deliverence to see what happens/w that.

Evolution from Muck:
The chances of the creation of life occuring is very very unlikely, but it is still possible. Unlike the Creationism story which is simply impossibl.

If somethin has some possibility than it is more likely than the thing that has no possibility. See how that works?

[IPrayForSound]

Due, there's always the chance that we're the banjo-pluckin' result of a super-race that existed but had to commence with the cousin-fuckin'.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Due, there's always the chance that we're the banjo-pluckin' result of a super-race that existed but had to commence with the cousin-fuckin'. sorry, failed to include all the rest of the Biblical "facts" along/w that which makes it an impossibility.

[Duemellon]

ok, seems too quiet here... so let me elucidate & ruin my chances of victory:

When someone says the chances that evolutionary steps took place in such a manner to lead to where we are now is so slim that it's a fool's gamble to believe. Whereas I wouldn't put money on it to happen in the future, the fact that it did happen is the important thing to realize.

Roll a normal boardgame die 10 times in a row. Let's say you get, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 5, 3, and 1. Now that u'v rolled it, what was the likelyhood of u gettin that exact sequence of rolls? (6**10 > 3.6mil) Pretty staggering huh?

Extend that to 100 rolls.

You watched luck take it's course, u find the answer at the 100th roll. Even though it was extremely (and I mean highly improbable, greater than ur winCalc.exe can handle) unlikely, it still turned out that way. You can look back & hold up that sequence & tell the world that you did this, & all they can do is look at ur sequence & decide whether or not they believe u. The chances of them reconstructin the exact sequence by rolling the same die is improbable.

So, in the moment, u weren't xpectin a 3 to roll, in fact, the chain of events simply evolved along it's path. At the end u had what it is, no matter how unlikely, it still is.

[wileE]

What the hell, I'll stir the pot a bit.

Evolution is a theory that has not been proven wrong. It hasn't been around that long, but there is plenty of evidence to support it. There is still a ton of stuff that has not been discovered on this planet (new life forms are discovered constantly). There is still plenty of evidence that may turn up. It is the theory that makes the most sense.

Creationism/Intelligent design is based on faith and stories written a long time ago by dead people. There is no evidence, no backing theories, no proof whatsoever. You are supposed to accept it on faith.

The chances of life happening spontaneously and evolving into what we are today are slim, but this happened over millions of years. It could have taken a million years for the first cell to come to life. Many things could have started and failed. Many things could have succeeded. We don't know. But evolution is the best, most reasonable theory yet.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by wileE
Evolution is a theory that has not been proven wrong. It hasn't been around that long, but there is plenty of evidence to support it. There is still a ton of stuff that has not been discovered on this planet (new life forms are discovered constantly). There is still plenty of evidence that may turn up. It is the theory that makes the most sense.

Creationism/Intelligent design is based on faith and stories written a long time ago by dead people. There is no evidence, no backing theories, no proof whatsoever. You are supposed to accept it on faith.

The chances of life happening spontaneously and evolving into what we are today are slim, but this happened over millions of years. It could have taken a million years for the first cell to come to life. Many things could have started and failed. Many things could have succeeded. We don't know. But evolution is the best, most reasonable theory yet.
1. evolution is a theory... why? because it has never been proven. period. i don't need to explain that any further.

2. like due said, the odds of life evolving from nothing to the point we are at in even 4+ billion years takes unbelievable circumstances to all fall at the perfect times... so perfection over 4+ billion years...... no, when has there ever been that much order in the history of life... never.

3. the biggest misconception people have is that they don't see a god in front of their face, so they won't believe in it, but somehow they think that from the miniscule life time of humanity we are able to decipher the nature of 'the beginning' (i.e. evolution), that is just as ignorant in any view that anyone may hold. no one will ever really know how life started period, no one can know by any method, nor can anyone with any confidence say that they know that the earth's crust/atmosphere etc. has been constant enough for proper analysis. they can't ever because we are in the now and that is in the past.

so... like the thread title says they all take leaps of faith. you just have to decide where you want to put your eggs i guess.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by bjk15
2. like due said, the odds of life evolving from nothing to the point we are at in even 4+ billion years takes unbelievable circumstances to all fall at the perfect times... so perfection over 4+ billion years...... no, when has there ever been that much order in the history of life... never.no, it didn't hav to b perfect. In fact, the theory states that it wasn't perfect. The theory of intelligent design inheriently means it was perfect, but the theory of spontaneous spark of life & evolution relies completely on the opposite...

pursuit of survival with many imperfections

See, what u do when u say that everythin had to fall in place exactly the way it did for life to b here is tru, but it creates a misleadin suggestion.

Take that die roll sequence of 10 & make it a board game movement. Let's say the board has 60 spaces. U rolled 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 5, 3, and 1. The piece moves 34 spaces total. Was this perfection?

No, but we're there, at space 34. We could've rolled thousands of other combinations of sequences or numbers & ended up on 34, but odds r, if we were to go back & reroll, we would not be 34 spaces away like the 1st time. In fact, the odds are more likely that it would b different by ±5. Would that ±5 be the end of us?

Maybe space #7 would'v ended our game, but b/c we rolled 3, then 3, then 3, we survived. If we rolled 3, 2, 2, we'd be dead.

See, u can't look back & say the probabilities were so unlikely that it could not hav happened. B/c lookin back from space #34 it looks like that couldn't'v happened either!

Take that die & roll it 1,000 & u'll see how unlikely it was that particular combination happened, but the point is that it did.

If u win the lottery u don't spend ur time arguin that it was improbable for u to win so therefore u didn't win, u just accept that the decision u made correalated/w luck & therefore it was...

Regardless of how the probability were, it turned out that way.
so... like the thread title says they all take leaps of faith. you just have to decide where you want to put your eggs i guess. The "luck" approach isn't about faith. It's not about just believin it to b tru. There really is no argument that can defeat it.

The Big Improbability
Do you believe that you (whoever) are actually alive? Were you intially fertilized the "natural" way & relatively brought to term w/i ur mother's womb?

Do u accept that it happened & that for u to b who u r & where u r, a lot of improbable things had to happen? No, I'm not talkin about ur parent's life, I'm talkin about the moment from ur own fertilization to the point u'r readin this now. Just imagine how improbable it was that u'r reading what I'm writing!

First, ur parents had to meet each other. Think of that possibility... 1 in 6bil? Then, they had to start dating or being involved. How many ppl hav u met that u weren't involved/w? Thousands? So Thousands x 6 bil?

Then think of how many of those u were involved/w that u had unprotectd sex/w? How low r the odds already? 1,000s x 6bil x 20%?

Then imagine ur mom had to b ovulatin at that time. That means 2 wks out of a month! 50% of a chance? (or whatever, pulled that chance out of my ass) Then that ur dad was actually virile enuf to ejaculate! Then think of all the spermies swimmin like mad! I mean, the one that got thru was in a race against millions!

What are the probabilities so far... just to get u to the point of fertilization?

So, can u say, well, seein as that situation is now beyond millions of millions there's no way it couldn't happend that way...

No, u can't, that'd b silly. Whatever the chances of it happen the way it did, the fact is that it did happen the way that it did.

Got it?

[bjk15]

due, you're looking at evolution from a math perspective, while there is a lot of information that may be inferred from that way, it still leaves out a huge gap in the biological process of life.

it's not just about getting from point A to point B. it's also how you got there. life continually makes adaptations to their environment as it is necessary for survival, but that is not the same thing for evolution. to have a fish just all of a sudden became amphibious involves a series of steps that has to be precisely and accurately rolled. there is a reason for the quote "the sum does not equal its parts." if it is not done in a specific manner, then that adaptation/evolution form will fail to survive. its not like its ever known what the correct path is and that is why it is a theory as it is as random as it gets and it is quite difficult to prove such a rare feat of randomness, but conversely it requires a specific random order, hence the word perfection.

i'd prefer not to get into much more biochemistry as it would begin to be what i would paste and quote from other sources more and it would start talking about pathways for things like blood clotting and stuff. but if thats where the debate leads, then so be it.

[beezlebob]

Originally posted by bjk15

1. evolution is a theory... why? because it has never been proven. period. i don't need to explain that any further.


Well, yeah you do.

People have this misconception that a "theory" is just some idea plucked out of the air. Evolution is backed up by fossil records and archeology and other scientific proof. It's not just some fantasy by scientists that requires faith, it is backed up by facts. Now, can you really prove the whole enchilada? Of course not, no one has been alive for millions of years that was a witness to this, but all the evidence supports this theory is overwhelming.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by bjk15
due, you're looking at evolution from a math perspective, while there is a lot of information that may be inferred from that way, it still leaves out a huge gap in the biological process of life. Yes, I'm looking at the from the math perspective b/c 1+1 = 2 is much easier to reproduce than changin water into wine.to have a fish just all of a sudden became amphibious involves a series of steps that has to be precisely and accurately rolled.U'see, that's where the misconception about evolution comes in. Ppl think that the process that lead to the different designs of life was without mistakes, & is the epitome of correctness. As if we, or the animals, were perfectly adapted to live how we live.

Which is completely wrong.

Here's a bit of evolution goin on right now. Some cheetahs r being born with a black stripe down their spine but spots everywhere else. How useful is that?

Not very?

In fact, it could b counterproductive! But some r being born/w that. If they don't survive, the striped cheetahs die out. If soemthin changes in the environment where the striped cheetahs gain an advantage, then BOOM they become dominant. Was it luck? Was it really a roll of the die for the 1,341 time? Yep. It was.

A million years from now, if we didn't track it, and one day we looked at the cheetah & found he was stripped horizontally, we might say "That adaptation is perfect for their environment. It is as if someone designed it to be that way" howevr, u & I see the divergence happenin now & could track it, & let them kno: "Hey, there was a split, one worked out, the other didn't, after the environment changed. It wasn't by intelligent design it was by luck."there is a reason for the quote "the sum does not equal its parts." if it is not done in a specific manner, then that adaptation/evolution form will fail to survive.Again, organisms rn't perfect. This goes against the concept of intelligent design too.

Heck, why would a supa-smart ultra-being of omnipotence make faulty things? Backwards knees, animals that become extinct, humans/w hearts outside their chests, & fish that can't breath underwater?its not like its ever known what the correct path is and that is why it is a theory as it is as random as it gets and it is quite difficult to prove such a rare feat of randomness, but conversely it requires a specific random order, hence the word perfection.it only took one specific random order for things to happen the way they did. & that order is provable b/c that is the order it happened!

Kind'v like the boardgame. now u'r on the 34th space. The anthropologists happen to come in on the 34th space & try to figure out why u have $400 dollars, the Jamestown property, and a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's obvious that u had to land on space 13 to get the card, so they kno that was a stopping point. It's obvious u had to get another $200 dollars & ther e were two places u could'v gotten it from, space 25 or 30... etc. etc.

does this mean they knew u rolled a 3,3,3,4 to get to space 13? They kno u got there, but they'd hav to find other clues to prove u were on space 9 before that, then 6, then 3. That's the detail creationists beg for but they might never get. Deconstructin the 13 is more of an excersize in silliness than anything. Let it b known we were at 13 & (25 or 30) at some point, b/c we hav the proof we were.

Closing this post, not the thread
The point is that the randomness is what makes it work. The fact that there is no design. If it was designed the process would b much smoother, easier to track, or whatever. It's not. We see many failed natural experiments.

If evolution lead us to the place where we never left the water we'd b in Atlantis arguin about how unlikely it was that we were still breathin water & had fins. Even though that's an entirely different set of rolled numbers, we could stiill say we ended up there b/c... well... we did.

This is gettin harder & harder to debate by typing. I hope the main focus is clear.

[Slar]

Originally posted by bjk15

1. evolution is a theory... why? because it has never been proven. period. i don't need to explain that any further.

I'm sure you've heard of the scientific method. By definition a theory cannot be proven - only disproven. By contrast, religious beliefs cannot be proven or disproven, nor can they be reproduced or backed up with supporting evidence.

2. like due said, the odds of life evolving from nothing to the point we are at in even 4+ billion years takes unbelievable circumstances to all fall at the perfect times... so perfection over 4+ billion years...... no, when has there ever been that much order in the history of life... never.

Same old question. Same old response. If God made the world, then who made God?

3. the biggest misconception people have is that they don't see a god in front of their face, so they won't believe in it, but somehow they think that from the miniscule life time of humanity we are able to decipher the nature of 'the beginning' (i.e. evolution), that is just as ignorant in any view that anyone may hold. no one will ever really know how life started period, no one can know by any method, nor can anyone with any confidence say that they know that the earth's crust/atmosphere etc. has been constant enough for proper analysis. they can't ever because we are in the now and that is in the past.

Ah, because the ultimate questions in life are unanswerable, we should make no attempt to learn about the world around us. Why even try? By the way, the earth's crust is 47% oxygen, 28% silicon, 8% aluminum, <3% sodium, <4% calcium, 5% iron, 2% magnesium, with the remainder consisting of 84 other naturally-occurring elements, by weight. Also, James Hutton, the father of geology, stated that the processes occuring today also occurred in the past and would continue to occur in the future, thus giving a basis for studying the history of the earth. "We find no vestige of a beginning, no prespect of an end."

so... like the thread title says they all take leaps of faith. you just have to decide where you want to put your eggs i guess.
The chicken came first.

[PeterABnny]

Okay, I'm rather confused... Who's in favor of what here?

[wileE]

What Beelzebob and Slar said.

I am in favor of evolution. Not ruling out that there is some supreme being who may have sneezed and life was born, but that is just an easy answer to an extremely difficult question.

Religion and myth was/is used to explain things we don't understand. Scientific theory is used to explain why things are the way the are.

[beezlebob]

I don't believe in an interventionist God - Nick Cave

God is a concept by which we measure our pain - John Lennon

I am open to the idea that there may be a God, but there is no evidence to support intelligent creation. The science and historical record contradicts this and I choose to base my beliefs in science which has disproven articles of faith and dogma time and time again.

I believe that one day we will look at modern religion much in the same way we look at Roman mythology and the like to explain the things we do not yet understand.

[hp1]

I put more trust in science then in magic.

[Necromancer]

Nothing is impossible.

Impossible is another word for HIGHLY improbable.

All "laws" of reason and logic, physics, chemistry, ect. are simply MODELS of reality.

Perhaps cousin'bangin' didn't cause mutant zombie rednecks back then, now it does. Doesn't make sense, does it? Doesn't have to.



Randomness can be a plan. I've written plenty of programs with random number generators. Genetic algorithms used in artificial intelligence programs are an example. The plan is to use randomness to create new things. Is it random, yes. Is it planned, yes.

[Duemellon]

Just to remind folx, this is not a debate about religion itself, just the concept of evolution /w spontaneous creation of life v. creationism & intelligent design.

[beezlebob]

hmmm, a thread that goes slightly off topic after about a page? Never!

[stevelargent]

I am totally confused.

Are you guys talking about evolution or dice?

[Necromancer]

Order (there's a plan)
vs.
Chaos(there's no plan)

Is the root of the evolution vs. creation argument.

[hp1]

Hit points are decided on the 20 sided dice armor class on 8 sided dice.

I'm chaotic neutral, and not fully evolved.

[drougan]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Order (there's a plan)
vs.
Chaos(there's no plan)

Is the root of the evolution vs. creation argument.


The sneaky part is there is an element of Chaos within the Order, and the end result of the Order is outwardly Chaotic.

[Necromancer]

A Chaotic Good Barbarian gets a 12 sided dice for hit points.

A Lawful Neutral Wizards only gets a 4 sided.

[Necromancer]

Originally posted by drougan



The sneaky part is there is an element of Chaos within the Order, and the end result of the Order is outwardly Chaotic.

Exactly what my 1st post in this thread said.

What you quoted explains all the math, dice and probability.

[hp1]

Originally posted by Necromancer
A Chaotic Good Barbarian gets a 12 sided dice for hit points.

A Lawful Neutral Wizards only gets a 4 sided.

How about a Lawful neutral Necromancer?

[Necromancer]

Originally posted by hp1


How about a Lawful neutral Necromancer?

A necromancer is a specialist wizard.

[beezlebob]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Order (there's a plan)
vs.
Chaos(there's no plan)

Is the root of the evolution vs. creation argument.

"Dies ist KAOS ... und wir don't Shush hier."
Baron Ludwig von Siegfried

http://www.netreach.net/~nhojem/moon/siegfri2.jpg

[Buzzstein]

wow, due is really making sense here

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by drougan

The sneaky part is there is an element of Chaos within the Order, and the end result of the Order is outwardly Chaotic.


I'm pretty much in that camp. I believe in evolution and all that rot, but who says God can't help the process along when needed (i.e. allowing X to happen, making conditions such that Y will occur and so on)? There's a theologian (can't think of his name, atm) who's combined evolution/science with creationism/religion as a theory for the way things are. Made sense to me. Unfortunately, I would imagine a compromise like that would piss both sides off, 'cause as Calvin said in a cartoon, a good compromise makes everybody mad.

[drougan]

Originally posted by PeterABnny
I'm pretty much in that camp. I believe in evolution and all that rot, but who says God can't help the process along when needed (i.e. allowing X to happen, making conditions such that Y will occur and so on)? There's a theologian (can't think of his name, atm) who's combined evolution/science with creationism/religion as a theory for the way things are. Made sense to me. Unfortunately, I would imagine a compromise like that would piss both sides off, 'cause as Calvin said in a cartoon, a good compromise makes everybody mad.

I more or less agree. No study or theory of evolution can eliminate the feasibility of god. Theories are only capable of describing and explaining the natural world and the "how" behind it getting there.

[Necromancer]

Originally posted by drougan


I more or less agree. No study or theory of evolution can eliminate the feasibility of god. Theories are only capable of describing and explaining the natural world and the "how" behind it getting there.

I would take that a step farther and say no study or theory can eliminate the feasibility of anything.

[muse_rocks]

Originally posted by bjk15

1. evolution is a theory... why? because it has never been proven. period. i don't need to explain that any further.


what a bad way to support your theory, by saying theories are wrong.

anyways, i want to hear more from bjk, it seems he's intimidated by due's views.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by muse_rocks
anyways, i want to hear more from bjk, it seems he's intimidated by due's views. nah, he more seems like someone who only gets on for a short time each nite... u'll just hav to wait until he's back.

[muse_rocks]

roll your dice and we can figure out when he'll be back!

(i don't think i used your theory correctly but oh well)

[bjk15]

Originally posted by Slar
I'm sure you've heard of the scientific method. By definition a theory cannot be proven - only disproven. By contrast, religious beliefs cannot be proven or disproven, nor can they be reproduced or backed up with supporting evidence.

Also, James Hutton, the father of geology, stated that the processes occuring today also occurred in the past and would continue to occur in the future, thus giving a basis for studying the history of the earth. "We find no vestige of a beginning, no prespect of an end."

that's interesting... by what definition of theory do you use

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

7. A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

8. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

9. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

10. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena

11. a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation


because i don't see your definition in there at all, not only that, but if you look at the definitions and can understand them, then no, i really don't need to expound my statement, thats your problem.

and little muse_rocks, sorry, but are you trying to bully me into talking more, you're 17, high school shit don't work on me.

and i'm not a geologist, but i'm sorry but that mostly only explains how long the earth has been here and i ain't arguing that point.

[muse_rocks]

haha i was just bored and just couldn't wait.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by beezlebob
People have this misconception that a "theory" is just some idea plucked out of the air. Evolution is backed up by fossil records and archeology and other scientific proof. It's not just some fantasy by scientists that requires faith, it is backed up by facts. Now, can you really prove the whole enchilada? Of course not, no one has been alive for millions of years that was a witness to this, but all the evidence supports this theory is overwhelming.
evolution is not backed up by these other methods, rather evolution uses those methods to build their theory on other 'sturdy', if you will, data. you've got it backwards, and thats the problem. and i'm sorry, i'm not saying that adaption has not always happened, i believe it has. maybe since so many other people believe in evolution, then i'll let one of them explain it further. evolution is not a geological thing nor is it a mathematics thing... it is a biochemical thing. and i don't see anyone arguing on this behalf for evolution. don't see it, but i'm waiting for it.

as an example, is blood clotting. the idea for there to be evolution with all of the pathways being interdependent of each other is too much of a stretch for me.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid139/p9e10c4d6b1082579c2028b53dc904fdd/f6ff2da7.jpg.orig.jpg

[beezlebob]

You can't have this discussion without bringing up religion.

I am not sure about other creation stories but the Bible records go back six THOUSAND years to a beginning and the fossil records go back BILLIONS of years. This is a contradiction. That is PART of the proof. Thats why geology matters in this discussion.


nice FAQ on Evolution:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

1. Is there evidence for evolution?
In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection, a mountain of evidence has accumulated to support the theory. A greatly expanded fossil record since Darwin's time, the discovery of DNA and the process of genetic replication, an understanding of radioactive decay, observations of natural selection in the wild and in laboratories, and evidence in the genomes of many different organisms, including humans, have all bolstered the validity of the theory of evolution.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by bjk15
as an example, is blood clotting. the idea for there to be evolution with all of the pathways being interdependent of each other is too much of a stretch for me.see, & that's the prob/w those who r against Evolution b/c of how everythin is currently "perfect".

It's not perfect. Blood clottin is not the perfect solution. Not bleedin at all, or blood instantly clottin, or not being concernd about blood loss,... that's the perfect answer. However, b/c we want to imagin ourselves as bein "perfectly designd" we think that our skin works exactly the way it should, our lungs work at it's highest capacity, etc. etc.

They don't.

Man on the Drafting Table
If u, a lowly non-ominipotent human, were to redesign humanity, we'd hav considerably different physiologies. We wouldn't need to breathe, we wouldn't need to shelter ourselves from the weather, we wouldn't need to eat, etc. etc. U might say these things are impossibl & ur wrong if u believe that an all-powerful being lacks the powers to make those happen... right?

When we were bein "intelligently designed" why were we short-changed?

The Myth Synchronous Adaptations
So, in an attempt to refocus the point on how we don't work "perfectly" ...

We r amazed at how the brain, liver, spleen, & heart work together. It is as if they were made/w each other in mind. Like how a bird needed hollow bones, the ability to use all their lung capacity, & a supa-heart to fly. All those things had to come to pass for us to b who we r & to u, for those things to coincide, requires design, or at least cosmic-proddin.

Who knows, if the 1000th roll was different, birds wouldn't exist! Maybe they got the heart, the hollow bones, but still havn't mutated enuf to get the lung capacity? Then they'd only b gliders. Or, maybe they were gliders, until one of them, thru the luck of mutation, was able to use their entire lungs & took over the air!

What about us? What if we had no brain to control the heart, liver, & spleen? Well, we can look at our body & deduce a sequence of dependency when looked at closer. The heart is not consciously controlled, so the brain we hav now wasn't needd to run it. The spleen takes no instructions from the brain whatsoever. The lungs act outside of the brains but can also be controlled by the brains. So, maybe the brains came after heart & spleen & same time as lungs?

etc. etc.

Excel at Where We Are, or Go Where We Can Excel
We rn't the perfect design. We rn't even exactly suited for our niche in the world. That's just romanticizin our existance, but is far from the truth. Name one creature that is perfectly suited for their environment & they'll b proof they went to the environment after they became suitable... not before.

[markalot]

Evolution is real, but we didn't evolve here.

We were placed here by aliens who landed at a big spaceport in Chili ... er Peru.

Maybe.

http://www.crystalinks.com/nazca.html

[beezlebob]

Originally posted by markalot
Evolution is real, but we didn't evolve here.

We were placed here by aliens who landed at a big spaceport in Chili.

Maybe.

http://www.crystalinks.com/nazca.html

Texas or Cincinnati style?

[markalot]

Cincinnati for sure, I can't take the hot stuff.

[frenchstudent]

Originally posted by beezlebob
You can't have this discussion without bringing up religion.

I am not sure about other creation stories but the Bible records go back six THOUSAND years to a beginning and the fossil records go back BILLIONS of years. This is a contradiction. That is PART of the proof. Thats why geology matters in this discussion.


You don't have to be religious to believe in a higher power, and not everyone believes in christianity's god, just like there are plenty of other belief systems that dont involve the bible.
BTW,
This has been one of the most interesting threads I have ever had the pleasure of reading. After these last few weeks of nasty pollitical hate-filled threads, I am so happy to see people debating issues without attacking one another. Kudos! :D

[beezlebob]

Originally posted by frenchstudent


You don't have to be religious to believe in a higher power, and not everyone believes in christianity's god, just like there are plenty of other belief systems that dont involve the bible.
BTW,
This has been one of the most interesting threads I have ever had the pleasure of reading. After these last few weeks of nasty pollitical hate-filled threads, I am so happy to see people debating issues without attacking one another. Kudos! :D

True, but Christianity is the basis for Creation "Science"

[frenchstudent]

Christianity is the basis of debate for creation science.

I belive we were created, but not by the god that sent the flood and killed everyone but Noah and his family. ;)

[wileE]

Originally posted by drougan


I more or less agree. No study or theory of evolution can eliminate the feasibility of god. Theories are only capable of describing and explaining the natural world and the "how" behind it getting there.

This reminds me of an engineering cartoon (and joke). Two scientists are looking at a chalkboard filled with equations and such. At one point in the equation, there is a smudge or it says 'A miracle happens'. Or, advice to people taking exams: Work the equation forward until you get stuck. Then work the equation from the answer backward until you get stuck. Then smear between the two.

To me, God/Intelligent Design is that smear or 'A mircale happens'. It is just a quick easy way to explain something away or to get from step A to B.

Mutations in nature happen all the time. We don't know everything about how life evolved, but we know some. We know nothing of God. To say, 'Evolution could never happen on it's own' is both arrogant and ignorant (denying there is a good can be construed the same way). Nature has been known to do amazing things without any intervention. Selling it short is a mistake.

I also agree with Due on this.

[drougan]

Originally posted by wileE To me, God/Intelligent Design is that smear or 'A mircale happens'. It is just a quick easy way to explain something away or to get from step A to B.

I didn't want to imply that that was my belief in that post.

We know nothing of God

But that was.

In addition...
Originally posted by frenchstudent
I belive we were created, but not by the god that sent the flood and killed everyone but Noah and his family. ;)

I agree with this. My personal believe that God is the essence of existence, and is above the human attributes of judgement and punishment. He/She/It's pretty hands off in my book.

There is a particular theory of small particle physics that says all matter is a function of the resonance of packets of energy, that they form the basis of smaller particles which make up the larger ones, etc. I find it to be a beautiful (yet wholly unprovable) theory to identify the nature of everything in the universe in terms of a single, abstract entity with an infinite diversity in the number of end forms. In the end, we are all part of God, and God is all part of us.

just my theory;)

[wileE]

Originally posted by drougan


I didn't want to imply that that was my belief in that post.

I wasn' implying that. That is just my belief.

Originally posted by drougan

But that was.

In addition...


I agree with this. My personal believe that God is the essence of existence, and is above the human attributes of judgement and punishment. He/She/It's pretty hands off in my book.

There is a particular theory of small particle physics that says all matter is a function of the resonance of packets of energy, that they form the basis of smaller particles which make up the larger ones, etc. I find it to be a beautiful (yet wholly unprovable) theory to identify the nature of everything in the universe in terms of a single, abstract entity with an infinite diversity in the number of end forms. In the end, we are all part of God, and God is all part of us.

just my theory;)
You should read about Taoism. Heck, or any number of Far Eastern religions (or philosophies). They make a lot more sense than just a single God watching over us. Some have a similar theme.

[beezlebob]

Agreed. I think some forms of Buddhism have common themes with science.

[Santos-Dumont]

Originally posted by Duemellon
What about us? What if we had no brain to control the heart, liver, & spleen? Well, we can look at our body & deduce a sequence of dependency when looked at closer. The heart is not consciously controlled, so the brain we hav now wasn't needd to run it. The spleen takes no instructions from the brain whatsoever. The lungs act outside of the brains but can also be controlled by the brains. So, maybe the brains came after heart & spleen & same time as lungs?


Is anybody else reading this?

Do you guys still agree with this logic?

Due, how can you say the spleen or any organ takes no instruction from the brain? That makes no sense. Please try to explain this to me.

How do you get order from disorder

How do you get something from nothing

What was it that caused the big bang to BANG?

It's fine if you dont think it was necessarily God, but please dont tell me that this infinitely complex cell structure that I am looking out of and typing these words with and which has come to rule this world and is beginning to explore the rest of the galaxy came by all this monumentous ability by some random sequence of unexplained chemicals that either couldve happened or not whichever way the wind chose to blow on that day.

[IPrayForSound]

Makes just as much sense as a giant invisible man who was never born and has always been there deciding to build us out of nothing.

[wileE]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Makes just as much sense as a giant invisible man who was never born and has always been there deciding to build us out of nothing.

Exactly!

[beezlebob]

Originally posted by Santos-Dumont



What was it that caused the big bang to BANG?

Just because science has no answer to what existed before the big bang or what caused it does not mean the answer must be, God did it.

Originally posted by Santos-Dumont
It's fine if you dont think it was necessarily God, but please dont tell me that this infinitely complex cell structure that I am looking out of and typing these words with and which has come to rule this world and is beginning to explore the rest of the galaxy came by all this monumentous ability by some random sequence of unexplained chemicals that either couldve happened or not whichever way the wind chose to blow on that day.



That is what I am saying. What are you comparing it with? We have no other Earth type worlds to compare us to.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Santos-Dumont
Due, how can you say the spleen or any organ takes no instruction from the brain? That makes no sense. Please try to explain this to me.whoa there... i didn't say "any organ" I specifically sighted those that operate involuntarily. It's been shown that some organs can maintain activity w/o a brain. It's also been shown that some reactions don't ever involve the brain (such as the knee-tap/kick thing).How do you get order from disorderI continue to say that we rn't in order & that's the rub.

We r not perfect. We r not in order. We still hav children who r deformed, or devolutionary, or whatevr. We r not in "order" we r in "flux" but we hav enuf of organization to claim some semblence of structure.How do you get something from nothingwe'v already created amino acids from electrically charged non-organic materials. Then we'v demonstratd the chemical reaction that creates bonding between molecules. Followed by the concept that some molecule create a chemeical change when interacting, which could lead to an output of energy that asks for more growth, or consumption, etc...What was it that caused the big bang to BANG?sorry, not to make light of this question, but that's not this topic.please dont tell me that this infinitely complex cell structure that I am looking out of... came by... some random sequence of unexplained chemicals that either couldve happened or not whichever way the wind chose to blow on that day. I'v covered this a few times already, so I hope u read to understand, not just find holes...

We r not perfectly designed. We r flawed. We r not suitably adapted to our environment, bfore industrialization, bfore farming, & bfore language, we were not perfect for our environment. The idea that evolution has happend in such a way that perfection was arrived at is nothin but human ego-trippin.

Now, keepin in mind that we r not perfect for our environment...
To b perfect for our environment followin the path of evolution, we'd'v needed to roll 6's every time on a 6 sided die each & every time our forebearers reproduced. & if they were abl to maintain this streak for all this time, we'd look amazingly different.

however, ...

it didn't happen that way. In fact, every other number popped up along the way. That's why we hav black ppl, white ppl, tall ppl, fat ppl, hairy folx, smelly folx, psychopaths, & i20's. B/c we'r still rollin the die each time we reproduce.

I don't think u'r followin this exercize...
Take 2 die, one is green other is blu, with the same amount of sides. Roll them & track their rolls.

If it's a 1, that color column get's an improvement to the eye (from smple, to compound, to lensd, to convexd, etc)

2, they get an improvement to their hearing...

3, speed
4, size
5, temperature tolerance
6, lose one

Roll both 10 times & see what u get. U get 2 things that don't look like each other but are vastly different from what u startd/w. What u just demonstrated was the development of evolution.

Now, u hav those advancement written down, right? Well, take the finishd beasts (just the one that says: super-sight, slow as shit, & able to take a nap in a volcano) & sho it to someone who never saw u roll the die, or write the list & tell them to find a home for these beasts.

They might say: "Hey, that one seems like a bat & the other like a shark."

We see the end product, but we dont' see all the 6's rolled or the 1,2, & 3's. Ur friend, if u never tell them u made all these rolls, would think u hav some amazing imagination to come up/w a creature that could do those things, but u didn't...

See, that analogy is a bit different & may b hard to follow, but the point is that ur lookin at the dice AFTER the rolled when u'r lookin at us. The dice had to come up some way & that's what we r! We r the RESULTS of that die roll. U can guess what we would look like if the die rolled differently, but the fact is... this is how the die rolled so we hav to cope/w it.

it ain't perfect.

[Necromancer]

Saying we know nothing about God is admitting you know something about God. You are admitting you know nothing about God. Knowing that you know nothing about something, means you know something. That something is the knowledge that you know nothing. Knowledge God admit something know getting.

[JSpaceman]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Knowledge God admit something know getting.
What the shit did you just say? :confused:

[bjk15]

Originally posted by wileE
To me, God/Intelligent Design is that smear or 'A mircale happens'. It is just a quick easy way to explain something away or to get from step A to B.

Mutations in nature happen all the time. We don't know everything about how life evolved, but we know some. We know nothing of God. To say, 'Evolution could never happen on it's own' is both arrogant and ignorant (denying there is a good can be construed the same way). Nature has been known to do amazing things without any intervention. Selling it short is a mistake.

you all are driving me crazy. none of you are putting together any solid arguments for evolution at all. and evolution smears the middle just as much as any religion does anyone who thinks otherwise is being arrogant and ignorant. for the last friggin time, there is no proof. it is a mere concept that over time has been built up to another religion.

i'm not arguing for religion, i'm arguing against evolution, period. and to be honest, in the case of the beginning of the Bible and geology, i don't see why people are holding the days to exactly 6 days its not sacreligious to thinks so at all, nor is it a knock on that 'omnipotency' thing. but i'm not talking about that at all.

and due, c'mon. don't even go to the 'pre-mordial soup' thing and base that beginning on what scientists have done in a vacuum reaction. they have fixed conditions... and again, chaos to a more ordered state that requires perfectly placed electric charges is the type of basis for frankenstein, ok, if you say so. and that still doesn't get you anywhere, so what you have some amino acids floating around together, then what.

to maybe clear things up... i never said we, humans, were perfect. that is totally misquoting and misunderstanding my comments. i said that it would take a perfect 'number of rolls' to get to where life is now. due, your concept of the order of things isn't even close to being correct. at some point you have to step away from the supercomputers or calculators and realize that it does matter when the nerves evolved into a brain. and i'm sorry but brain clotting is a lot more complicated than just glossing over it and using more math to describe it. and to say that depending on the roll you get one animal or another is also a gross over simplification of the process.

are there more flawed humans than others... sure, but i never said they were perfect to begin with. but to live forever would mean that the human body would have to be totally perfect... and really that is why this thread started......

[bjk15]

also, on a very simplified version of what i believe. every life on this planet has instincts and based upon those instincts is how 99.99999% of them survive. my instincts tell me that at some point there was some intelligent design and not evolution. and to flat out be honest, i'm not going to say that my instincts tell me one intelligent design concept (re: religion) is the 'right' one because i chose on my own beliefs. and don't give me this new age bullshit that its my environment that has given me 'instincts' because i ain't that stupid or gullible in this arena. i've really tried not to believe in an intelligent design concept just so that i could be sure but an intelligent design concept is what every cell in my body feels 'right'... instincts if you will. at some point you have to rely on something other than what is hip... and make no doubt about it, evolution has been hip for the last 100+ years... just like christianity was in like the 500 AD time period. maybe this makes me seem stupid, but its the only way that i can live my life.

[wileE]

Originally posted by bjk15


you all are driving me crazy. none of you are putting together any solid arguments for evolution at all. and evolution smears the middle just as much as any religion does anyone who thinks otherwise is being arrogant and ignorant. for the last friggin time, there is no proof. it is a mere concept that over time has been built up to another religion.

But there is EVIDENCE that supports evolution. There is NOTHING that supports GOD! Of course there are holes in evolution. Organisms have existed on earth for millions of years. We can't possibly find everything out about them in a few dozen years. There are holes in every scientific theory. We don't even understand gravity. We haven't even discovered all the elements that exist on this planet. We don't know how bumblebees fly. It is a work in progress, yet what we are learning to understand it.

It is a religion based on truths, not made up stuff to explain things quickly and easily.

Of course we are still skeptical of evolution because it has not been proven true and there are still a lot of unknowns. When the Earth was discovered to be round, it wasn't universallly accepted as soon as somebody suggested it (it had to be tested). When Newton suggested the laws of gravity, it was not universally accepted until more tests were done. Evolution will not be fully accepted until more proof is found. But there is evidence backing it.

What about religion? You have to accept it on faith. If you doubt it, you are a heretic. Try to prove it, you are acting against God.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by bjk15
i said that it would take a perfect 'number of rolls' to get to where life is now.& that's my counter-point is that we rn't a a "perfect" place!

The rolls WEREN'T all 6s, that's why we still rn't completely compatibl/w our environment!

However, the rolls were what they were. That simpl. Can't go back & change them, but it is tru that everythin that happened, in the past, had to happen that way for us to b here.

See, that's the perfection I'm talkin about.

Here, we'll try this way:
There r things u regret that u did, right? Those same things that u did, u learned from, right? So if u were to go back & prevent urself from makin those mistakes, u wouldn't b who u r now... right?

yet another analogy attempt
U'kno, let's say u hav a big scar runnin down the left side of ur face that makes u look like zipper-man. U got that from falling on a knife when u were 16. What we kno is that u'v been called zipper-man for the decades since then. Due to this endless persecution, u'v become more sensitiv to this or that group & probably comforted a few dozens other zipper-heads.

We don't kno how ur life would b if u never fell on the knife.

We do kno that u r still alive today. Sure u rn't as perfect as u could b (if u never fell on the knife) but who's to say u'd ever b alive today if u didn't fall on the knife? (perhaps u were slated to get hit by a car, but u were in the hospital, so the drunk-driver hit a pole instead)

That's what I mean dude, when u fell on the knife, u rolled a "4", if u rolled a "5" u'd b hit by a car, & if u rolled a "6" u'd'v had a borin 16th year. But that 5 & that 6, is really unknown to us, only the 4 is known. So what does that mean to someone tryin to retroconstruct how u hav a scar on ur face now?

That means u r a sum of the randomness that was in ur life & how u reactd to that randomness. To say that the randomness had to b that way for u to end up this way is tru, but the fact was, whether u fell on a knife, got hit by a car, or had a boring 16th, was still random.

In other words, if u didn't hav that scar on ur face u'd'v had a different fate. But u hav that scar on ur face & that has dictated so much of ur life since then, even tho it was a completely random event.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by wileE
But there is EVIDENCE that supports evolution. There is NOTHING that supports GOD!

It is a religion based on truths, not made up stuff to explain things quickly and easily.

Of course we are still skeptical of evolution because it has not been proven true and there are still a lot of unknowns.

What about religion? You have to accept it on faith. If you doubt it, you are a heretic. Try to prove it, you are acting against God.
no, the evidence implies that evolution could happen. its not supporting. and for 10th time, i'm not talking about religion other than that one post b/c people feel that once they know your stance then they can nail you... ooooh, if it only were that simple... and don't worry about God and I. it won't help either one of us if you stress out about that ;)

[wileE]

Originally posted by bjk15
also, on a very simplified version of what i believe. every life on this planet has instincts and based upon those instincts is how 99.99999% of them survive. my instincts tell me that at some point there was some intelligent design and not evolution. and to flat out be honest, i'm not going to say that my instincts tell me one intelligent design concept (re: religion) is the 'right' one because i chose on my own beliefs. and don't give me this new age bullshit that its my environment that has given me 'instincts' because i ain't that stupid or gullible in this arena. i've really tried not to believe in an intelligent design concept just so that i could be sure but an intelligent design concept is what every cell in my body feels 'right'... instincts if you will. at some point you have to rely on something other than what is hip... and make no doubt about it, evolution has been hip for the last 100+ years... just like christianity was in like the 500 AD time period. maybe this makes me seem stupid, but its the only way that i can live my life.
Hip? Is the theory of Dark Matter hip (it hasn't been proven)? Black holes were 'hip'. They have now been found to exist (how they are formed and what they are is still up in the air). Lots of theories have existed, garnered worldwide acceptance, and then been discarded. The Roman and Greek Gods were hip for quite a while. What makes Christianity different?

Nobody is calling you stupid. They are just arguing a different view point. Life on this planet could have been nudged at some point. Be it by a meteor containing life, some ETs introducing something, or a supreme being giving a little input. We just don't know. I don't dismiss God, I just find it unlikely. Many think the opposite. But Evolution has evidence. God does not.

[Duemellon]

Science will never hav the definitive answer to "why", it only looks at behaviors & recreates them.

The only things that science can prove definitively r things we came up/w... stuff that is only a concept or never really xists in reality such as 1 + 1 = 2.

in nature there really is no such thing as 1. Even a single creature is part of the greater, or a sum of it's parts. It is not 1 whole thing, it flows from what it was to what it will b in respect to where it is. We can prove 1 all day b/c we made up the concept. Same as a "day".

Completely made up concept. The Sun doesn't stop shinin, so there is no 'day', we just named it that. So we can prove that a certain amount of days pass before a year cycles again.

But we can't hit a point where the question "why" cant' b asked again when it comes to what makes up matter, or particles, or why gravity works, until we translate it into a concept.

but that's another story in a different book, I'm here to show a different look...
_____________
So, therefore, u can never get the whole "evolution is the answer" to the point where u can't ask "why" or doubt it b/c u want to argue the evidence, not the theory. The theory itself is infallibl, but there will b gaps even if we watchd every second of evolution from day one to present time. It's the way nature is... it's fractal... u can look inwards & outwards & always hav at least one more step to go in or out.

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by wileE

Hip? Is the theory of Dark Matter hip (it hasn't been proven)? Black holes were 'hip'. They have now been found to exist (how they are formed and what they are is still up in the air). Lots of theories have existed, garnered worldwide acceptance, and then been discarded. The Roman and Greek Gods were hip for quite a while. What makes Christianity different?

Nobody is calling you stupid. They are just arguing a different view point. Life on this planet could have been nudged at some point. Be it by a meteor containing life, some ETs introducing something, or a supreme being giving a little input. We just don't know. I don't dismiss God, I just find it unlikely. Many think the opposite. But Evolution has evidence. God does not.

I agree - evolution has scientific evidence to back it up. But evidence of God? Well, I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. We've all seen it at some point - some freakish happening that should have resulted in tragedy but instead had a happy ending... A toddler falls out of a four-story window onto the sidewalk below and escapes with hardly a scratch. Conventional wisdom and science would say the kid should have been splattered all over the concrete. Yet she escapes any harm all the same. Why? Some would say it was the result of God or guardian angels. Others might say something else unexplained-but-scientific happened. Me, I would look at this scenario (as well as others like this, plus stuff like near-death experiences and so on) as proof enough of the existence of God. Not very scientific, but it works for me.

Evolution for me is purely a biological phenomenon, the end result of a number of successful adaptations by an animal to its environment. A sedimentary rock cannot evolve into an igneous one. A lump of coal can't evolve into a diamond. But a fish can evolve enough to grow lungs or use it's fins like feet and move from pond to pond. I've heard we humans are evolving right now. Our shoe and hat sizes are larger now than they were 100 years ago. Some kids are being born now with the gene for wisdom teeth switched off, so they won't need that extra set of molars for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Who knows what we'll look like in another ten thousand years? But somewhere I have to believe that if we haven't managed to kill each other or the earth, we'll look a bit different than today.

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Science will never hav the definitive answer to "why", it only looks at behaviors & recreates them.

The only things that science can prove definitively r things we came up/w... stuff that is only a concept or never really xists in reality such as 1 + 1 = 2.

in nature there really is no such thing as 1. Even a single creature is part of the greater, or a sum of it's parts. It is not 1 whole thing, it flows from what it was to what it will b in respect to where it is. We can prove 1 all day b/c we made up the concept. Same as a "day".

Completely made up concept. The Sun doesn't stop shinin, so there is no 'day', we just named it that. So we can prove that a certain amount of days pass before a year cycles again.

But we can't hit a point where the question "why" cant' b asked again when it comes to what makes up matter, or particles, or why gravity works, until we translate it into a concept.

but that's another story in a different book, I'm here to show a different look...
_____________
So, therefore, u can never get the whole "evolution is the answer" to the point where u can't ask "why" or doubt it b/c u want to argue the evidence, not the theory. The theory itself is infallibl, but there will b gaps even if we watchd every second of evolution from day one to present time. It's the way nature is... it's fractal... u can look inwards & outwards & always hav at least one more step to go in or out.


Due, you must have kicked ass in philosophy in school, my friend... :)

[drougan]

I believe all life on this planet evolved out of a primordial soup-just like God intended.

In order to have a system of existence and have it stand on its own it has to have a set of laws. We know this exsitence stands on its own because we find no evidence in God beyond the mere fact that we exist. In the end things have to function on both an individual level without an outside input. Things have to add up in a simple way to be easiliy replicable yet be capable of infinite diversity. If you wanna argue for intelligent design or creationism, you should be arguing about the design of the system, not the end result of the system (ie, us, life on the planet, etc.)

Evolution is a theory that describes this system of simplicity resulting in diversity. Noise and interference within a biochemical reaction thats replicated trillions of times to produce a single organism results in an organism with a particular set of characteristics. Extrapolate that relationship over billions of years and billions of generations of trillions of replications, each of which is capable of minor fluctuation and thus greatly impacting the form of life on this planet (a planet which is also constantly changing) and you will see that some of that noise resonates with its environment, giving the illusion of adaptation.

Its a geniusly designed system, to be sure.

[markalot]

God is an evolutionary scientist.

[Duemellon]

Oh, let me also add:

I don't believe life startd here on Earth. I think "God's Sperm" fertilized this "Terrestrial Egg" thru space.

But I use "God" loosely.

[the happy prole]

Are you guys really arguing about evolution vs. creationism, or is it more about science vs. religion as paradigms for the accumulation of so-called knowledge?

'Cause if it's the latter, Bluelupis could probably give you guys some good edumacating.

I am more and more believing that science as we apply it may have run its course as far as being useful.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
Are you guys really arguing about evolution vs. creationism, or is it more about science vs. religion as paradigms for the accumulation of so-called knowledge?well, we'r includin the topic of spontaneous generation of life v. divine spark in that too...

but not the Big Bang or why babies cry.

[the happy prole]

Okay, well then the post you made that PeterABnny quoted was actually pretty kick-ass. That's essentially the heart of the matter.

Some other spins on it:

As you noted, science does not provide causality-- it only explains what happened AFTER the fact. We can ask "Why are humans the way we are?" All science can do is provide a more-and-more detailed explanation of what happened, but it will never tell you the big WHY, which is "Why are humans the way we are INSTEAD OF SOMETHING ELSE?"

Or you can say that evolution is science. And that science only accepts ideas or "facts" of a certain kind-- there's a reason we have a term "scientific evidence." So to defend evolution by citing scientific evidence is circular. Science is right because science tells me so.

It's not so much that science can never get to the last level of detail (although that's part of it). It's really the fact that we've granted science something we never gave religion. The ability to rewrite itself with revisions, deletions, and additions.

If Christianity were to say "oh yeah we messed up on the Earth's creation bit-- it's actually way older" then we'd start questioning EVERYTHING in the bible. But we don't do that in science. Scientists have revised estimates of the Earth's age many, many times.

I think a gifted storyteller could write a decent fable explaining evolution. Something centered around God giving us successive lives on Earth as we move to our eventual virtuous, perfect bodies. God doesn't give us a perfect body right away, because we need these little hardships as tests (like Job). But each time we die, we go before God, and He gives us a little here, maybe lose a little there. Enough so we can survive, not so much we get greedy and fail to learn from the tests.

Something like that. Then we see how well the story jibes with our observations. If it turns out some detail is missing, I'll just figure a way to write it in. If I can't figure it out, I may have to revise a bit of my story. And if we had 10,000 story tellers over 1000 of years all working on the story and figuring out which revisions worked best, then you might just end up with a comprehensive God-driven fable that explains about as much of our phenomena as present day science does.

And so isn't a scientist just a storyteller? They just use numbers to explain things instead of words. You're right-- "1" is a concept assigned to something. Words are too.

[wileE]

Originally posted by the happy prole
As you noted, science does not provide causality-- it only explains what happened AFTER the fact. We can ask "Why are humans the way we are?" All science can do is provide a more-and-more detailed explanation of what happened, but it will never tell you the big WHY, which is "Why are humans the way we are INSTEAD OF SOMETHING ELSE?"

Doesn't religion provide the same thing? It just explains the way things are. At least science provides a reasonable explenation rather than just saying, 'Because God made it so'. Of course it is AFTER the fact. Nobody can predict the futute.
Originally posted by the happy prole
Or you can say that evolution is science. And that science only accepts ideas or "facts" of a certain kind-- there's a reason we have a term "scientific evidence." So to defend evolution by citing scientific evidence is circular. Science is right because science tells me so.
Science is right because we have quantifiable evidence proving theories. Certain kind? If by 'Certain kind' you mean repeatable, factual, hard evidence, then yes, you are right.
Originally posted by the happy prole
It's not so much that science can never get to the last level of detail (although that's part of it). It's really the fact that we've granted science something we never gave religion. The ability to rewrite itself with revisions, deletions, and additions.
[/B]
But that's the beauty of science. Nothing is accepted until it has been proven. People throw out ideas. Other people prove or disprove them. Once something has been proven, it is accepted. Religion has never been proven.
Originally posted by the happy prole
If Christianity were to say "oh yeah we messed up on the Earth's creation bit-- it's actually way older" then we'd start questioning EVERYTHING in the bible. But we don't do that in science. Scientists have revised estimates of the Earth's age many, many times.
[/B]
But Christianity can't do that because the Bible is truth. It was written by God and is therefore infallible. Catholicism has onlly changed their view once scientists have out right proven that their teachings are wrong. Science grows as more is learned. Of course estimates have changed. As scientists learn more, they revise their estimates and theories. It is called learning.
Originally posted by the happy prole
I think a gifted storyteller could write a decent fable explaining evolution. Something centered around God giving us successive lives on Earth as we move to our eventual virtuous, perfect bodies. God doesn't give us a perfect body right away, because we need these little hardships as tests (like Job). But each time we die, we go before God, and He gives us a little here, maybe lose a little there. Enough so we can survive, not so much we get greedy and fail to learn from the tests.
[/B]
Many storytellers have already written decent fables explaining evolution. What do you think myth and religions are? You are rationalizing reincarnation, which is specific to a few religions. Yet another attempt to give our lives a purpose.
Originally posted by the happy prole
Something like that. Then we see how well the story jibes with our observations. If it turns out some detail is missing, I'll just figure a way to write it in. If I can't figure it out, I may have to revise a bit of my story. And if we had 10,000 story tellers over 1000 of years all working on the story and figuring out which revisions worked best, then you might just end up with a comprehensive God-driven fable that explains about as much of our phenomena as present day science does.
[/B]
You have just described how religions work. The next generation won't remember how it was before. Religion changes just as much as science so it can keep filling it's coffers. Science changes its theories because new evidence constantly comes to light. Rather than condemn it immediately, science accepts it and builds on it.
Originally posted by the happy prole
And so isn't a scientist just a storyteller? They just use numbers to explain things instead of words. You're right-- "1" is a concept assigned to something. Words are too. [/B]
But science is based on Proof and Facts. Religion is based on a story. Newton's Laws can be proven. The Periodic Table is real and can be seen. Give us evidence that God speaks to people. Give us evidence that God arranged everything so that child would not be killed when he fell. That is all faith. Science is based on fact.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by wileE
Give us evidence that God speaks to people. Give us evidence that God arranged everything so that child would not be killed when he fell. That is all faith. Science is based on fact. sorry, even tho this ain't a discussion about religion it's slowly turnin into it & that statement isn't quite right...

U can't scientifically measure the faith someone has. It's conceptual even to that person! If somethin bad happens to a devout religious person, they'll blame it on their lack of faith (whether or not they believed, beforehand, they were completely faithful). Good things r due to their greater faith (or an attempt to increase their faith sent by God).

So, seein as u can get 100 ppl in a room that all claim to b faithful followers of God, there might only b negative things & nothings goin on/w that group durin the whole time & when u ask them "why"' they'll respond that... well... they thought they were devout enuf, but they weren't.

Meanwhile, out in the world, another miracle happens.

See, faith is like prophecy, the only way u kno it was right to believe in is when it comes tru. Otherwise havin the faith or the prophecy just turns out to b false faith/prophecy.

[Homsar]

I'm glad that Due (probably many others) knows that organisms don't adapt, physiologically speaking, to their environments, but rather they choose the environments to fit their mutations. The fish that evolved to be eye-less happened to find out about uninhabited caves, and they thrived in those caves, thus perpetuating their species. The fish didn't evolve to become eye-less after they moved into the caves.

Ok, here goes. About the whole humans-are-perfect/humans-are-not-perfect thing: If evolution is true, then humans have pretty much finished evolving. Or at least have slowed considerably. Why? Because survival of the fittist is no longer as much of an issue as it once was. Example: weak people and people with below-average intelligence have children.
Back when the only people on the earth were few and far between, there was much competition for mates. Back then, any advantage in strength or intelligence was a big advantage, as people literally competed for mates and resources. Which monkey could use a club? Which monkey could know how to use a rock as a hammer? The monkeys who survived, that's which.
And those who lost? They died, taking their "loser traits" with them. That's how, once we started along the right track, we got all these nice shiny attributes. We use tools. We can kill anything. We can go anywhere. We can survive.
Now? We don't need to compete as much for resources or mates. There are people who have kindly decided to make sure other people get what they need, and there are enough people out there so that now there is literally "someone for everyone."

This brings to light the point that any new mutations to the human body that make us "better," like intelligence, physical strength, better eyesight, etc., are going to be cancelled out by the new mutations that are "devolutionary" in the fact that they are bad traits for humans to have, if they want to survive in a "dog-eat-dog" world. Simply, the people who should be getting killed by competition with other humans are sticking around to have kids. Ands that's why I belive were here to stay, at least for a while.

And about the religious view of our coming into being: We are either a random act or an experiment by a god.
It's very possible that we are a random act of chemistry. There seems to be nothing else like the life on this Earth for many, many light-years. We may just be EXTREMELY lucky to be here at all. There are SO many factors in our existence that we may be the only things around.
It is also possible that we are a god's experiment. Not saying "Christianity" or any other religion, but maybe there's this omnipotent being that wanted to see what would happen under certain circumstances. Like a Q. Well, actually this whole god experiment idea sounds very unlikely, now that I write it down.
Oh well, that's it for now.

Jeez, my most thoughtful post yet.
Please don't shoot it all down.
Then I'll have to quesiton my entire existence.
Again.

-Homsar

[the happy prole]

WileE,

You are absolutely right when it comes to traditional Christianity.
The weak logical link is the Bible and the word of God that is laid down and cannot be changed. That means you have to to take stuff on faith, and ignore your perceptual evidence to the contrary.

And let me note here that this is how I, as generally a man of science, perceive things. So I'll just give up certain points. I am not good at Philosophy of Religion but Bluelupis could give your more insight.

So what I am proposing is a new sort of religion. One that includes the some of the basic precepts of science. Namely that the explanation provided must be verifiable, and that the specifics of the religion could very well be wrong.

I'm not saying science is wrong, or that religion is better than science. Science seems to explain all that happened, as far as I know. And it gives me the ability to predict what might happen in the future, and that gives me the security I need. Therefore, there's no reason to toss it out.

But at the same time, I can see how a completely different approach that postulates an ordered system handed down from God could provide me with the exact same things.

Why does it rain? Because God is crying. Well how do we know when God is crying? Because the sky turns black. Why does the sky turn black? Because God hanging his head causes a shadow.

The next time I see the sky turn black, I will then assume it's because of God hanging his head and I will predict rain because God is about to cry. And sure enough it will likely happen. My theory has thus been "proven" by verifiable evidence, just like science. Now, if the sky turns black and it doesn't rain, I will just say "God hung his head but he wasn't sad enough to cry."

I know that is really basic but hopefully that gives you an idea.

Let me try a couple of other takes:

What is an isobar? If I said it was "3476 God Sadness points" instead of "1000 isobars" would it be any less predictive?

The only way to prove science is with "scientific evidence." So really science has already defined its own language and methodology within the paradigm. It's circular. Only evidence that is acceptable to science can be used. So how will we ever overthrow science if we immediately dismiss anything that doesn't agree with the paradigm?

You and I had a discussion on Black Holes. But you've probably never seen one personally. You've read some articles on them, but be honest-- you probably didn't understand them completely because they were filled with technical gobbledy-gook. Didn't Einstein once say that there were thousands who could follow the relativity equations on paper as a mathematical exercise, but maybe only a few people who really understood the implications?

Do you have a Hubble telescope handy? No. Yet you're accepting that the Hubble telescope images are real. Who can challenge the telescope images? Probably only someone else with a super-cool telescope that you also don't have. In other words, only a scientist can challenge another scientist. You and I are left on the sidelines. Kind of like how only another respected member of the church could challenge another in the old days. I don't believe that there actually is a scientific conspiracy afoot, but the fact that it could happen and we wouldn't know is enough to puncture a lot of our views of science. Hawking and maybe 50 theoretical physicists could get together and lie their asses off and the rest of us would still believe them.

Remember that black mark or smudge you were talking about? That's the stuff science at present can't explain. But we will wait until science can. And we'll even let science revise it's present theories if it needs to. But we won't let religious folk get away with "God works in mysterious ways" and we certainly won't allow a reinterpretation of the Bible. Science is allowed to have a smudge, religion isn't. And of course that is because of the way religions have presented traditionally. But it doesn't have to be that way.

[the happy prole]

oh, here's another bit to consider.

Duemellon postulated that there is some randomness involved in creation. Sure the odds of rolling a certain combination of 10 rolls (btw, check your math Due ;) ) is low. But the point is some combo was going to come up and not the others. Whatever combo we have is going to be considered "miraculous" because of the odds. But because every combo is equally miraculous any particular combo is actually quite mundane.

But what if that isn't true? In other words, it wasn't random luck that 2-4-6-6-3-5-4-1-2-4 came up. That combo is present because in fact EVERY combo is present. There is no randomness. Every single thing that could possibly occur already did.

You want to reconcile an omnipotent God and Freewill? Try this. You can do anything you want because you have in fact already done it and God has allowed it and accounted for it. Each and and every action that could possibly occur has already occured somewhere, sometime. Einstein once said "God does not roll dice." But maybe God does roll the bones. In fact, maybe all God does is roll dice all day long.

And what if this theory was supportable by good ol' modern-day Science?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
That combo is present because in fact EVERY combo is present.I'm not catchin what ur pitchin on that one. This is the sentence that isn't flowin right in my mind.Originally posted by Homsar
If evolution is true, then humans have pretty much finished evolving. Or at least have slowed considerably. Why? Because survival of the fittist is no longer as much of an issue as it once was.Ah, but we are evolvin, & that's the interestin bit. We'v taken evolution to a new turn.

Instead of waitin for the genomic dice to turn up 11s, we'r inventin!

Instead of growin flippers & a blowhole to traverse the waters, we invented wetsuits, submarines, and boats. Instead of thin membranes & hollow bones we came up with wings, jetpacks, and rockets. Instead of waitin for God or mother nature to let us find out what our new mutations r, we make up our own.

I sooooooooooo can't wait until the proteone project is done & we can start/w the intentional genetic experiments! DUDE I WANT TO FLY!

Howevr, I'm a bit concerned that BJK has stoppd talkin... I hope we didn't inundate him/w too much or somethin. BJK? oh.......... BJK?

[the happy prole]

It works like this. Suppose that space is flat and infinite.

We can only see a certain portion of this space. The portion that we see is called the Hubble Volume, but it's also what we think of as our universe.

The big bang occured 14 billion years ago, so light has only had 14 billion years to travel outward from the big bang center. Thus, if we were at the center of the universe, we can see 14 billion light years in all directions, but no further. (because info can't travel faster than light).

Suppose you were in a dark room and you shown a flashlight at the wall and saw some letters, like this:

xyz
abc

Now we can make varying levels of assumptions about the elements we are seeing and extrapoliting them to what we can't see. And we can actually start measuring stuff.

If we assume the first row is always some combo of x,y, and z and the second row is always a combo of a, b, and c, then we can calculate the number of permutations possible and determine when it's likely to repeat itself. And then we can actually obtain an estimate of how far away the nearest parallel universe is likely to be. If we allow you to double up on letters, or two have a's and b's in the first row, then there are more combinations possible. The nearest parallel universe will likely be farther away-- but it's still perfectly calculatable.

So the dude (Tegmark) wrote an article with math formulas and assumptions and said the nearest parallel universe will be X far away given assumptions 1,2,3 etc.

Now there are some obvious problems here. We don't know that x,y,z, a, b, and c are all the elements possible-- they're just all the ones we see. We don't know the rules for arrangement (what rows, spacing in the row, etc.). Dude maybe oversold it a bit to make it more interesting, though I'm sure if challenged he would admit the limitations. And the press kinda bungled it and made it seem like the assumptions were certainties.

But at the basic level what you have is this: if the universe is finite, but space is infinite then there is certainly another universe out there right now exactly the same as ours. In fact, every single possible arrangement of matter is accounted for and out there in the space somewhere.

To go back to your dice example. If we had an infinite number of dice rolls the odds of any ten roll combo occuring are in fact 1 to 1. It kinda adds another level to the dialog. Ignoring the hybrids there were two basic theories by tossed arround-- this adds a third.

Theory 1: We have evolved like this because of "intelligent design." God, or the biological and physical laws of the universe are such that it HAD to happen this way.

Theory 2 (aka Duemellon's theorem): We evolved like this because of chance. It's a zillion to one shot, sure, but this just happened to be the way the dice came out. Since EVERY combo is a zillion to one, there's nothing inherently special about this one. We could have had three arms, but we ended up with two.

Theory 3: There is no "chance." It's not that we could have had three arms. We do have three arms somewhere out there in a parallel universe. It's not a zillion to one shot, it's a one to one shot just like everything else. We are even less special than we thought.

[Homsar]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Ah, but we are evolvin, & that's the interestin bit. We'v taken evolution to a new turn.

Instead of waitin for the genomic dice to turn up 11s, we'r inventin!


I don't know about that. It seems to me that we are able to try to improve upon ourselves because we have already evolved enough brain power to remember things, research things, try things, and invent things. It just takes time to discover everything. The human physiology has been pretty much the same for thousands of years. I'm not sure if you, Due, are saying that 'evolving' is the same thing as 'inventing,' but I believe we invent because we've evolved. We seem to be able to take care of our current physiologies prety well, so why would we evolve any further? What advantage would new mutations bring that we don't already have? If humans evolved straight into omnipotent beings made of pure energy, then yes, that new mutation would help more than we can help ourselves. If not, then I see no reason why humans would evolve any more.

Naturally.

Due, you brought up the interesting point of how we will eventually be able to perform gene therapy and mutate ourselves on purpose! Imagine the possibilities! Sure, this may not be for many lifetimes from now, but it will happen. I mean wouldn't it be great if there were no birth defects? Less disease? Super soldiers?
HA! Just kidding about the super soldiers. But anyways, this happens to strengthen the argument that humans have pretty much finished their natural evolution.
Artificial evolution. Could there BE anything more controversial?
Wheeeeee!

And THP, if the theory you have informed us about is to be taken as true, the universe would have to be finite and space would have to be infinite. Is there any way to prove this? Even if we could, is there any chance we would ever see or go to a parallel universe? Extremely doubtful I think. And would anyone like to expound on the applications?
::crickets::
Also is the thing about space being infinite. Thinking about this makes me cry, for some reason, so I try not to think about what's beyond the End. I mean what could be?

-Homsar

[wileE]

Originally posted by Duemellon
sorry, even tho this ain't a discussion about religion it's slowly turnin into it & that statement isn't quite right...

U can't scientifically measure the faith someone has. It's conceptual even to that person! If somethin bad happens to a devout religious person, they'll blame it on their lack of faith (whether or not they believed, beforehand, they were completely faithful). Good things r due to their greater faith (or an attempt to increase their faith sent by God).

I don't think they blame it on faith though. When something bad happens to somebody who believes (has faith), they usually say that it is because God did it for a reason or has a plan for them. That child that fell from the 6th floor and lived was blessed by God. It wasn't things just happened to work out that the child lived. People want everything explained. Religion gives them that explenation. Science does as well, but science is very difficult to understand. If you have faith, religion explains everything much easier.

[markalot]

I don't know if this belongs in the conversation or not, but I thought of it based on what Due said about us evolving in different ways.

If a beaver builds a dam on a river it's natural. If a human builds a dam it isn't.

A beaver uses a dam to alter the river flow to make homes and catch fish. Humans may build a dam to help generate power, make more land available for farming (food), etc.

I've always found that interesting.

[wileE]

Dammit, you are making me think way too much. Ok, here goes...
Originally posted by the happy prole
WileE,
Why does it rain? Because God is crying. Well how do we know when God is crying? Because the sky turns black. Why does the sky turn black? Because God hanging his head causes a shadow.

The next time I see the sky turn black, I will then assume it's because of God hanging his head and I will predict rain because God is about to cry. And sure enough it will likely happen. My theory has thus been "proven" by verifiable evidence, just like science. Now, if the sky turns black and it doesn't rain, I will just say "God hung his head but he wasn't sad enough to cry."

How about this. My wife used to handle finances for those less fortunate and those with mental disabilities. When these people saw that all their money was gone, my wife was accused of using witchcraft to manipulate the numbers and make the money dissappear. She could show them 'evidence' of where their money went: rent, groceries, utilities, etc... But they didn't belive it.

Who is right? Science has given us evidence, most of which can be proven by ourselves as to why things happen, yet many don't belive it. Why? Is it because it is fake? Scientists made it up? Is it too hard to undersatnd?

Just to use your example. A storm is brewing. A plane flies up over the storm. It photographs clouds, measures the barometric pressure, humidty, and a bunch of other stuff. The data the plane collects shows that it will not rain because the humidty and barometric pressure aren't right. A Priest says it won't rain because God doesn't wish it so. Who would you believe?
Originally posted by the happy prole
Let me try a couple of other takes:

What is an isobar? If I said it was "3476 God Sadness points" instead of "1000 isobars" would it be any less predictive?
[/B]
No. You just changed the name. As long as it measures the same scientifically proven amount, that is fine.
Originally posted by the happy prole
The only way to prove science is with "scientific evidence." So really science has already defined its own language and methodology within the paradigm. It's circular. Only evidence that is acceptable to science can be used. So how will we ever overthrow science if we immediately dismiss anything that doesn't agree with the paradigm?
[/B]
Science is built on smaller proven theories. Each of those theories builds on one another. But science doesn't immediately dismiss everything. Creationism, in the fundamental sense, has been proven wrong (life has been around more than 6k years). Intelligent design, although not being widely supported, is falling from favor because there is no proof or evidence that it happened. Just because something is not currently explained doesn't mean a supreme being was involved. Go back a couple hundred years. Witches were accused of killing crops and poisening livestock. Now we know that is highly unlikely.
Originally posted by the happy prole
You and I had a discussion on Black Holes. But you've probably never seen one personally. You've read some articles on them, but be honest-- you probably didn't understand them completely because they were filled with technical gobbledy-gook. Didn't Einstein once say that there were thousands who could follow the relativity equations on paper as a mathematical exercise, but maybe only a few people who really understood the implications?
[/B]
Very true. I think astronomy has a long way to go. There are incorrect and wild theories trying to explain things. Just because they are not explained or proven doesn't mean God had a hand in them. It just means we haven't discovered how they happened.
Originally posted by the happy prole
Do you have a Hubble telescope handy? No. Yet you're accepting that the Hubble telescope images are real. Who can challenge the telescope images? Probably only someone else with a super-cool telescope that you also don't have. In other words, only a scientist can challenge another scientist. You and I are left on the sidelines. Kind of like how only another respected member of the church could challenge another in the old days. I don't believe that there actually is a scientific conspiracy afoot, but the fact that it could happen and we wouldn't know is enough to puncture a lot of our views of science. Hawking and maybe 50 theoretical physicists could get together and lie their asses off and the rest of us would still believe them.
[/B]
I don't accept the Hubble Images. They are known to be fake (false color images). A scientist that challanges another is not labeled a heretic and damned to hell. He is asked to back up his claims. Religion doesn't do that.
Originally posted by the happy prole
Remember that black mark or smudge you were talking about? That's the stuff science at present can't explain. But we will wait until science can. And we'll even let science revise it's present theories if it needs to. But we won't let religious folk get away with "God works in mysterious ways" and we certainly won't allow a reinterpretation of the Bible. Science is allowed to have a smudge, religion isn't. And of course that is because of the way religions have presented traditionally. But it doesn't have to be that way. [/B]
You are quite correct. But the Bible, Koran, and any other holy book is presented as FACT (it is the Holy Word). Spoken by God. Written by a person whom God spoke to. How can you change that? By definition it is true. Science is written by humans, proven/dismissed by humans, accepted by humans. Religion is science as it was back when the words were written. Science itself is a constantly growing, learning, changing belief.

[wileE]

Originally posted by Homsar


Also is the thing about space being infinite. Thinking about this makes me cry, for some reason, so I try not to think about what's beyond the End. I mean what could be?

-Homsar

That is a very difficult concept to grasp.

[the happy prole]

Well, theoretical physics postulates two likely states for space-time.

The first is that space is flat and boundless. Good news is that all of our traditional notions of space stay intact. Bad news is grasping the infinite.

The second is that space is curved and bounded. Good news is not having to deal with the infinite. Bad news is accepting that space has 10 dimensions, six of which you can't observe because they occupy a space so small you can't see them.

It's a head trip either way. Pick your poison.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by wileE
they usually say that it is because God did it for a reason or has a plan for them. the more progressiv versions of Christianity don't say God did it, but that God either:

(a) Allowed it to happen or;
(b) They brought it on themselves after lack of faith/obedience

God is not the author of pain, so if somethin painful happend it's either ur fault or the Devil's. I will, howevr, acknowledge the more traditional concept that God does indeed inflict pain to teach lessons after Jesus' comin, but felt the need to point out the distinct difference.

So...
If u want to measure the effect faith has on the outcome of a task u'r in a position tryin to measure the xperiment usin uncapturabl data. When things go wrong the subject is liabl to retroactively revise their levels of faith to accommodate the results.Originally posted by Homsar
human physiology has been pretty much the same for thousands of years. I'm not sure if you, Due, are saying that 'evolving' is the same thing as 'inventing,' but I believe we invent because we've evolved.I'm sayin the ability to invent is the beginnin of our new type of evolution. Instead of waitin for our physiology to change we r manipulatin our "physiology" intentionally to accommodate our desires.

When a hermit crab uses a previously used mollusk's shell, they r usin their instinct to change their "physiology". We accept that it's part of their programmin & consider it evolution. If one finds a conch shell or a bent bottlecap, it won't care.

Instead of grappin a shell we decided to wear other's animal skins. This allowed us to live in the harshlands of Europe durin the winter months. If we didn't decide to wear animal skins we'd'v had to wait until we re-evolved thick hair & different metabolisms, to survive. The skins became part of us, much like the hermit-crab shell, dropping coconuts, or letting birds clean us for parasites.

It's as Marl said:Originally posted by markalot
If a beaver builds a dam on a river it's natural. If a human builds a dam it isn't.Even tho that's a wrong perception. The dam is artificial when built by anything but b/c beavers built it & we don't believe them to hav the same capacity of invention as we hav, they do it by "instinct" or luck, while we do it thru somethin higher that evolutionary instinct...

Which I'm challengin that concept. It is instinct, evolution, & such.

[the happy prole]

See, I think the dam is natural no matter who builds it. You can't "defeat" evolution, or whatever.

We're all part of nature. . . don't make me bust out the Love and Rockets again.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
See, I think the dam is natural no matter who builds it. You can't "defeat" evolution, or whatever.

We're all part of nature. . . don't make me bust out the Love and Rockets again. nah, any & all dams r unnatural unless a rock falls from a mountaintop from a butterfly's wing flutter in Somalia on Tuesday.

[wileE]

Originally posted by the happy prole
See, I think the dam is natural no matter who builds it. You can't "defeat" evolution, or whatever.

We're all part of nature. . . don't make me bust out the Love and Rockets again.

Yep. They both serve a purpose. Pretty cool that a critter can build one, though. Animals can do pretty amazing things. Doesn't mean some supreme being caused it to happen, mateys! Animals have been shown to learn and use logic to accomplish something. Cats wont' hunt properly unless they are taught. I saw a show on Bauer(sp?) birds. This bird builds a little hall (no roof) out of twigs. Other, younger bauwer birds come to see how it is built. I saw a show about how Ravens learned how to pull up food that is suspended from a string.

I don't think we are that different from animals. They learn, use logic,care for their young, and want to survive.

After thinking about this thread all weekend, here is how I would sum up my thoughts:

Just because we can't currently explain something, doesn't mean divine intervention was resonsible.

[the happy prole]

Right on, wileE but it also doesn't mean divine intervention WASN'T responsbile. Just to clarify, I'm talking about Intelligent Design in general, not specifically Christian views of Intelligent Design.

If I said that the reason gravity and relativity don't seem to explain things properly is because God's Right Hand is the missing element, we'd be pretty quick to dismiss it. If it's God's Right Hand, we want to be able to see or feel it. We think, "How weak-- if we can't explain something you can always get away with saying it's God because it can't be disproven. Might as well say it's Santa Claus or anything stupid."

Like six dimensions packed into a space so small that it can't be observed (even in thoery)? Is that not equally stupid?

I'm not saying that everyone buys string theory because many do not. It hasn't been proven so we are rightly skeptical. But we (or at least the scientific community) are willing to strongly entertain string theory while we would scoff at the God's Right Hand theory.

It seems to me that the scientific community is more and more willing to let theoreticians get away with stuff that we would never let so-called "non-scientist" get away with. Science is allowed to guess at stuff. If it's wrong it can change it's story and we don't question the whole enterprise.

If a witness in a court case turned out to have lied or been mistaken once, wouldn't we start to question ALL of their statements? If sudddenly changed my mind about something I previously told you was fact, wouldn't you start getting skeptical about me? So why do we not do the same with scientists?

I'm not religious and doubt I will ever be, but this is something that I've been thinking about a lot recently. I still believe in science but I think in some ways science has overstepped its bounds. That's what I meant when I said that I think in some ways science has outlived it's usefulness.

[Homsar]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I'm sayin the ability to invent is the beginnin of our new type of evolution. Instead of waitin for our physiology to change we r manipulatin our "physiology" intentionally to accommodate our desires.

When a hermit crab uses a previously used mollusk's shell, they r usin their instinct to change their "physiology". We accept that it's part of their programmin & consider it evolution. If one finds a conch shell or a bent bottlecap, it won't care.

Instead of grappin a shell we decided to wear other's animal skins. This allowed us to live in the harshlands of Europe durin the winter months. If we didn't decide to wear animal skins we'd'v had to wait until we re-evolved thick hair & different metabolisms, to survive. The skins became part of us, much like the hermit-crab shell, dropping coconuts, or letting birds clean us for parasites.

But is instinct necessarily evolution in the making? How long ago did hermit crabs get the instinct to find new shells when they needed them, and how long have they done this? Is that instinct actually just the basic need for shelter? I don't think the hermit crabs are using their instinct to change their physiology; their brains don't have the capacity to improve upon themselves like that. Their finding shells is just part of their survival.
Humans have become different. Humans evolved intelligence, and that makes all the difference. If early humans just needed shelter, they would have used caves. When the first humans with sparse hairs came into being, they would have either died or tried to find warmer climates. Why would those sparse-hairs want to stay in Europe at all, if in fact they were already there? If the sparse-hairs hadn't evolved the brains to invent clothes, then they just couldn't have lived in cold climates.
I don't think the hermit crabs decided that grabbing shells would be a good idea. One or a few just happened to be born with that happened to use a shell for shelter/protection, and it worked out very well for them. Humans, on the other hand, did decide to make clothes. They did this because they had the intelligence. See any other warm-climate organisms wearing the skins of other animals to stay warm? No. That's why they stay where they are. The lack of higher intelligence limits them from inventing, adapting to every environment, getting a leg up on other species.

-Homsar

[Homsar]

Hell yeah about those ravens, WileE. Smarty-smart birds.
:)

[Crispin]

It's a head trip either way. Pick your poison.

What's even more depressing is the ending predicted for the universe. The previous prediction said the universe would possibly collapse in on itself causing another Big Bang.

But later revisions due to mass and energy measurements are postulating that the universe will expand infinitely. If this happens we'll experience what's called heat-death, where eventually there will be almost no energy left in the universe, and everything will end up in a cold dark void of -273 degrees Celsius.

If even newer estimates are to be believed, the universal expansion is accelerating and the heat-death will be a lonely one. Neighboring galaxies will have sped away so much their red shift and distance will take them completely out of our sight.

[Duemellon]

Homsar,
animals learn to do things from other animals, not necessarily their own species either.

Invention is not an exclusiv capability of humanity. Just as every other trait we attribute to being xclusiv to humanity. Sentience, tools, communication, learning, invention, abstract thought, etc. These r all traits that hav appeared in the lowly animal at some point. & there r/were humans, at some point, that were unabl to do one or more of those things.

So, our ability to invent is coupled/w other bits of that trait means we r no longr naturally evolvin physiologically, but now we chose where we want to evolve.

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Homsar,
animals learn to do things from other animals, not necessarily their own species either.


Very true. I had a friend some time ago who had a rabbit and a cat. They actually loved each other and would play with each other. And over time, she said, the cat started taking up on the rabbit's way of doing things. For example, when the bunny wanted to get into another room and the door was closed, it would scratch on the door until my friend would come and open it. After a while, the cat picked up on this and would do the same thing. It learned something by observation.



So, our ability to invent is coupled/w other bits of that trait means we r no longr naturally evolvin physiologically, but now we chose where we want to evolve.

Actually, from what I read, we are still evolving. As I said before, our average shoe and hat sizes are larger than they were only 100 years ago. Due to better nutrition and better access to food, our pysiques in general (not intending American obesity) are larger than they used to be. Take a look at any Victorian bed an' the first thing you'll notice is how short it is. I've heard the gene for wisdom teeth has been turned off in some kids being born today, thus ensuring they'll never have to have the fun of having this throwback of our hunter-gatherer days removed. God knows humans have a poorly-designed backbone. After all, we've only been walking upright for what, a few million years or so? You see very few quadupeds going to chiropractors. I imagine in time not only will our backbones get stronger and better adapted to upright walking, but our toes will evolve along with them (one theory holds our big toes will grow smaller and out little toes will grow bigger).

[wileE]

Originally posted by the happy prole
It seems to me that the scientific community is more and more willing to let theoreticians get away with stuff that we would never let so-called "non-scientist" get away with. Science is allowed to guess at stuff. If it's wrong it can change it's story and we don't question the whole enterprise.

If a witness in a court case turned out to have lied or been mistaken once, wouldn't we start to question ALL of their statements? If sudddenly changed my mind about something I previously told you was fact, wouldn't you start getting skeptical about me? So why do we not do the same with scientists?

I'm not religious and doubt I will ever be, but this is something that I've been thinking about a lot recently. I still believe in science but I think in some ways science has overstepped its bounds. That's what I meant when I said that I think in some ways science has outlived it's usefulness.
(forgot to put my thoughts in!)
I think the problem with science today is that all the easy stuff has been explained (gravity, light, basic physics). Scientists are now left with figuring out how the universe was created, making cold fusion, anit-gravity and whatnot. Since there is little known about that, lots of theories are made up. The once that are disproven are thrown away. The ones that have not been disproven gain prominence. Science is more trial and error than outright fact. Look at Edison. He had hundreds of failed experiments before he got a light bulb that worked.

Sure there are a lot of crackpot theories (string theory?), but those are just general ideas. As soon as they are disproven, they are forgotten and everybody moves on to the next theory. Science isn't trying to sell us these theories, they are trying to convince themselves.

Intelligent Design is a theory that has not been disproven. Nor has it been proven (lack of evidence is not proof).

[Duemellon]

Evolution of Man
Mankind is no longer evolving according to survival of the fittest, therefore, we r outside of the laws of evolution.

So the fact that u'r readin that the genes for no wisdom teeth r comin on strong is kind'v unimportant b/c it's not goin to b the criteria where we'll ever pick our mate. I'v known a few ppl who grow a 3rd set of teeth about when they'r 20-somethin. Is that our future? or still remnants of our past? or is it just completely unimportant to our survival?

See, that's the thing, now that we'v removd so many of our population from the endangered list they can pass on their shitty genes. Like my allergies & sinuses. I wasn't meant to live beyond 25 b/c my allergies r such that I'd'v sufferred from deafness, pneumonia, or just simply been unabl to fend for myself. However, now, given the opportunity, I'll create other super-allergic kids! YAY! & those bad genes may propogate to large numbers due to my popularity, or sex appeal, but not my ability to wrestle caribou down/w my hands.

There's Nothing New Under the SUn
WileE, well, I'll hav to disagree. The things u consider so "basic" that we already kno doesn't mean we'v learnd all the basic stuff yet. That's POV. The concept that ice floatd wasn't even known in Europe until the Renniasance. Gravity wasn't conceptualized until later. We hav many stupid-lil'-things we'r finally conceptualizin. I mean, velcro to flower-speakers, we got things that seem like "duhs" but we'r still just 'discoverin'.

So, the basic stuff is just as important for us to discover as it was back then. We especially can't b complacent & assume those ppl were completely right about what was goin on. Question EVERYTHING.

[the happy prole]

If you fly in a plane, are you outside the rules of physics?

Your specific example is kind of poor. You only have to live to be 14 to pass on your genes which is why bad eyesight and asthma were around even before modern medicine added years to our lives.

The more important error is your assumption of what genes are "bad." The ability to wrestle caribou confers no real advantage in our environment. So who says those genes are "bad?"

The person with correctable eyesight and asthma but understands not to stick their finger into an electric outlet or chug Drano is the person better fit for survival.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
If you fly in a plane, are you outside the rules of physics?

Your specific example is kind of poor. You only have to live to be 14 to pass on your genes which is why bad eyesight and asthma were around even before modern medicine added years to our lives.

The more important error is your assumption of what genes are "bad." The ability to wrestle caribou confers no real advantage in our environment. So who says those genes are "bad?"

The person with correctable eyesight and asthma but understands not to stick their finger into an electric outlet or chug Drano is the person better fit for survival. u'kno, sometimes u take my conceptual "metaphors" way to literal...

just sometimes right?

[wileE]

Originally posted by Duemellon
There's Nothing New Under the SUn
WileE, well, I'll hav to disagree. The things u consider so "basic" that we already kno doesn't mean we'v learnd all the basic stuff yet. That's POV. The concept that ice floatd wasn't even known in Europe until the Renniasance. Gravity wasn't conceptualized until later. We hav many stupid-lil'-things we'r finally conceptualizin. I mean, velcro to flower-speakers, we got things that seem like "duhs" but we'r still just 'discoverin'.

So, the basic stuff is just as important for us to discover as it was back then. We especially can't b complacent & assume those ppl were completely right about what was goin on. Question EVERYTHING. [/B]

I agree. But, I would believe an explanation like, 'these little hooky things get snagged on the fabric. When hundreds of these are put together, you get this neat connection that is strong, but can be pulled apart' over 'These hooks have a supernatural power that attracts them to the fabric and your mindwaves tell it when to let go.'

Science still questions the basic stuff (see how a penduluum is affected during a solar eclipse).

[markalot]

Originally posted by Duemellon
u'kno, sometimes u take my conceptual "metaphors" way to literal...

just sometimes right?

A lot of science fiction writers have had fun with the fact that we are evolving into intelligent physical misfits who will basicly need life support 24/7 just to survive. In the real world though stupid people tend to have more kids, so .....

[the happy prole]

Originally posted by Duemellon
u'kno, sometimes u take my conceptual "metaphors" way to literal...

just sometimes right?

Then write clearer. You've said several times now we are outside evolution.

You then gave an example that was clearly and deeply flawed, and therefore not illustrative of whatever point you were trying make.

So you wanna spell out what you're trying to say, or am I the ass for actually trying to a) read it and b) assuming you mean what you type?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
Then write clearer. You've said several times now we are outside evolution.

You then gave an example that was clearly and deeply flawed, and therefore not illustrative of whatever point you were trying make.

So you wanna spell out what you're trying to say, or am I the ass for actually trying to a) read it and b) assuming you mean what you type? wow "the ass"... who said that?

c'mon man, don't start gettin ugly on this. I just said u took my metaphoric stuff to literally. The idea is just to say that we'r preoccuppied/w characteristics that hav nothin to do/w survival.

Look man, to say that analogy is deeply flawed but still generally agreein/w what I'm sayin is a bit weird, k? k. It ain't that important of a discussion to start callin each other "ass" about.

[Homsar]

Originally posted by PeterABnny
Actually, from what I read, we are still evolving. As I said before, our average shoe and hat sizes are larger than they were only 100 years ago. Due to better nutrition and better access to food, our pysiques in general (not intending American obesity) are larger than they used to be....I've heard the gene for wisdom teeth has been turned off in some kids being born today....God knows humans have a poorly-designed backbone. After all, we've only been walking upright for what, a few million years or so? You see very few quadupeds going to chiropractors. I imagine in time not only will our backbones get stronger and better adapted to upright walking, but our toes will evolve along with them (one theory holds our big toes will grow smaller and out little toes will grow bigger).

Everything I have a problem with I left in bold.
That's right, everything.

1. You say we are evolving? Actually, you proved yourself wrong by saying "Due to better nutrition and better access to food." That's not evolution, that's just more knowledge, acquired in life and passed on.
2. Some kids being born with a gene that says, "no wisdom teeth for this dude" doesn't mean that the whole of the human population will eventually have the gene that says that. In fact it's very unlikely.
3. You don't see very many quadrapeds go to chiropractors because there are no chiropractors for quadrapeds! Besides, they can't tell anyone their backs hurt, can they? If they can't use their backs, they die.

The question one has to ask when deciding if one mutation will stick is: "Will this mutation make it more likely for people to reproduce?"
I assure you that in the vast, vast majority of Earth's population has no problem reproducing, no matter what they look like/can do.

Originally posted by Duemellon
So, our ability to invent is coupled/w other bits of that trait means we r no longr naturally evolvin physiologically, but now we chose where we want to evolve.

Your support is Due-ly noted.
:)

-Homsar

[the happy prole]

Relax Due,

I never called you an ass. Read my post. All I'm saying is, if I'm taking your post the wrong way, then how about spelling it out for me more clearly instead of assuming I'm hell-bent on misinterpreting you. If I miss the point, try it a elucidating it different way instead of just saying, "You missed my point." and leaving it at that.

MY point is, there's nothing in evolutionary theory that says a certain percentage of people have to die. There's nothing in the theory that says bad eyesight or quadraplegics are bad. EVERY gene has something to do with survival because every gene determines what we will become-- what our strengths and weaknesses are. And that's what survival is about.

If your genes survive, that gene is "fit." That's all there is to it. Our survival niche so far seems to be our brain power. When we use our brains to live longer or get rid of genetic mutations, we're still simply using the tools evolution has given us.

If the vast majority of the human population has no trouble reproducing, what of it? There's no rule in evolution that specifies a certain percent has to die. In many species a huge percent dies but they multiply in enough numbers that it doesn't matter. The fact that our population is growing simply means that we are (for now) a successful species. And far from the most successful if we go by numbers.

It's not that we've defeated the evolutionary process any more than we have defeated gravity. We just have a deeper understanding of nature and how we can make those rules work FOR us.

Do we CHOOSE how we evolve? Well, we definitely have more choice than other species but the bottom line is, we're still working within the framework of evolution and nature.

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by Homsar


Everything I have a problem with I left in bold.
That's right, everything.

1. You say we are evolving? Actually, you proved yourself wrong by saying "Due to better nutrition and better access to food." That's not evolution, that's just more knowledge, acquired in life and passed on.
2. Some kids being born with a gene that says, "no wisdom teeth for this dude" doesn't mean that the whole of the human population will eventually have the gene that says that. In fact it's very unlikely.
3. You don't see very many quadrapeds go to chiropractors because there are no chiropractors for quadrapeds! Besides, they can't tell anyone their backs hurt, can they? If they can't use their backs, they die.

The question one has to ask when deciding if one mutation will stick is: "Will this mutation make it more likely for people to reproduce?"
I assure you that in the vast, vast majority of Earth's population has no problem reproducing, no matter what they look like/can do.

-Homsar


Well, let me ask you this... Is evolution of a species designed to ensure its survival alone? Or is it designed to perfect a species to its environment? The way I read it, you and Due seem to hold that once a species reaches a point where its survival has been established (i.e., that it doesn't need to continually fight to stay alive), it stops evolving. Is that correct?

[markalot]

Originally posted by PeterABnny



Well, let me ask you this... Is evolution of a species designed to ensure its survival alone? Or is it designed to perfect a species to its environment? The way I read it, you and Due seem to hold that once a species reaches a point where its survival has been established (i.e., that it doesn't need to continually fight to stay alive), it stops evolving. Is that correct?

So is the question; does intelligence interfere with evolution? It seems to me that if evolution is responsible for our intelligence then whatever we do with that intelligence is also evolution.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by markalot
So is the question; does intelligence interfere with evolution? It seems to me that if evolution is responsible for our intelligence then whatever we do with that intelligence is also evolution. spoken like a true champ!!!!

err...

perhaps I should just say "word"

[the happy prole]

errrr. . . haven't me and Homsar and several others made this exact same point to you?

I'm totally confused. It seems to me you've been kind of the opposite point all along. How did you go from "we r outside of the laws of evolution" to agreeing with markalot?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
errrr. . . haven't me and Homsar and several others made this exact same point to you?

I'm totally confused. It seems to me you've been kind of the opposite point all along. How did you go from "we r outside of the laws of evolution" to agreeing with markalot? plz note what I said after you implied someone was an "ass" (no, not me, again, I said I didn't call you an ass). I basically said we were arguin about the same thing. I recognized it awhile ago, but just said u were poo-pooin my analogy.

I thought that was strange that u were poo-pooing my analogy but basically agreed to what I was saying. & when I said "Hey dude, u'r gettin too literal/w my metaphors, but we'r still agreein" u just kind'v missed that.

[the happy prole]

I'm not personally insulted by anything, nor am I insulting you. I don't know whether I agree with you or not because I don't understand what you're saying. I'm just asking for clarification is all.

I agree with this:

"It seems to me that if evolution is responsible for our intelligence then whatever we do with that intelligence is also evolution."

I disagree with this:

"we r outside of the laws of evolution"

You apparently don't see the contradiction in between those two statements, that I do. I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile the two.

[Duemellon]

The standard laws of evolution is that we base it on internal physiological differences (mutations) to determine who is innnately best suited for survival in the current environment.

We hav superceded that mandate by not only adaptin the natural world to fit ours (ie: like any beaver that makes a dam, or chimp that uses a rock) but we r actually changin our innate characteristics.

Our ability to invent (which I will not call intelligence) has taken more precendence than any of our physiological shortcoming to the degree that we no longer depend on those characteristics for survival. Now, the characteristics for survival r unrelated to the necessities of primative life. Thus we hav escaped evolution. We hav rewritten evolution as invention.

[the happy prole]

I'm done here.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by wileE
Science is built on smaller proven theories. Each of those theories builds on one another. But science doesn't immediately dismiss everything. Creationism, in the fundamental sense, has been proven wrong (life has been around more than 6k years). Intelligent design, although not being widely supported, is falling from favor because there is no proof or evidence that it happened. Just because something is not currently explained doesn't mean a supreme being was involved. Go back a couple hundred years. Witches were accused of killing crops and poisening livestock. Now we know that is highly unlikely.

I can’t find the quote off hand, however, there is an older quote that goes something like this and talks about theories: “As each member of the old avant garde die off, the new avant garde take control of what is factual.” It is quite ironic because there are a number of sources that keep saying that evolution isn’t really a theory… I find this quite interesting myself… it is sort of like that they don’t want it to be a theory and so they are going to make sure that no matter what the opposition is, they will crush it and force this ideology upon the masses. You can think of it a lot like when the medieval times met the renaissance times, but in reverse which 99.99% of people consider it an enlightening time, but forget that what it really was the lack of suppression done by the ‘leaders’ of that time. My point is, is that religion and gods and such have bothered people for all of their existence and those people with science brought the evolution concept to the table so that now they can reject all former beliefs in ghosts and goblins. The ‘proof’ evolution has is based upon bacteria and their resistant strains, not that I’m belittling this research, but it does go to the heart of the matter in that it doesn’t really prove anything because of the manner these experiments were done. Nor is there proof of animals evolving (i.e. a chimp evolving) because it takes too long of a time for humans to see this and we are in the McDonald’s society.

In other words, humans are far too meddlesome to ever see true biological evolution ever again. Let us see, what was that theory about again… oh yes, natural selection… hmmm… so, if I manipulate and fix the trajectory is that still evolution… CAN I GET A HELL NO FROM THE CONGREGATION. The whole concept behind evolution is that it was done without any poking or prodding to see which ‘roll’ would be the next ‘best roll.’

Obviously, some people want their own theories put out there.

Also… theories had to be proven which makes them proofs and if it happens every time then it may become a law. If science is built on smaller proven theories, then it is only because they had to start at some point so that they could explain things. The way you state it is an oversimplification. Smaller proven theories were/are the blueprints for science and really are not in its building plans at all. Laws are the foundation, crossbeams, and posts and the rest is the physical appearance of science.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I'm sayin the ability to invent is the beginnin of our new type of evolution. Instead of waitin for our physiology to change we r manipulatin our "physiology" intentionally to accommodate our desires.

It's as Marl said:Even tho that's a wrong perception. The dam is artificial when built by anything but b/c beavers built it & we don't believe them to hav the same capacity of invention as we hav, they do it by "instinct" or luck, while we do it thru somethin higher that evolutionary instinct...

Which I'm challengin that concept. It is instinct, evolution, & such.

this is what is frustrating, you just add whatever you want to the evolution theory. while science does constantly tweak their theories, they do not alter the main concept. evolution is based upon survival of the fittest which in turn becomes a genetic survival component. you said it yourself, humans are trying to manipulate their future to stay the dominant species. but also, you said it yourself, we are really sorta compelled to do so b/c of the continuation of the weaker genes. which goes back to another Richard Dawkins theory... the selfish gene theory. which is a complemenary theory to evolution... kinda like yours, except the selfish gene theory is not an accepted theory either b/c it is based upon ideas and not evidence... kinda like yours and religion... hmmmm...

Here is a quote from a source supporting evolution:
Given the abundant evidence supporting the theory of biological evolution, it is highly probable that evolution has occurred and is still occurring today. However, there remains speculation in regards to the specific evolutionary path of some species lines and the relative importance of the different natural processes responsible for their evolution.
Another Richard Dawkins quote (from The Blind Watchmaker):
I said physics is the study of simple things… physics appears to be a complicated subject… The object and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells… Nobody has yet invented the mathematics for describing the total structure and behavior of such an object (brain) as a physicist , or even one of his cells. This was where we came in.
Similarly, before Darwin people could have used Hume as an example (which most people do today unknowingly). Ironically, most of the people who "believe in evolution" use that same basis for their arguments today. And it is a poorly based decision. and i quote Hume now:
I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope someone comes up with a better one
but the problem is people just use Darwin's theory without going much further other than its definition. there's not much point in me discussing much else i guess.

other than that we are in the most unique position in the history of life on earth. 'we' are on the verge of manipulating our genes for 'better survival'. interestingly, when balances are tipped heavily in a direction 'nature' does tend to balance it out... whether it be the humans themselves that do the balancing remains to be seen.

[Homsar]

Well, I'm not sure if this discussion of evolution will get anywhere without people stating their basic beliefs about it and then discussing everyone's.
So I'll try.

1. First of all, I believe that evolution wasn't designed by a god or something, but rather evolution is a normal process for life here on Earth.

2. Organisms that evolve are:
A. More likely to survive. They can be more likely to survive if their just-evolved characteristic gives them an advantage in their world, either over other competing species, or over their own mortality. Basically, it makes it easier for the species to continue.
B. Less likely to survive. The just-evolved organism can be less likely to survive if the just-evolved characteristic gives them a disadvantage in their world, like things as serious as a shorter life-span, less strength, or worse eyesight.

3. That we know of, humans are the only species on Earth to ever evolve as far as we have, to the point that survival (under most of our circumstances) is not a problem. We do not have to be physically violent to compete with our species or any other species. We can (if we do not destroy ourselves) now see ourselves living, as a species, for as long as we wish.
Instead of our environment controlling us, we control the environment.

4. We are not the only species to develop some sort of intelligence. Monkeys use tools to help them eat. Wild dogs have social structures to help them hunt. Termites build huge dwellings millions of times their size to give them shelter. The thing is, humans have developed much, much more intelligence than any other species on Earth, and this makes all the difference. Once humans first evolved to have the brainpower we do now, our journey through evolution was almost complete. (I'm talking relative to billions of years here.) The only other step being the evolution into beings who have NO trouble whatsoever or surviving and reproducing. You see, we are close.
And this is where invention comes in. An organism can't invent until they can think abstractly. What would happen if I sharpened this stone? They say that necessity is the mother of invention. Well, if that's true, one would have to know what was needed in order to invent. As soon as humans developed enough intelligence to invent things, their lives became soooooo mush easier. Then, they could take out organisms many times their match in strength, shelter themselves, grow their own food, survive more easily.

5. Invention is a result of evolution, but it is not evolution itself. Evolution just has to do with the physical attributes or organisms, and yes, brains and their capacity fall under this discription. We can not do evolution, but we can do things because of evolution.

6. I have already said this throughout the thread, but I believe humans will not evolve naturally much more because we let those in our species with less-then-desirable traits to continue to reproduce. Why? Because we're not fighting for our lives any more. Well, we're not fighting against any other species for survival. This means that ALL the current human traits are being perpetuated, whether they help us or not.
The only evolution left for us is the direct alteration of our genes themselves. And we will do this in the near future.
So, Due is correct in saying we are outside evolution. It's just that we are outside natural evolution now. Natural evolution has done enough for us.

PHEW! I hope that spells out my ideas for people.

Oh wait! Must remind everyone: Organisms DO NOT EVOLVE TO FIT THEIR ENVIRONMENT! They evolve, and then they CHOOSE their environment, based on their new physiologies.

There, I think I covered everything. Any questions are still welcome!
:)
-Homsar

[the happy prole]

Okay, I lied. Because that was some quality posting bjk and Homsar.

Homsar, what you and Duemellon are getting at is that "evolution" as it is typically thought of by the public has been changed.

But as a matter of science, everything is evolution, including what we're doing. The scientific definition might be "the process by which certain genes continue through generations while others do not." "Survival" is simply the passing on of genes, it doesn't require us to procreate in the traditional sense.

The fact that we can alter our environment and genes doesn't trouble evolutionary theorists at all. It's the knowledge we've gained from studying evolution that allows us to accelerate the process faster than has been done in the past. We are in fact, working WITH evolution, not defeating it. Whether you consider that artificial or natural, or a shift from evolution (in the popularly held sense) to "invention" is somewhat unimportant.

I think we're all in agreement on the major principle that while we've shifted the rules in the larger sense we are a part of nature, so whatever we do is natural-- like markalot said.. I thought Duemellon was going for something else there, but I think he just wanted to use certain words to emphasize that shift that's occurred.

Homsar, where I disagree with you is that when you talk about "undesirable traits." The idea of "undesirable" is a human construct based on our moral and cultural values. To science, anything that gets passed on can't be deemed "undesirable." Presently useless maybe, but not undesirable.

bjk, you are getting into Philosophy of Science a bit there. That's what prompted my posts to which WileE ended up responding with some decent posts. If you haven't read Feyerabend, you might want to check him out.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by bjk15
this is what is frustrating, you just add whatever you want to the evolution theory. while science does constantly tweak their theories, they do not alter the main concept. evolution is based upon survival of the fittest which in turn becomes a genetic survival componentbut the complexity of the theory spawns from it's simplicity in that...

our innovative way is the result of our genetic traits. Therefore, it is evolution. What we do/w that evolutionary advantage is the same difference between the chimp that uses a rock or a bone to do his work. It's still evolution drivin the ability of innovation.

[the happy prole]

If we changed that to:

our innovative way is the result of God's gifts. Therefore it is God. What we do w/ God's gift is the same difference between the chimp that uses a rock or a bone to do his work. It's still God drivin the ability of innovation.

is that less explanatory or less accurate? Why?

Just tossing that out there.

[Crispin]

our innovative way is the result of God's gifts. Therefore it is God. What we do w/ God's gift is the same difference between the chimp that uses a rock or a bone to do his work. It's still God drivin the ability of innovation.

From a semantic viewpoint I would say it's less accurate because it personifies a natural process. It applies a self-aware tangible persona to something that already has a clear cause and effect framework in place. We've already learned to understand and in turn manipulate so many natural processes that to give it a divine explanation would mean it's something we can never understand.

From a personal standpoint I would say it's inaccurate because it calls up an image of an invisible man wishing ideas into people's heads.

[the happy prole]

Gotta hand it to you, that's a pretty kick-ass response.

I guess the counter would be why is it less accurate because it personifies a natural response? The accuracy should be measured by it's predictive capabilites. Not whether or not the story seems whacky.

We've used math and science thus far and it's worked well for us. But there are still things that we can't explain. We're willing to continue to plug away though. We've never come to the point where we said it's just something we can't understand.

In the same vein, believing in Intelligent Design doesn't require us to succomb to the fact that we'll never understand something. At it's base, Intelligent Design postulates and orderly plan for the universe. Maybe if we work hard we can divine God's will eventually.

Science is just as dependent upon there being some order to the system. And the belief that we can discover the rules if we work at it.

And really, the idea that an invisible man is causing thoughts in our head isn't any more far-fetched than the idea that some equations on paper are causing them.

[Homsar]

Originally posted by the happy prole
our innovative way is the result of God's gifts. Therefore it is God. What we do w/ God's gift is the same difference between the chimp that uses a rock or a bone to do his work. It's still God drivin the ability of innovation.

Some would ask, "But where's the proof?"
Here's another question: What happens when one attributes something to God, believes this for a time, and then finds out it's actually explainable in scientific terms? Does one just say, "Oh, well there are still plenty of things that we can attribute to God," or, "Well that just shows how he's behind everything?" I think that if one wants to belive that God is behind some things, then go right on ahead.
Just don't force your beliefs on me.
;)

As to which traits are "undesirable," I would say that trait which apply to appearance would be subject to an individual values and beliefs. However, it is natural for people to desire those traits in others which would make them more likely to survive in a challenging environment, such as intelligence or strength. It was true way back when these things actually mattered, and parts of it remain today. Why would one not want to set his or her sights on the best possible mate? I mean, all you would get would be kids that would potentially be more desirable mates. And that's what Homo sapiens is all about, isn't it?
I said "when these things actually mattered" to say that, in resent times, even those with traits uncondusive to survival in a challenging environment can still reproduce. How many people does one see a day that would have no chance of survival if dropped in the middle of nowhere, due to physical or mental limitations?
That's it for now.

-Homsar

[Crispin]

I guess the counter would be why is it less accurate because it personifies a natural response? The accuracy should be measured by it's predictive capabilites. Not whether or not the story seems whacky.

But according to the Bible and most fundamental Christians, we can never be equal to God. If God is behind the processes we ultimately learn to manipulate, doesn't that mean we're coming closer to sitting next to him on his grand throne? If we equate scientific theories and laws to God's will, wouldn't we be logically declaring our godhood? Probably not a popular idea in most churches (or mosques or synagogues) for that matter.

Which makes me start to wonder about the whole "godliness through faith" idea and whether the idea now should be "godliness through science". Sounds like those monks trying to transcribe the 9 billion names of god may have been on to something.

And really, the idea that an invisible man is causing thoughts in our head isn't any more far-fetched than the idea that some equations on paper are causing them.

Except the equations on paper don't cause the process, they're merely a model for us to predict future behavior. Just like our thoughts are caused by electro-chemical sparks between neurons... at least as far as we understand.

An invisible man? Naw. An invisible being we can't comprehend? Well I can't rule that out: Our muscle cells aren't aware of why they're being used to pick up a glass so we can drink. Our platelets aren't aware of why they need to rush to clot a cut. I hate to say it but sometimes I envision each person may be the equivalent of a blood cell in some planet spanning organism that has its own agenda. And we may be as ignorant of that agenda as my blood cells are of mine.

[Homsar]

I just noticed that my teeth's cells can't think.
If they could, they'd beat me up.
We can think, though.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Homsar
I just noticed that my teeth's cells can't think.
If they could, they'd beat me up.
We can think, though. define sentience...

define what makes human special...

& remembr, u hav to include every human that ever livd, or is considerd human in that definition...

& ur teeth cells r suddently sentient.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by Homsar
Oh wait! Must remind everyone: Organisms DO NOT EVOLVE TO FIT THEIR ENVIRONMENT! They evolve, and then they CHOOSE their environment, based on their new physiologies.
thought i'd remind you that this does not make sense in any compacity. i'll give a couple of ascending examples. but, i consider all of these examples adaptation so here they are.

1. a gazelle is in the field after their herd has just moved and starts to eat...

ok, for survival, would the gazelle just start sprinting for no good reason... no, of course not, it would only sprint if they smelled a predator or saw one.

2. another example, would be a chameleon. lets say that it was originally only green and could change to brown. ok, if its in a dense jungle and there were no human interference, then why would attempt to change to different colors when they already were able to go camo 99.9% of the time... the reason, because the environment changed... if they were already so 'covered', then why would they seek a new environment... it sure isn't because their predators were able to see them only in a green or brown environment.

3. finally, bacteria was never resistant to penicillin before it was widely being used as an antibiotic... why, because it never had to be to survive, now a lot of strains do... or should i say did because some of them are no longer resistant to them in some bodies because those individuals are on 3rd and 4th generations of penicillin. again, bacteria do not choose their hosts, its not as if bacteria seek out humans that can't resist them.

so, no life would not alter their 'makeup' so that they may be more suitable in a new environment... the environment changes constantly (check that with geology) and so that demands adaptation to that. not the other way around.

[Phreon]

I've always been perplexed by Creation/Intelligent Design believer's capacity to neuter their all powerful diety with their lack of imagination.

God is all powerful, but he couldn't have made the universe in an astoundingly, if not perversely complex fashion. He just snapped his fingers and made some dudes out of clay. Why? Because they can't imagine it being that complex. That's their arguement in a nutshell.

Why can't it be that their infinite god made them an infinite universe full of infinite possibilites for them to discover? So the odds are just too great for us to appear the way we did? Why? Why is that a problem for an omnipotent being?

Just look at chaos theory. Even in the most seemingly random events, at some level, a pattern always emerges. Just look at the similarities between a puff of smoke, a fractal, a tree leaf and clusters of stars!

If you throw out Darwin, then you throw out all the supporting chemistry, geology, biology and physics that enable you to tune your XM radio while you drive to CVS for your antibiotic prescription, on a road lit by electricity produced by a nuclear power plant.

Darwin's theory is supported by the same concepts that drive our entire civilization. If you throw out radio carbon dating because it refutes the claim that Earth is only 6000 years old, then nuclear subs are all fake, specter of the cold war was a myth and Hiroshima never happened. And your car is a fantasy because there is no fossil record or oil in the ground.


Phreon

[the happy prole]

Yeah, man. Good point.

Toss out the traditional notions of the bible and Christianity, and Intelligent Design can be argued intelligently.

The fact that there are observable patterns to the way things act.
The fact that we still don't understand things. The fact that even our inventions must obey the rules of nature and physics. All that stuff argues FOR Intelligent Design.

We're not defeating God at all. We're just getting better at following His rules. And lots of Christian Scientists and philosphers are making this point, you just don't hear about it.

Why not say, well we thought the bible described the world's creation literally. But now we're wrong. Maybe it's more metaphorical. Or maybe the bible isn't God's word but that doesn't mean God's words don't exist.

If we allow religion to revise some of its tenets the same way we've allowed science to do, we'd come up with something that works pretty well at describing the world.

[Duemellon]

If the Bible says that God is perfect & only creates perfection than God could not hav designed reality.

If the Bible says anything other than that, then the Christian relgion crumbles.

If u say that we kno God, the God of Christ, the God of the 10 Commandments, the God that this nation was founded on... if u say that we kno that god from any other source than the Bible, u'r separating the derivation from source.

The God we'r talkin about is from the Bible.

The Bible says God is perfect.

God can't make imperfection.

We are, therefore, perfect, without need of evolution or mutation. Devoid of errors or unnecessary extras.

Take out the Bible from the argument of God & u have no God.

[wileE]

Originally posted by the happy prole
Yeah, man. Good point.

Toss out the traditional notions of the bible and Christianity, and Intelligent Design can be argued intelligently.

The fact that there are observable patterns to the way things act.
The fact that we still don't understand things. The fact that even our inventions must obey the rules of nature and physics. All that stuff argues FOR Intelligent Design.

Just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean God is involved. It just means we don't understand it yet. Science has made huge leaps in the last 50 years. Things thought impossible 50 years ago are taken for granted today. An Arthur C. Clarke quote springs to mind, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' So you are saying God put the rules of nature in place?
Originally posted by the happy prole

We're not defeating God at all. We're just getting better at following His rules. And lots of Christian Scientists and philosphers are making this point, you just don't hear about it.

Why not say, well we thought the bible described the world's creation literally. But now we're wrong. Maybe it's more metaphorical. Or maybe the bible isn't God's word but that doesn't mean God's words don't exist.

If we allow religion to revise some of its tenets the same way we've allowed science to do, we'd come up with something that works pretty well at describing the world.
Then religion/God's word will never be wrong. Or proven. If you can constantly say, 'Oh, that's not what the Bible meant. It meant this.' you are not really accomplishing anything. Science changes its tenets because we are constantly learning and proving why things are the way they are. Religion changes its tenets so it doesn't look so unbelievable.

When Science changes its beliefs and when Religion changes its beliefs are two completely different things. Science changes because it is constantly improving and learning. Religion changes because teachings are found to be wrong or outdated. Religion must change to keep up with science and not look foolish (like proposing the Earth is 6000 yrs old).

[The Schnoo]

Now, I dunno about all this god talk or whatever.. But, if no one else posted it in all these pages then I'd like to throw in that evolution is in action right now, as we speak:

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/040913-20.html

I give you the creepy mountain children of tibet that can totally breathe better than your ass.

Also, evolution is the truth, I dunno if this whole argument going on is that people don't believe in it, but if you don't, you're just ridiculous, pure and simple. Look around you, look at things in this world, how they adapt, how species have changed over a couple hundred years, even slight changes (i.e. the growing of new extremities, difference in birthing, natural coloring, etc.) is not just adaptation, it's more than that because it's physical, that is evolution.

But I'm not in this argument, cause I probably just said some shit some other people damn said, I just wanted you to read about creepy mountain kids!

-The Schnoo

[PeterABnny]

Maybe this whole conversation about God and evolution is pointless, 'cause we're all in a little jar on some being's shelf. I mean, how could we know for sure, any more than ants in their ant farm case? Damn you, Descarts!!


:D

[Homsar]

Oh shnikees, here we go. More discussion.
Perhaps we have not typed clearly enough.

Originally posted by bjk15
thought i'd remind you that this does not make sense in any compacity. i'll give a couple of ascending examples. but, i consider all of these examples adaptation so here they are.

1. a gazelle is in the field after their herd has just moved and starts to eat...

ok, for survival, would the gazelle just start sprinting for no good reason... no, of course not, it would only sprint if they smelled a predator or saw one.

2. another example, would be a chameleon. lets say that it was originally only green and could change to brown. ok, if its in a dense jungle and there were no human interference, then why would attempt to change to different colors when they already were able to go camo 99.9% of the time... the reason, because the environment changed... if they were already so 'covered', then why would they seek a new environment... it sure isn't because their predators were able to see them only in a green or brown environment.

3. finally, bacteria was never resistant to penicillin before it was widely being used as an antibiotic... why, because it never had to be to survive, now a lot of strains do... or should i say did because some of them are no longer resistant to them in some bodies because those individuals are on 3rd and 4th generations of penicillin. again, bacteria do not choose their hosts, its not as if bacteria seek out humans that can't resist them.

so, no life would not alter their 'makeup' so that they may be more suitable in a new environment... the environment changes constantly (check that with geology) and so that demands adaptation to that. not the other way around.

I'm hesitant to respond. I think that you're not getting what I'm saying, but I'm not sure, as your words make little sense and I have to fill in the gaps sometimes. Misunderstanding isn't good when you're not face-to-face.
But I'll try.

Your example #1: What the hell does this have to do with adaptation or evolution??? A gazelle doesn't have to adapt when there's no change in its environment. So the herd moves...........so what? Same environment, predator or no. I'll say it again: I'm not absolutely sure about what you're getting at.

Your example #2: Why would a chameleon move from it's nice brown and green environment? Because it happened to evolve the ability to change into more than 2 colors. It could move to a different environment and survive. It moved, found it could survive, and stayed. That's really all there is to that "example of adaptation."

Your example #3: Besides the headache-inducing bad grammer, there's the fact that bacteria are always popping up in new strains. They do now, but they also did BEFORE we used penicillin. We just never had to notice it. The bacteria did not adapt to the penicillin, they just happened to evolve into strains that are resistant to penicillin. They can evolve like this because they reproduce so rapidly. You see it in fruit flies do it too.


Originally posted by bjk15
so, no life would not alter their 'makeup' so that they may be more suitable in a new environment... the environment changes constantly (check that with geology) and so that demands adaptation to that. not the other way around.

Um.................that's what I've been saying the whole time. But imitation is flattery, so thanks.

This may have all been unnecessary, but I couldn't understand most of the post enough to tell.

Props, Schnoomeister, for that prime example of natural selection! 1 billion evolution points!

That is all. Hopefully.

-Homsar

[bjk15]

your hesitation is due to the fact that you do not really know. nor have you typed clearly enough because you don't really know what you are talking about and your ideas hold no water... and i'm sorry to do this, but the concepts you have were formed by the high school teacher and/or freshman biology and/or chemistry professor in college... that just isn't enough, when you get through some molecular, cell, and micro-biology combined with a little biochem (and yes smartasses i've had all of them) then maybe you can talk a little more and stop being just a smartass.

1. this topic is about evolution... aka natural selection... aka survival of the fittest (or most capable if you will)... if you don't still understand this, then i'm sorry.

2. wtf, you're missing the point completely, and you are not agreeing with me at all, nor am i imitating you because if you do believe in evolution or adaptation the thing is that the successful ones are successful because they evolved/adapted because they had to for their survival, not because they could (hello? backing an animal into a corner... even the most docile animals would be willing to fight back at this point). in other words, the chameleon wasn't backed into its corner until its environment changed. what you are trying to convey does not make sense at all no matter how bad one's grammar might be.

3. aah, its becoming clear now... the fruit fly experiment in biology II in high school... i remember it well. but the thing is, bacteria weren't resistant to penicillin before it came about, yet penicillin had been around before... so why hadn't bacteria adapted beforehand... answer.... it can't... the survival of the 'most capable' does not waste their efforts beforehand, only at the most ripe moment will they 'adapt'.
the grammar... i'm sorry, but i didn't realize you were turning this in for extra credit so next time i'll be sure to use MS Word and make sure my punctuations and sentence structure are correct.

imitation?!? i'm the mother f'er who started this thread get off yer self. sorry, but you had it coming to ya.

[Homsar]

Sorry, I didn't know that an organism could change its physiology just by wanting to. That would need to happen for what you say to be true.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by Homsar
Sorry, I didn't know that an organism could change its physiology just by wanting to. That would need to happen for what you say to be true.
man... you just don't get it. you are trying hard to believe what you want and then oversimplifying an idea you don't want to believe. they don't change because they want to. they change because during the environmental change a lot of the 'less capable' ones don't survive, while conversely the 'most capable' survive and further procreate to advance their species. and if there are no 'capable' ones, then they become extinct. that part is that simple. if you really want to know several books you could read on varying opinions on evolution, then you could pm me or you could major, minor in it whatever.

[the happy prole]

Organisms adapt to their environment whether it stays constant or not. The idea is just that you have to survive.

If the environment stays constant, then organisms will continually evolve and adapt to get better and better at surviving in that environment. Perfection is never achieved but at some point, the evolution becomes very slow and the changes very subtle because you've just about mastered your environment.

It's pretty simple really. If the Earth stayed a constant 75 degrees some people would still be better able to survive at 75 degrees than others. Kids born missing limbs, blind or deaf are going to have problems. On a lesser level, people with too much hair or too much fat or overly sensitive to sun will reproduce at a slight lower rate. Their bodies are working a bit extra hard to keep them cool and if that gets coupled with a slight weak ticker, you're gone. Or the sun cancer gets you.

In order for evolution to occur, all you need is variation within a species in a manner that affects survival rate.

Evolution goes on whether the species differentiates, moves into a new environment, or just masters its current environment.
Look at fish. Sharks have changed size and adapted from their Devonian or whatever counterparts but they're still largely in the same environment, doing what they've always done. On the other hand some shark developed bones and turned into bony fish. Some bony fish developed leg-like flippers and crawled into land, and then eventually turned into humans.

In the end, it's somewhat chicken or the egg. Species are always changing and the enviroment is always changing so it doesn't matter which one drives the other. Both factors are always present.

[wileE]

Why are you up thinking about this? Go to bed.

[postfeminist]

wow.
i can't believe i just read most of this.

i'm feeling more committed to evolution than ever.

[markalot]

Organisms adapt to their environment whether it stays constant or not. The idea is just that you have to survive.

I don't think that's true most of the time.

Successful organisms can adapt to their environment, but most can't. The Panda is a good example; they can only eat bamboo and won't eat anything else. A very stupid but adorable creature that should not be successful.

[the happy prole]

Good point. Sometimes an organism fails to adapt to the environment in which case it dies out.

Not all species are successful, whether the environment changes or no. Didn't mean to imply anything different.