AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Shades of Stephan Jay Gould. How chance mutations, against the odds, advance evolution:-"Tracing these alternative evolutionary paths, the researchers discovered that the protein - the cellular receptor for the stress hormone cortisol - could not have evolved its modern-day function unless two extremely unlikely mutations happened to evolve first. These "permissive" mutations had no effect on the protein's function, but without them the protein could not tolerate the later mutations that caused it to evolve its sensitivity to cortisol. In screening thousands of alternative histories, the researchers found no alternative permissive mutations that could have allowed the protein's modern-day form to evolve. The researchers describe their findings June 16, online in Nature.-"Thornton and Harms tested many thousands of variants but found none that restored the function of GR other than the historical mutations that occurred in actuality. "Among the huge numbers of alternate possible histories, there were no other permissive mutations that could have opened an evolutionary path to the modern-day GR," Thornton said.
 
"By studying the effects of mutations on the ancient protein's physical architecture, Harms and Thornton also showed why permissive mutations are so rare. To exert a permissive effect, a mutation had to stabilize a specific portion of the protein - the same part destabilized by the function-switching mutations - without stabilizing other regions or otherwise disrupting the structure. Very few mutations, they showed, can satisfy all these narrow constraints."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140618220554.htm-And fits my idea of pre-planning

4893 views

Shades of Stephan Jay Gould. How chance mutations, against the odds, advance evolution:
"These "permissive" mutations had no effect on the protein's function, but without them the protein could not tolerate the later mutations that caused it to evolve its sensitivity to cortisol. In screening thousands of alternative histories, the researchers found no alternative permissive mutations that could have allowed the protein's modern-day form to evolve. The researchers describe their findings June 16, online in Nature.
> 
> "Thornton and Harms tested many thousands of variants but found none that restored the function of GR other than the historical mutations that occurred in actuality. "Among the huge numbers of alternate possible histories, there were no other permissive mutations that could have opened an evolutionary path to the modern-day GR," Thornton said.
> -
So, not one single other possible solution that could work, and nature somehow 'stumbled' upon the only one that could, not once, not twice, but three times in order to come up with a meaningful change.-That has 'purposeful intent' written all over it. Something done in a specific way for a specific purpose, in this case, cortisol sensitivity.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4924 views


> Tony: So, not one single other possible solution that could work, and nature somehow 'stumbled' upon the only one that could, not once, not twice, but three times in order to come up with a meaningful change.
> 
> That has 'purposeful intent' written all over it. Something done in a specific way for a specific purpose, in this case, cortisol sensitivity.-Exactly my point in presenting the article. The odds for the appearance of humans from a chance-type of evolution (Darwin-style) are vanishingly small.

4933 views

DAVID: Shades of Stephan Jay Gould. How chance mutations, against the odds, advance evolution:-"Tracing these alternative evolutionary paths, the researchers discovered that the protein - the cellular receptor for the stress hormone cortisol - could not have evolved its modern-day function unless two extremely unlikely mutations happened to evolve first. These "permissive" mutations had no effect on the protein's function, but without them the protein could not tolerate the later mutations that caused it to evolve its sensitivity to cortisol. [...] "Thornton and Harms tested many thousands of variants but found none that restored the function of GR other than the historical mutations that occurred in actuality. "Among the huge numbers of alternate possible histories, there were no other permissive mutations that could have opened an evolutionary path to the modern-day GR," Thornton said.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140618220554.htm-And fits my idea of pre-planning-TONY: So, not one single other possible solution that could work, and nature somehow 'stumbled' upon the only one that could, not once, not twice, but three times in order to come up with a meaningful change.
That has 'purposeful intent' written all over it. Something done in a specific way for a specific purpose, in this case, cortisol sensitivity.-You may both be right (says the agnostic), but you have conveniently ignored the conclusion to this article:-"It's very exciting to have been able to directly study alternative ancient histories," Thornton said. "If evolutionary history could be relaunched from ancestral starting points, we would almost certainly end up with a radically different biology from the one we have now. Unpredictable genetic events are constantly opening paths to some evolutionary outcomes and closing the paths to others, all within the biochemical systems of our cells."-You take this to indicate purpose, because your starting point is an anthropocentric view of evolution, which ... just like the theory of abiogenesis ... is pure speculation. It is just as easy to take the above as meaning that "unpredictable" chance, not purpose, has dictated the biology we have now.

4963 views

dhw: You may both be right (says the agnostic), but you have conveniently ignored the conclusion to this article:
> 
> "It's very exciting to have been able to directly study alternative ancient histories," Thornton said. "If evolutionary history could be relaunched from ancestral starting points, we would almost certainly end up with a radically different biology from the one we have now. Unpredictable genetic events are constantly opening paths to some evolutionary outcomes and closing the paths to others, all within the biochemical systems of our cells."
> 
> You take this to indicate purpose, because your starting point is an anthropocentric view of evolution, which ... just like the theory of abiogenesis ... is pure speculation. It is just as easy to take the above as meaning that "unpredictable" chance, not purpose, has dictated the biology we have now.-You are simply accepting his opinion about the rudderless appearance of evolution. That is the materialist viewpoint, no more valid than ours.

4917 views

DHW: You may both be right (says the agnostic), but you have conveniently ignored the conclusion to this article:
> 
> "It's very exciting to have been able to directly study alternative ancient histories," Thornton said. "If evolutionary history could be relaunched from ancestral starting points, we would almost certainly end up with a radically different biology from the one we have now. Unpredictable genetic events are constantly opening paths to some evolutionary outcomes and closing the paths to others, all within the biochemical systems of our cells."
> 
> You take this to indicate purpose, because your starting point is an anthropocentric view of evolution, which ... just like the theory of abiogenesis ... is pure speculation. It is just as easy to take the above as meaning that "unpredictable" chance, not purpose, has dictated the biology we have now.-This is a typical statement of evolutionary faith, nothing more. "All of the evidence says it was not random, but I am going to believe that it was because it is easier than the alternative."-DHW, let me ask you a simple question: -What evidence is there for randomness in evolution?-I'm not asking if evolution is true or false, or the role of natural selection or anything else. I simply want to know what the evidence is for the assumption that the process is founded in random chance.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4995 views

DHW: You may both be right (says the agnostic), but you have conveniently ignored the conclusion to this article:
> > 
> > "It's very exciting to have been able to directly study alternative ancient histories," Thornton said. "If evolutionary history could be relaunched from ancestral starting points, we would almost certainly end up with a radically different biology from the one we have now. Unpredictable genetic events are constantly opening paths to some evolutionary outcomes and closing the paths to others, all within the biochemical systems of our cells."
> > 
> > You take this to indicate purpose, because your starting point is an anthropocentric view of evolution, which ... just like the theory of abiogenesis ... is pure speculation. It is just as easy to take the above as meaning that "unpredictable" chance, not purpose, has dictated the biology we have now.
> 
> This is a typical statement of evolutionary faith, nothing more. "All of the evidence says it was not random, but I am going to believe that it was because it is easier than the alternative."
> 
> DHW, let me ask you a simple question: 
> 
> What evidence is there for randomness in evolution?
> 
> I'm not asking if evolution is true or false, or the role of natural selection or anything else. I simply want to know what the evidence is for the assumption that the process is founded in random chance.-
People don't use the term "random" precise enough a lot of time. It is not "random" as most use it around my way. But it is "random" within the definition.-But I don't agree with my own statement fully. When it is cold out side, you will not evolve a thin layer of skin and be bald. unless of course evolution introduces a chemical. But then that is not random is it.

4966 views


> GK: But I don't agree with my own statement fully. When it is cold out side, you will not evolve a thin layer of skin and be bald. unless of course evolution introduces a chemical. But then that is not random is it.-There is no doubt from epigentic research organisms can create their own adaptations to challenges in nature. In this sense evolution is not random or changed by chance. As I have stated elsewhere, the enormous complexities of the layers and controls of the genetic mechanism defy the notion that it all developed by chance processes. Show me a complex four-letter code that developed by itself and not from a mind. But the Darwin folks want us to accept that as a fact. Even our programmers can only use a binary system, not a quartenary system.

4955 views

David: There is no doubt from epigentic research organisms can create their own adaptations to challenges in nature. In this sense evolution is not random or changed by chance. As I have stated elsewhere, the enormous complexities of the layers and controls of the genetic mechanism defy the notion that it all developed by chance processes. Show me a complex four-letter code that developed by itself and not from a mind. But the Darwin folks want us to accept that as a fact. Even our programmers can only use a binary system, not a quartenary system.-And even in their epigenetic changes they are working within pre-defined constraints. So there is a strong signal prior to the actor performing any evolution at all, and the actions of the actor are made with/by some form of 'mind', with intent and for a purpose. This is true even if the only intent and purpose is to survive.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4960 views

David: There is no doubt from epigentic research organisms can create their own adaptations to challenges in nature. In this sense evolution is not random or changed by chance. As I have stated elsewhere, the enormous complexities of the layers and controls of the genetic mechanism defy the notion that it all developed by chance processes. Show me a complex four-letter code that developed by itself and not from a mind. But the Darwin folks want us to accept that as a fact. Even our programmers can only use a binary system, not a quartenary system.
> 
> And even in their epigenetic changes they are working within pre-defined constraints. So there is a strong signal prior to the actor performing any evolution at all, and the actions of the actor are made with/by some form of 'mind', with intent and for a purpose. This is true even if the only intent and purpose is to survive.-Let me ask you this.-Is it like raising a child or more like "you" making red blood cells?

4936 views

David: There is no doubt from epigentic research organisms can create their own adaptations to challenges in nature. In this sense evolution is not random or changed by chance. As I have stated elsewhere, the enormous complexities of the layers and controls of the genetic mechanism defy the notion that it all developed by chance processes. Show me a complex four-letter code that developed by itself and not from a mind. But the Darwin folks want us to accept that as a fact. Even our programmers can only use a binary system, not a quartenary system.
> > 
> > And even in their epigenetic changes they are working within pre-defined constraints. So there is a strong signal prior to the actor performing any evolution at all, and the actions of the actor are made with/by some form of 'mind', with intent and for a purpose. This is true even if the only intent and purpose is to survive.
> 
> Let me ask you this.
> 
> Is it like raising a child or more like "you" making red blood cells?-Neither and both. It is more like a PID controller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller-The parameters and destination (survival in this case) is set, from then on, it adjusts within the parameters. If "you" are low on red blood cells, or low in iron, "you" will crave iron rich foods and eat it. If you have learned something is bad, you will pass that information on to your child. In both cases, you are still operating inside a set of parameters, and the actions are deliberate and with purpose. I do not discard DHW's idea of cellular intelligence either, which may account for much if we consider that they make 'survival' choices as well, even if in a more limited fashion.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4978 views

David: There is no doubt from epigentic research organisms can create their own adaptations to challenges in nature. In this sense evolution is not random or changed by chance. As I have stated elsewhere, the enormous complexities of the layers and controls of the genetic mechanism defy the notion that it all developed by chance processes. Show me a complex four-letter code that developed by itself and not from a mind. But the Darwin folks want us to accept that as a fact. Even our programmers can only use a binary system, not a quartenary system.
> > > 
> > > And even in their epigenetic changes they are working within pre-defined constraints. So there is a strong signal prior to the actor performing any evolution at all, and the actions of the actor are made with/by some form of 'mind', with intent and for a purpose. This is true even if the only intent and purpose is to survive.
> > 
> > Let me ask you this.
> > 
> > Is it like raising a child or more like "you" making red blood cells?
> 
> Neither and both. It is more like a PID controller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
> 
> The parameters and destination (survival in this case) is set, from then on, it adjusts within the parameters. If "you" are low on red blood cells, or low in iron, "you" will crave iron rich foods and eat it. If you have learned something is bad, you will pass that information on to your child. In both cases, you are still operating inside a set of parameters, and the actions are deliberate and with purpose. I do not discard DHW's idea of cellular intelligence either, which may account for much if we consider that they make 'survival' choices as well, even if in a more limited fashion.-neither and both, although true, would have to be made "more tangle" for mass use. Do you think it is possible for you to pear your answer down? Thanks for the wiki, but if I don't know what is being said that would indicate I need to back out.

4833 views

GK: Let me ask you this.
> > > 
> > > Is it like raising a child or more like "you" making red blood cells?
> > 
> > Tony: Neither and both. It is more like a PID controller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
> > 
> > The parameters and destination (survival in this case) is set, from then on, it adjusts within the parameters. If "you" are low on red blood cells, or low in iron, "you" will crave iron rich foods and eat it. If you have learned something is bad, you will pass that information on to your child. In both cases, you are still operating inside a set of parameters, and the actions are deliberate and with purpose. I do not discard DHW's idea of cellular intelligence either, which may account for much if we consider that they make 'survival' choices as well, even if in a more limited fashion.
> 
> GK: neither and both, although true, would have to be made "more tangle" for mass use. Do you think it is possible for you to pear your answer down? Thanks for the wiki, but if I don't know what is being said that would indicate I need to back out.-You gave me two options, neither of which encapsulated what I was trying to say, but both of which contained elements of the answer. Neither are completely correct, both are partially correct. The example of the PID controller was proposed as a replacement. -In a PID controller, the programmer and the person controlling the system(parents) set parameters that are correct and good, goals that should be striven for and limits that should not be crossed, the controller ("YOU") struggles against outside forces to try and maintain progress within those constraints. If the constraints were not set, things would vary wildly and spin out of control. If freedom of action was not allowed, then the controller could not adapt and would not be able to fulfill its purpose. Both the "parents" and "you" from your example are required, but neither are the complete answer individually.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4862 views

GK: Let me ask you this.
> > > > 
> > > > Is it like raising a child or more like "you" making red blood cells?
> > > 
> > > Tony: Neither and both. It is more like a PID controller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
> > > 
> > > The parameters and destination (survival in this case) is set, from then on, it adjusts within the parameters. If "you" are low on red blood cells, or low in iron, "you" will crave iron rich foods and eat it. If you have learned something is bad, you will pass that information on to your child. In both cases, you are still operating inside a set of parameters, and the actions are deliberate and with purpose. I do not discard DHW's idea of cellular intelligence either, which may account for much if we consider that they make 'survival' choices as well, even if in a more limited fashion.
> > 
> > GK: neither and both, although true, would have to be made "more tangle" for mass use. Do you think it is possible for you to pear your answer down? Thanks for the wiki, but if I don't know what is being said that would indicate I need to back out.
> 
> You gave me two options, neither of which encapsulated what I was trying to say, but both of which contained elements of the answer. Neither are completely correct, both are partially correct. The example of the PID controller was proposed as a replacement. 
> 
> In a PID controller, the programmer and the person controlling the system(parents) set parameters that are correct and good, goals that should be striven for and limits that should not be crossed, the controller ("YOU") struggles against outside forces to try and maintain progress within those constraints. If the constraints were not set, things would vary wildly and spin out of control. If freedom of action was not allowed, then the controller could not adapt and would not be able to fulfill its purpose. Both the "parents" and "you" from your example are required, but neither are the complete answer individually.-awesome. all this is true, and it is ALL feedbacksytems, I mean everything. But I think I asked the question incorrectly.-Does it know we are here?-Does it know we are here like a parent does a child or more like how I know I have blood, But I do not know "a particule red blood cell"?

4898 views

Tony: You gave me two options, neither of which encapsulated what I was trying to say, but both of which contained elements of the answer. Neither are completely correct, both are partially correct. The example of the PID controller was proposed as a replacement. 
> > 
> > In a PID controller, the programmer and the person controlling the system(parents) set parameters that are correct and good, goals that should be striven for and limits that should not be crossed, the controller ("YOU") struggles against outside forces to try and maintain progress within those constraints. If the constraints were not set, things would vary wildly and spin out of control. If freedom of action was not allowed, then the controller could not adapt and would not be able to fulfill its purpose. Both the "parents" and "you" from your example are required, but neither are the complete answer individually.
> 
> GK: awesome. all this is true, and it is ALL feedbacksytems, I mean everything. But I think I asked the question incorrectly.
> 
> Does it know we are here?
> 
> Does it know we are here like a parent does a child or more like how I know I have blood, But I do not know "a particule red blood cell"?-That is a question of faith, and unknowable. Does your blood know if you are aware of it? Personally, I have faith that God is aware of us, more than aware, interested. I have no 'direct' evidence of this, particularly since I've never been invited to tea with God, nor has he ever deigned to come over for a beer and a chat. That being said, there is enough indirect evidence for me to be confident in a certain degree of interest and care... even love. -As I have repeatedly said, nothing on this planet had to be 'enjoyable'. Our eyes could only see black and white, we could be like most other animals and not derive any pleasure from food, or sex, or companionship. We could lack the reasoning abilities to be creative, expressive, and curious, or the capacity to act upon those. Yet, creatures are beautiful, food tastes delicious and smells so good, and our ears are capable of hearing the wonderful melodies of the world around us. We are able to share with each other and feel deeply. These things all demonstrate a keen interest, whether as individuals or as a species. When was the last time you cared enough about your blood to make sure that it was enjoying it's trip through your veins? Isn't all of this more like the actions of a parent that wants to give good things to their children?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4901 views

Tony: You gave me two options, neither of which encapsulated what I was trying to say, but both of which contained elements of the answer. Neither are completely correct, both are partially correct. The example of the PID controller was proposed as a replacement. 
> > > 
> > > In a PID controller, the programmer and the person controlling the system(parents) set parameters that are correct and good, goals that should be striven for and limits that should not be crossed, the controller ("YOU") struggles against outside forces to try and maintain progress within those constraints. If the constraints were not set, things would vary wildly and spin out of control. If freedom of action was not allowed, then the controller could not adapt and would not be able to fulfill its purpose. Both the "parents" and "you" from your example are required, but neither are the complete answer individually.
> > 
> > GK: awesome. all this is true, and it is ALL feedbacksytems, I mean everything. But I think I asked the question incorrectly.
> > 
> > Does it know we are here?
> > 
> > Does it know we are here like a parent does a child or more like how I know I have blood, But I do not know "a particule red blood cell"?
> 
> That is a question of faith, and unknowable. Does your blood know if you are aware of it? Personally, I have faith that God is aware of us, more than aware, interested. I have no 'direct' evidence of this, particularly since I've never been invited to tea with God, nor has he ever deigned to come over for a beer and a chat. That being said, there is enough indirect evidence for me to be confident in a certain degree of interest and care... even love. 
> 
> As I have repeatedly said, nothing on this planet had to be 'enjoyable'. Our eyes could only see black and white, we could be like most other animals and not derive any pleasure from food, or sex, or companionship. We could lack the reasoning abilities to be creative, expressive, and curious, or the capacity to act upon those. Yet, creatures are beautiful, food tastes delicious and smells so good, and our ears are capable of hearing the wonderful melodies of the world around us. We are able to share with each other and feel deeply. These things all demonstrate a keen interest, whether as individuals or as a species. When was the last time you cared enough about your blood to make sure that it was enjoying it's trip through your veins? Isn't all of this more like the actions of a parent that wants to give good things to their children?-
I agree. I have told many people that are awake, let them think it knows. There is no reason not to.-I have said many times, if the protein in "you" was complex enough could it sense you? The answer is more "yes" than "no". Science shows this. Like a radio, some "tuned in" and others will never know. It is faith. I dislike when a "punk rocker" station listener tell me that I have to listen to his station or I goto hell. I don't like when a person that has no radio tells me I am delusional. too,-And personal gods? well guess what ... for most the general population radio stations don't work with just one listener. Sure some are "solo", but the numbers for "group listens" is far higher.-I like the way you think my man. 
I think I like this forum.

4920 views


> > GK: But I don't agree with my own statement fully. When it is cold out side, you will not evolve a thin layer of skin and be bald. unless of course evolution introduces a chemical. But then that is not random is it.
> 
> There is no doubt from epigentic research organisms can create their own adaptations to challenges in nature. In this sense evolution is not random or changed by chance. As I have stated elsewhere, the enormous complexities of the layers and controls of the genetic mechanism defy the notion that it all developed by chance processes. Show me a complex four-letter code that developed by itself and not from a mind. But the Darwin folks want us to accept that as a fact. Even our programmers can only use a binary system, not a quartenary system.-
agreed.-And thank you for all that stuff too. I love Darwin. I call these people non-believers out of respect for Darwin. I think Darwin may have agreed with us.-I can't believe you brought up 1+0. I have been saying that for years. Since my first forum visit 7 years ago. well, not this forum, but another one. That is so cool to me. I am not alone.

4983 views

dhw: You may both be right (says the agnostic), but you have conveniently ignored the conclusion to this article:
"It's very exciting to have been able to directly study alternative ancient histories," Thornton said. "If evolutionary history could be relaunched from ancestral starting points, we would almost certainly end up with a radically different biology from the one we have now. Unpredictable genetic events are constantly opening paths to some evolutionary outcomes and closing the paths to others, all within the biochemical systems of our cells."-Dhw: You take this to indicate purpose, because your starting point is an anthropocentric view of evolution, which ... just like the theory of abiogenesis ... is pure speculation. It is just as easy to take the above as meaning that "unpredictable" chance, not purpose, has dictated the biology we have now.
-DAVID: You are simply accepting his opinion about the rudderless appearance of evolution. That is the materialist viewpoint, no more valid than ours.-You have stated that the research fits your idea of pre-planning, and Tony says it has purposeful intent written all over it, and I have said it is "just as easy" to interpret the research as supporting chance. Now you are telling me the one view is no more valid than the other. That's what I was telling you.-TONY: I simply want to know what the evidence is for the assumption that the process is founded in random chance.-Firstly, I make no such assumption. I'm pointing out that the researchers' findings are open to both interpretations. From my position on the fence, I'm not prepared to make a judgement either way. However, I'm happy to put the case for random chance, though not in the sense of random mutations, which I do not believe in. The cellular mechanisms (origin unknown) which allow organisms to adapt and innovate operate according to the demands or opportunities presented by random changes in the environment. Individual organisms may have the purpose of survival, but there is no apparent overall purpose to link the vast variety of plants and animals that have come and gone throughout the history of the evolutionary bush. In that sense, evolution is founded on the randomness with which a changing environment determines which organisms will and will not survive, depending on whether they are able to adapt and/or innovate appropriately. May I in turn ask you what the evidence is for the assumption that this process has a purpose?

4904 views

TONY: I simply want to know what the evidence is for the assumption that the process is founded in random chance.
> 
> DHW: Firstly, I make no such assumption. I'm pointing out that the researchers' findings are open to both interpretations. From my position on the fence, I'm not prepared to make a judgement either way. However, I'm happy to put the case for random chance, though not in the sense of random mutations, which I do not believe in. The cellular mechanisms (origin unknown) which allow organisms to adapt and innovate operate according to the demands or opportunities presented by random changes in the environment. Individual organisms may have the purpose of survival, but there is no apparent overall purpose to link the vast variety of plants and animals that have come and gone throughout the history of the evolutionary bush. In that sense, evolution is founded on the randomness with which a changing environment determines which organisms will and will not survive, depending on whether they are able to adapt and/or innovate appropriately. May I in turn ask you what the evidence is for the assumption that this process has a purpose?-I didn't think YOU made the assumption of random chance, but that is the underlying assumption of evolution. If it fails, the theory fails. -In my personal view, I don't have to make assumptions about the bushiness of the "evolutionary" shrubbery. Instead, I can look at creatures and understand both form and function, and discern purpose. A bird helps spread seeds, maintains insect populations, spreads fertilizer, and yet is beautiful with a sweet song. Worms aerate and fertilize the soil. The 'evolutionary bush' of plant life server to maintain the balance in both the soil and atmosphere, each taking and giving different things, they help provide essential weather patterns, provide food, housing, and nourishment to man and animal alike. I could go on all day. -The evidence for purpose is the signal in the noise. It is seen when a multitude of things that could happen no other way have happened to produce a result that was 'just so'. Designs that are functionally perfect such as electrical sensors in sharks, photon receptors in the human eyes. Complex codes with extremely complex functionality that have built in fail safes, are environmentally sensitive, and even sensitive to shape. Hundreds of universal constants that could not vary more than the tiniest, minuscule amount, generally less than 1%.-The evidence, my dear friend, is absolutely everywhere you look. The incontrovertible proof is everywhere you look. Everything is 'just so'. From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.- (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4938 views

TONY: I simply want to know what the evidence is for the assumption that the process is founded in random chance.
> > 
> > DHW: Firstly, I make no such assumption. I'm pointing out that the researchers' findings are open to both interpretations. From my position on the fence, I'm not prepared to make a judgement either way. However, I'm happy to put the case for random chance, though not in the sense of random mutations, which I do not believe in. The cellular mechanisms (origin unknown) which allow organisms to adapt and innovate operate according to the demands or opportunities presented by random changes in the environment. Individual organisms may have the purpose of survival, but there is no apparent overall purpose to link the vast variety of plants and animals that have come and gone throughout the history of the evolutionary bush. In that sense, evolution is founded on the randomness with which a changing environment determines which organisms will and will not survive, depending on whether they are able to adapt and/or innovate appropriately. May I in turn ask you what the evidence is for the assumption that this process has a purpose?
> 
> I didn't think YOU made the assumption of random chance, but that is the underlying assumption of evolution. If it fails, the theory fails. 
> 
> In my personal view, I don't have to make assumptions about the bushiness of the "evolutionary" shrubbery. Instead, I can look at creatures and understand both form and function, and discern purpose. A bird helps spread seeds, maintains insect populations, spreads fertilizer, and yet is beautiful with a sweet song. Worms aerate and fertilize the soil. The 'evolutionary bush' of plant life server to maintain the balance in both the soil and atmosphere, each taking and giving different things, they help provide essential weather patterns, provide food, housing, and nourishment to man and animal alike. I could go on all day. 
> 
> The evidence for purpose is the signal in the noise. It is seen when a multitude of things that could happen no other way have happened to produce a result that was 'just so'. Designs that are functionally perfect such as electrical sensors in sharks, photon receptors in the human eyes. Complex codes with extremely complex functionality that have built in fail safes, are environmentally sensitive, and even sensitive to shape. Hundreds of universal constants that could not vary more than the tiniest, minuscule amount, generally less than 1%.
> 
> The evidence, my dear friend, is absolutely everywhere you look. The incontrovertible proof is everywhere you look. Everything is 'just so'. From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.
> 
> (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt)-The only possible constants in this universe. I would point out though that we know less than 10% of what is going on. So I am not sure "just so" carries enough weight. If you look at derivations; they are making assumptions. I mean look at Einstein's approximate ion of rocket ship and standing on earth. They are not the same.
 
The difference is small, but it is there. and on a cosmic scale it would/could be way off. Think of an error of one arch second over 10,ooo,ooo light years.

4864 views

dhw: Individual organisms may have the purpose of survival, but there is no apparent overall purpose to link the vast variety of plants and animals that have come and gone throughout the history of the evolutionary bush. In that sense, evolution is founded on the randomness with which a changing environment determines which organisms will and will not survive, depending on whether they are able to adapt and/or innovate appropriately. May I in turn ask you what the evidence is for the assumption that this process has a purpose?
TONY: I didn't think YOU made the assumption of random chance, but that is the underlying assumption of evolution. If it fails, the theory fails.-We may be talking at cross purposes here, as the discussion clearly depends on what we are referring to with (a) "random chance", and (b) "purpose". For me the theory can only "fail" if someone proves that there are organisms which have not descended from earlier organisms. Otherwise, there is no getting round the process whereby existing organisms have adapted and innovated. Personally, I don't believe in the creative talents of random mutations and have suggested an alternative whereby "intelligent cells" do the inventing, whereas David thinks God planned innovations, but even without that element of chance, we still accept that evolution happened. On the other hand, we both believe there is a link between innovation and environmental change, and so unless David's God planned all the environmental changes, there is still an element of random chance. Atheists quite rightly point out that Natural Selection is not a random process (see below), but some of them do believe in random mutations, and of course there remains the question of how "cellular intelligence" came into being (chance, God, or many "panpsychist" intelligences). However, no matter what explanation we offer, I believe the theory itself will still stand, with or without those elements of chance, and with or without divine participation, until common descent is disproved.
 
As regards purpose, David has again stressed his view: "As always the amazing appearance of conscious humans who have the ability to explore the theoretical workings of the universe." I shan't repeat the objections I have to this anthropocentric vision, because your own post is very different. For brevity's sake, I'll quote only the end, because I agree with virtually everything else you say (very beautifully) about Nature's balance and the extraordinary complexity of organs and codes. I think folk like Dawkins would agree too. Natural Selection ... the process whereby in general the fit and the useful survive and the unfit and the useless perish ... sees to it that Nature remains balanced. Once life and the mechanisms of evolution (origin unknown) began to work, the rest followed on logically. But to what purpose?-TONY: The evidence, my dear friend, is absolutely everywhere you look. The incontrovertible proof is everywhere you look. Everything is 'just so'. From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.-This is a huge assumption. We simply do not know if other forms of life might exist in other conditions, and I'm not talking just about life elsewhere in the universe. Discoveries of life forms in the most hostile conditions here on Earth already present many different possibilities. The article that began this discussion suggests that if a few chance mutations had gone a different way, life would have been very different from what it is now. The same may apply to the make-up of our universe. We only know the life we know. But that's just one part of the equation. The other is what you mean by "purpose". If you say that the purpose of evolution (the subject of my question) is to enable life to continue ... I used the word "survival" ... I doubt if even an atheist would disagree with you. But you don't need God for that, and you don't need humans to be the goal.

4911 views

dhw: Individual organisms may have the purpose of survival, but there is no apparent overall purpose to link the vast variety of plants and animals that have come and gone throughout the history of the evolutionary bush. In that sense, evolution is founded on the randomness with which a changing environment determines which organisms will and will not survive, depending on whether they are able to adapt and/or innovate appropriately. May I in turn ask you what the evidence is for the assumption that this process has a purpose?
> TONY: I didn't think YOU made the assumption of random chance, but that is the underlying assumption of evolution. If it fails, the theory fails.
> 
> We may be talking at cross purposes here, as the discussion clearly depends on what we are referring to with (a) "random chance", and (b) "purpose". For me the theory can only "fail" if someone proves that there are organisms which have not descended from earlier organisms. Otherwise, there is no getting round the process whereby existing organisms have adapted and innovated. Personally, I don't believe in the creative talents of random mutations and have suggested an alternative whereby "intelligent cells" do the inventing, whereas David thinks God planned innovations, but even without that element of chance, we still accept that evolution happened. On the other hand, we both believe there is a link between innovation and environmental change, and so unless David's God planned all the environmental changes, there is still an element of random chance. Atheists quite rightly point out that Natural Selection is not a random process (see below), but some of them do believe in random mutations, and of course there remains the question of how "cellular intelligence" came into being (chance, God, or many "panpsychist" intelligences). However, no matter what explanation we offer, I believe the theory itself will still stand, with or without those elements of chance, and with or without divine participation, until common descent is disproved.
> 
> As regards purpose, David has again stressed his view: "As always the amazing appearance of conscious humans who have the ability to explore the theoretical workings of the universe." I shan't repeat the objections I have to this anthropocentric vision, because your own post is very different. For brevity's sake, I'll quote only the end, because I agree with virtually everything else you say (very beautifully) about Nature's balance and the extraordinary complexity of organs and codes. I think folk like Dawkins would agree too. Natural Selection ... the process whereby in general the fit and the useful survive and the unfit and the useless perish ... sees to it that Nature remains balanced. Once life and the mechanisms of evolution (origin unknown) began to work, the rest followed on logically. But to what purpose?
> 
> TONY: The evidence, my dear friend, is absolutely everywhere you look. The incontrovertible proof is everywhere you look. Everything is 'just so'. From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.
> 
> This is a huge assumption. We simply do not know if other forms of life might exist in other conditions, and I'm not talking just about life elsewhere in the universe. Discoveries of life forms in the most hostile conditions here on Earth already present many different possibilities. The article that began this discussion suggests that if a few chance mutations had gone a different way, life would have been very different from what it is now. The same may apply to the make-up of our universe. We only know the life we know. But that's just one part of the equation. The other is what you mean by "purpose". If you say that the purpose of evolution (the subject of my question) is to enable life to continue ... I used the word "survival" ... I doubt if even an atheist would disagree with you. But you don't need God for that, and you don't need humans to be the goal.-"humans" most certaintly is not the goal. Only life. for now anyways

4892 views

dhw: Individual organisms may have the purpose of survival, but there is no apparent overall purpose to link the vast variety of plants and animals that have come and gone throughout the history of the evolutionary bush. In that sense, evolution is founded on the randomness with which a changing environment determines which organisms will and will not survive, depending on whether they are able to adapt and/or innovate appropriately. May I in turn ask you what the evidence is for the assumption that this process has a purpose?
> TONY: I didn't think YOU made the assumption of random chance, but that is the underlying assumption of evolution. If it fails, the theory fails.
> 
> We may be talking at cross purposes here, as the discussion clearly depends on what we are referring to with (a) "random chance", and (b) "purpose". For me the theory can only "fail" if someone proves that there are organisms which have not descended from earlier organisms. Otherwise, there is no getting round the process whereby existing organisms have adapted and innovated. Personally, I don't believe in the creative talents of random mutations and have suggested an alternative whereby "intelligent cells" do the inventing, whereas David thinks God planned innovations, but even without that element of chance, we still accept that evolution happened. On the other hand, we both believe there is a link between innovation and environmental change, and so unless David's God planned all the environmental changes, there is still an element of random chance. Atheists quite rightly point out that Natural Selection is not a random process (see below), but some of them do believe in random mutations, and of course there remains the question of how "cellular intelligence" came into being (chance, God, or many "panpsychist" intelligences). However, no matter what explanation we offer, I believe the theory itself will still stand, with or without those elements of chance, and with or without divine participation, until common descent is disproved.
> 
> As regards purpose, David has again stressed his view: "As always the amazing appearance of conscious humans who have the ability to explore the theoretical workings of the universe." I shan't repeat the objections I have to this anthropocentric vision, because your own post is very different. For brevity's sake, I'll quote only the end, because I agree with virtually everything else you say (very beautifully) about Nature's balance and the extraordinary complexity of organs and codes. I think folk like Dawkins would agree too. Natural Selection ... the process whereby in general the fit and the useful survive and the unfit and the useless perish ... sees to it that Nature remains balanced. Once life and the mechanisms of evolution (origin unknown) began to work, the rest followed on logically. But to what purpose?
> 
> TONY: The evidence, my dear friend, is absolutely everywhere you look. The incontrovertible proof is everywhere you look. Everything is 'just so'. From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.
> 
> This is a huge assumption. We simply do not know if other forms of life might exist in other conditions, and I'm not talking just about life elsewhere in the universe. Discoveries of life forms in the most hostile conditions here on Earth already present many different possibilities. The article that began this discussion suggests that if a few chance mutations had gone a different way, life would have been very different from what it is now. The same may apply to the make-up of our universe. We only know the life we know. But that's just one part of the equation. The other is what you mean by "purpose". If you say that the purpose of evolution (the subject of my question) is to enable life to continue ... I used the word "survival" ... I doubt if even an atheist would disagree with you. But you don't need God for that, and you don't need humans to be the goal.-I would say that life does exist in/at other conditions. The universe is alive. well, the probablity that it is alive is greater than not. Agnosticly speaking that is.

4910 views

GK: I would say that life does exist in/at other conditions. -The only form of life we know is carbon-based and in this universe. Anything else is out and out conjecture.

4843 views

GK: I would say that life does exist in/at other conditions. 
> 
> The only form of life we know is carbon-based and in this universe. Anything else is out and out conjecture.-That is not true. It is silly to say "out and out". All you need for life is information exchange in some type of pattern. So to claim "out and out' is flat out silly. Just based on the PT.-Then if we look at your god? really? predicting life other than carbon is crazy? You can't even link parts QM to UC. And I can. Calling a simple prediction "out and out conjector" pisses me off.

4811 views


> GK: Then if we look at your god? really? predicting life other than carbon is crazy? You can't even link parts QM to UC. And I can.-Tell me how. ->GK: Calling a simple prediction "out and out conjector" pisses me off.-I'm sorry to upset you. But we have no evidence of life elsewhere, or what form it might take, other than our carbon-based/ oxygen fuel/ CO2 fuel type. Describe another form to me. I find you constantly make bold statements like the "QM to UC" above, with no discussion to back it up. And that pisses me off. Let's get together and really discuss. I think you have a great deal of offer from what I have seen so far.

4869 views


> > GK: Then if we look at your god? really? predicting life other than carbon is crazy? You can't even link parts QM to UC. And I can.
> 
> Tell me how. 
> 
> >GK: Calling a simple prediction "out and out conjector" pisses me off.
> 
> I'm sorry to upset you. But we have no evidence of life elsewhere, or what form it might take, other than our carbon-based/ oxygen fuel/ CO2 fuel type. Describe another form to me. I find you constantly make bold statements like the "QM to UC" above, with no discussion to back it up. And that pisses me off. Let's get together and really discuss. I think you have a great deal of offer from what I have seen so far.
>>-I can put the key stone in the arch that holds up your next book. LOL ... If I could write that is. -What upset me were the words "Anything else is out and out conjecture." Yes, I agree that is speculation. But "out and out" used as an adjective in my area has a negative connotation. It implies a "crazy" or "irrational" prediction. So maybe that is just me. -Predicting life elsewhere in the universe based just on the Periodic table is not crazy. It is a fair and reasonable prediction. We can add in notion(s) of "organic matter" on asteroids and comets to state the stance "against life elsewhere" is less reasonable than the stance "that life is elsewhere". I can then link rom's notions (gausset feilds and such) with Brain green's "what is space" to show that the universe is probably alive.-They think two basic notions are needed to "see life". Energy in > than energy out. And a "pattern in iformation exchange". Yes it is "speclative", but do you think its crazy to think we will find "life" elsewhare in the future? -Is it crazyier than your god in QM? or "humans as the goal."?

4856 views


>> 
> GK: They think two basic notions are needed to "see life". Energy in > than energy out. And a "pattern in iformation exchange". Yes it is "speclative", but do you think its crazy to think we will find "life" elsewhare in the future? 
> 
> Is it crazyier than your god in QM? or "humans as the goal."?-Your discussion comes down to a major point: is life only on Earth,which supports the God concept of a special creation, or is life everywhere which would support atheism? Since we are here on Earth, obviously all the conditions are correct: a designer universe, fine-tuned for life, and a very special planet that has a very special moon and all of the other geophysical attributes to gie us a very special climate.-You are right, we don't know the answer, and life might appear somewhere else and that will change my conclusions. Life elsewhere will require another Earth-like planet, because that appears to be an essential ingredient

4902 views


> >> 
> > GK: They think two basic notions are needed to "see life". Energy in > than energy out. And a "pattern in iformation exchange". Yes it is "speclative", but do you think its crazy to think we will find "life" elsewhare in the future? 
> > 
> > Is it crazyier than your god in QM? or "humans as the goal."?
> 
> Your discussion comes down to a major point: is life only on Earth,which supports the God concept of a special creation, or is life everywhere which would support atheism? Since we are here on Earth, obviously all the conditions are correct: a designer universe, fine-tuned for life, and a very special planet that has a very special moon and all of the other geophysical attributes to gie us a very special climate.
> 
> You are right, we don't know the answer, and life might appear somewhere else and that will change my conclusions. Life elsewhere will require another Earth-like planet, because that appears to be an essential ingredient-Atheist have diffrent sects. Just like any other religion. Of course they say it is not a religion. But I hear that one all the time.

4931 views


> GK: Atheist have diffrent sects. Just like any other religion. Of course they say it is not a religion. But I hear that one all the time.-Athiests have just as much or more faith than I do.

4804 views


> > GK: Atheist have diffrent sects. Just like any other religion. Of course they say it is not a religion. But I hear that one all the time.
> 
> Athiests have just as much or more faith than I do.-same here. They even claim to have the "real truth". Sounds so painfully familar.

4838 views

DHW: We may be talking at cross purposes here, as the discussion clearly depends on what we are referring to with (a) "random chance", and (b) "purpose". For me the theory can only "fail" if someone proves that there are organisms which have not descended from earlier organisms. Otherwise, there is no getting round the process whereby existing organisms have adapted and innovated. Personally, I don't believe in the creative talents of random mutations and have suggested an alternative whereby "intelligent cells" do the inventing, whereas David thinks God planned innovations, but even without that element of chance, we still accept that evolution happened. On the other hand, we both believe there is a link between innovation and environmental change, and so unless David's God planned all the environmental changes, there is still an element of random chance. Atheists quite rightly point out that Natural Selection is not a random process (see below), but some of them do believe in random mutations, and of course there remains the question of how "cellular intelligence" came into being (chance, God, or many "panpsychist" intelligences). However, no matter what explanation we offer, I believe the theory itself will still stand, with or without those elements of chance, and with or without divine participation, until common descent is disproved.
> -"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. " ~ Evolution101-What kind of modification? Genetic modification. How are those genes modified? -"The mechanisms of evolutionâlike natural selection and genetic driftâwork with the random variation generated by mutation." - Berkley-
So logically, by evolution's own definition, if there are no random mutations, then there is no 'descent with modification' in the context in which evolutionary theory uses it. That only leaves the possibilities of:-

Descent with guided modification. (David Turrel)

Special creation

Blended theory of special creation followed by descent with guided modifications within pre-defined parameters and limits.(Tony)

-Note: I am using a 'Text Book' definition of evolution here. However, it is a well established fact that evolutionist will change the meaning and wording on a whim in order to slip out of an argument.- 
>DHW: ... I'll quote only the end, because I agree with virtually everything else you say (very beautifully) about Nature's balance and the extraordinary complexity of organs and codes. I think folk like Dawkins would agree too. Natural Selection ... the process whereby in general the fit and the useful survive and the unfit and the useless perish ... sees to it that Nature remains balanced. Once life and the mechanisms of evolution (origin unknown) began to work, the rest followed on logically. But to what purpose?
> -Balancing something as complex as 'Nature' would require either perfect pre-planning or complete knowledge of the system. Additionally, the fact that the ecosystems are so easily thrown out of balance is itself a natural argument against that statement.--> TONY: .... From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.[/i]
> 
>DHW: This is a huge assumption. We simply do not know if other forms of life might exist in other conditions, and I'm not talking just about life elsewhere in the universe. Discoveries of life forms in the most hostile conditions here on Earth already present many different possibilities. -
No, as of yet, I have seen nothing but gross speculation and wishful thinking to indicate that there is life anywhere else or that any other type of life form exist. While I concede the remote possibility, until some evidence is presented, it is little more than science fiction. Yes, we have extremophiles on Earth, but they all fall within the normal confines of the life forms that we are already aware of. -
>DHW: The other is what you mean by "purpose". If you say that the purpose of evolution (the subject of my question) is to enable life to continue ... I used the word "survival" ... I doubt if even an atheist would disagree with you. But you don't need God for that, and you don't need humans to be the goal.-
I think you downplay the balancing act that has to be maintained in order for life to exist at all, much less to thrive and grow. Human's are the goal for David. I personally think there are other goals, but for the most part I have been trying to leave my particular religious beliefs out of the discussion.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4880 views

TONY: "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. " ~ Evolution101 
What kind of modification? Genetic modification. How are those genes modified? -As with all the other great unsolved mysteries, we can only speculate.-TONY: "The mechanisms of evolutionâlike natural selection and genetic driftâwork with the random variation generated by mutation." - Berkley

One might quibble over this definition and say the variations are random (because of the randomness of environmental change) but genetic mutations are not (see below). I've already expressed my scepticism over random mutations as such, and have offered a hypothesis, based on the research of many prominent scientists, which you have ignored in your list of alternatives (special creation and/or guided modifications): namely, that of the "intelligent cell". However, before I recap, please bear in mind that we're not discussing origins here. Our subject is whether evolution happened, and if so, how it works, what is the role of chance, and whether it has a purpose. I believe it did happen, in the sense that all organisms have descended from earlier organisms except for the very first, I don't know how it works, and the only purpose I can see with any clarity is that of survival, continuation and self-improvement. My apologies if you've read the following before, but I do feel it deserves inclusion in your list:-The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment. Genetic modification was not random. It was engineered by the cell communities themselves ... and once a new combination proved to be successful, it was passed on. Scientific research suggests that cellular communities interact, communicate, take decisions, process information etc., and this hypothesis would account for the higgledy-piggledy development of the evolutionary bush, the sudden appearance of new organs and species (innovations must work if they are to survive) and the phenomenon of convergence (separate cell communities finding similar solutions to environmental problems). Theists can argue that the complexity of such mechanisms demands design; atheists can carry on placing their faith in a chance origin. It seems to me that this hypothesis is at least as credible as those you have offered.
 
TONY: Balancing something as complex as 'Nature' would require either perfect pre-planning or complete knowledge of the system. Additionally, the fact that the ecosystems are so easily thrown out of balance is itself a natural argument against that statement.-"Pre-planning" and "complete knowledge" imply a creative intelligence with an overall view. I'm not discounting that, but am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival. All of life is made of single units combining, and that is the essence of my panpsychist hypothesis: no pre-planning, no complete knowledge, but a system that evolved through cooperation and natural selection, in the sense that whatever did not work perished, and only what did work survived. Even David now concedes the possibility of his God experimenting. This hypothesis offers the possibility of billions of organisms experimenting. The unbalancing of ecosystems may be man-made or caused by natural disasters, neither of which presents an argument against the above. However, sooner or later, this hypothesis like all others, including that of a God, comes up against the brick wall of how such "intelligence(s)" originated.
 
TONY: .... From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.
DHW: This is a huge assumption. We simply do not know if other forms of life might exist in other conditions...-TONY: No, as of yet, I have seen nothing but gross speculation and wishful thinking to indicate that there is life anywhere else or that any other type of life form exist. [...] Yes, we have extremophiles on Earth, but they all fall within the normal confines of the life forms that we are already aware of.-We are constantly extending our view of the "normal confines" precisely because of the discovery of these extremophiles. But I don't disagree with you. It's ALL speculation, and that includes your hypothesis that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION. It's the only one we know, and that's as far as you can go.
 
TONY: I think you downplay the balancing act that has to be maintained in order for life to exist at all, much less to thrive and grow. Human's are the goal for David. I personally think there are other goals, but for the most part I have been trying to leave my particular religious beliefs out of the discussion.-I admire and am grateful for your self-discipline, because this discussion is complex enough without our delving into interpretations of ancient texts! Of course I don't think I'm downplaying the balancing act. I don't know how to account for it. Nor do you know how to account for a being that can create universes and bacteria, and knows all about the behaviour of matter before it even exists.

4827 views


> dhw: The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment.-Those first forms were a giant step, resembling a miracle. First point for God.-> dhw: Genetic modification was not random. It was engineered by the cell communities themselves ... and once a new combination proved to be successful, it was passed on. Scientific research suggests that cellular communities interact, communicate, take decisions, process information etc., ..... Theists can argue that the complexity of such mechanisms demands design; atheists can carry on placing their faith in a chance origin. It seems to me that this hypothesis is at least as credible as those you have offered.-Except it does not do away with the issue of 'chance'. And you have admitted that chance isa major problem. Point two for God.
> 
> TONY: Balancing something as complex as 'Nature' would require either perfect pre-planning or complete knowledge of the system. Additionally, the fact that the ecosystems are so easily thrown out of balance is itself a natural argument against that statement.
> 
> dhw: "Pre-planning" and "complete knowledge" imply a creative intelligence with an overall view. I'm not discounting that, but am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival. .... However, sooner or later, this hypothesis like all others, including that of a God, comes up against the brick wall of how such "intelligence(s)" originated.-You have now described the preponderence of evidence that strongly suggests God exists. Brick wall indeed.
> 
> TONY: I think you downplay the balancing act that has to be maintained in order for life to exist at all, much less to thrive and grow. Human's are the goal for David. I personally think there are other goals, but for the most part I have been trying to leave my particular religious beliefs out of the discussion.
> 
> dhw:I admire and am grateful for your self-discipline, because this discussion is complex enough without our delving into interpretations of ancient texts! Of course I don't think I'm downplaying the balancing act. I don't know how to account for it. Nor do you know how to account for a being that can create universes and bacteria, and knows all about the behaviour of matter before it even exists.-For Tony and I that is exactly the point. Based on the evidence we have such a being is the logical explanation. Chance cannot do what we see.

4852 views

Dhw (to Tony): However, before I recap, please bear in mind that we're not discussing origins here. Our subject is whether evolution happened, and if so, how it works, what is the role of chance and whether it has a purpose. -Dhw: The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment.-DAVID: Those first forms were a giant step, resembling a miracle. First point for God.-Go to the bottom of the class for ignoring instructions. We are discussing evolution, not origins. But since you insist, an eternal consciousness without any source doesn't resemble a miracle, it IS a miracle, and some people don't believe in miracles. First equal point for atheists.-Dhw: Genetic modification was not random. It was engineered by the cell communities themselves ... and once a new combination proved to be successful, it was perpetuated. Scientific research suggests that cellular communities interact, communicate, take decisions, process information etc., and this hypothesis would account for the higgledy-piggledy development of the evolutionary bush, the sudden appearance of new organs and species (innovations must work if they are to survive) and the phenomenon of convergence (separate cell communities finding similar solutions to environmental problems). Theists can argue that the complexity of such mechanisms demands design; atheists can carry on placing their faith in a chance origin. It seems to me that this hypothesis is at least as credible as those you have offered.-DAVID: Except is does not do away with the issue of 'chance'. And you have admitted that chance is a major problem. Point two for God.-If you are once again referring to origins, see above. Equal point two for atheists.-Dhw (to Tony): "Pre-planning" and "complete knowledge" imply a creative intelligence with an overall view. I'm not discounting that, but am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival. All of life is made of single units combining, and that is the essence of my panpsychist hypothesis: no pre-planning, no complete knowledge, but a system that evolved through cooperation and natural selection, in the sense that whatever did not work perished, and only what did work survived. Even David now concedes the possibility of his God experimenting. This hypothesis offers the possibility of billions of organisms experimenting. [...] However, sooner or later, this hypothesis like all others, including that of a God, comes up against the brick wall of how such "intelligence(s)" originated. -DAVID: You have now described the preponderance of evidence that strongly suggests God exists. Brick wall indeed.-I have described how evolution might have proceeded without any intervention by your God. I have left open the question of origins, as that is not the subject of this thread. But since you insist, what I have described contains no evidence for or against the existence of God. Stay at the bottom of the class.

4856 views


> Dhw (to Tony): "Pre-planning" and "complete knowledge" imply a creative intelligence with an overall view.......This hypothesis offers the possibility of billions of organisms experimenting. [...] However, sooner or later, this hypothesis like all others, including that of a God, comes up against the brick wall of how such "intelligence(s)" originated. 
> 
> DAVID: You have now described the preponderance of evidence that strongly suggests God exists. Brick wall indeed.-Let me add that in any analysis of how something might work one should not introduce a brick wall as to how it (the process) might have originated. It eliminates any chance of determing the origin of such a process. A bunch of 'intelligent cells' cooperating to create the complexities of advanced living matter (i.e., humans) did not arrive de novo,as you have indicated. Just stating that cells simply have a form of their own intelligence avoids the issue of automatic behavior as an equal and an INHO more probable mechanism. Particularily because I don't think you fully appreciate the functions within the cell, as my youtube videos, which I provide now and then, clearly show.
> 
> dhw: I have described how evolution might have proceeded without any intervention by your God. I have left open the question of origins, as that is not the subject of this thread. But since you insist, what I have described contains no evidence for or against the existence of God. Stay at the bottom of the class.-The bottom of th class is in rebellion. If you ever saw the movie about a coke bottle appearing in the middle of tribal Africa, you'd understand. Curoius humans want the whole story, not one improbable piece. And you keep forgetting that panpsychism has its origin in a thought that a little of God is in every part of the universe.

4846 views

DAVID: Let me add that in any analysis of how something might work one should not introduce a brick wall as to how it (the process) might have originated. It eliminates any chance of determing the origin of such a process.
 -By "brick wall" I mean that nobody knows. Scientists are still trying to work out how our own intelligence functions. However, I would suggest that the origin of your God's intelligence will always remain unknown, especially since (a) he may not exist, and (b) most believers insist he and it didn't have an origin!-DAVID: A bunch of 'intelligent cells' cooperating to create the complexities of advanced living matter (i.e., humans) did not arrive de novo,as you have indicated. -I never indicated any such thing. I have stated over and over again that the origin is unknown. I have left open the possibility that your God created the intelligent mechanisms in the first place, and I have also left open the possibility of a gradual evolution of intelligence through energy becoming aware of the changes in the matter it has formed (my panpsychist hypothesis).-DAVID: Just stating that cells simply have a form of their own intelligence avoids the issue of automatic behavior as an equal and an INHO more probable mechanism. Particularily because I don't think you fully appreciate the functions within the cell, as my youtube videos, which I provide now and then, clearly show.-It is a hypothesis, and I do not state it as a fact, but many scientists (in particular Margulis and Albrecht-Buehler, who wrote a whole book on the subject) disagree with you. I note your contention that "individual cells are basically automatic biochemical factories", though you grant that when put together they have a "degree of epigenetic adaptability". The whole point is that cells form communities which process information, communicate, take decisions etc. ... all of which are the hallmarks of intelligence. However, I will also grant that active use of intelligence is only necessary when there are new circumstances to be dealt with, and I'm not disputing that many of the functions ARE automatic once a particular innovation has become established. -dhw: I have described how evolution might have proceeded without any intervention by your God. I have left open the question of origins, as that is not the subject of this thread. But since you insist, what I have described contains no evidence for or against the existence of God. Stay at the bottom of the class.-DAVID: The bottom of th class is in rebellion.If you ever saw the movie about a coke bottle appearing in the middle of tribal Africa, you'd understand. Curoius humans want the whole story, not one improbable piece. And you keep forgetting that panpsychism has its origin in a thought that a little of God is in every part of the universe.-Perhaps you should reread Part One of the post with which I opened this thread: "According to David, "God is intelligence", is "both the particles and the organizer of the particles," and is "present in all that IS, living and inorganic"(BBella). This is the most extreme version of theistic panpsychism. I would like to develop a variation on it, with the proviso that I offer it as an alternative, not as a belief." You are perfectly prepared to accept the idea that intelligence is present in all the particles, provided we call it God. The hypothesis I am offering is the same, except that this form of intelligence did not precede the particles but evolved within them. -You were bottom of the class because you refused to stick to the subject, which was not origins but how evolution works. You remain top equal on the subject of origins.

4867 views


> dhw:Perhaps you should reread Part One of the post with which I opened this thread: "According to David, "God is intelligence", is "both the particles and the organizer of the particles," and is "present in all that IS, living and inorganic"(BBella). This is the most extreme version of theistic panpsychism. I would like to develop a variation on it, with the proviso that I offer it as an alternative, not as a belief." You are perfectly prepared to accept the idea that intelligence is present in all the particles, provided we call it God. The hypothesis I am offering is the same, except that this form of intelligence did not precede the particles but evolved within them.-If you can give me a plausible mechanism by which cells can gain intelligence by themselves, I will give a little on my resistance to your hypothosis. Do not tell me information. They do that automatically now and from the first cell.

4799 views

Dhw: Perhaps you should reread Part One of the post with which I opened this thread: "According to David, "God is intelligence", is "both the particles and the organizer of the particles," and is "present in all that IS, living and inorganic"(BBella). This is the most extreme version of theistic panpsychism. I would like to develop a variation on it, with the proviso that I offer it as an alternative, not as a belief." You are perfectly prepared to accept the idea that intelligence is present in all the particles, provided we call it God. The hypothesis I am offering is the same, except that this form of intelligence did not precede the particles but evolved within them. -DAVID: If you can give me a plausible mechanism by which cells can gain intelligence by themselves, I will give a little on my resistance to your hypothesis. -That is fair, and is one reason why I offer the hypothesis as an alternative and not as a belief. If you can give me a plausible mechanism by which pure energy can have intelligence before it has anything to be intelligent about, and can have knowledge of matter before it has even turned itself into matter, I will give a little on my resistance to the hypothesis which you offer as a belief without any alternative.
 
DAVID: Do not tell me information. They do that automatically now and from the first cell.-That is your assumption and should not be stated as if it were a fact.-********
 
GATEKEEPER: Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.
Dhw: Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing. -DAVID: And again I ask the question, tell me 'how' the something could know anything, unless it was an organized intellect.-It could not. That is why I am questioning whether the "something" that caused the "energies of the universe" knew what it was doing. In other words, when did consciousness come into being ... before or after the Big Bang?-*********-GATEKEEPER (as above): Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.
Dhw: Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing. 
GK: There are a limited number of "more probable" possibilities. "no nothing" is not one of them. My guess is if they built it, they are in the image of the periodic table and all it stands for.
"I and the father are one" from og-I'm having trouble with this. Do you mean "nothing" is not a probability? If so, I would agree, because like David I don't believe that something can come from nothing. Who are "they"? I don't understand what you mean by the "image" of the periodic table - how do "builders" resemble a systematically organized list? What is og? And how does the quote about the father link up with the question of whether the "energies of the universe" are the result of a deliberate action? I do apologize if my questions seem stupid to you, but I need a bit of help in following your train of thought! It would also be helpful if you would only quote the section of a post that you are responding to, rather than the whole post, as this might make the line of argument clearer. Sorry again if I seem pernickety.-GK: How long have you two gone back and forth with this?-Almost since the website started, in January 2008! David and George Jelliss were among the very first contributors.

4887 views


> DAVID: Do not tell me information. They do that automatically now and from the first cell.
> 
> dhw: That is your assumption and should not be stated as if it were a fact.-Whatever method got to the first cell, at that point it is a fair assumption the complete cell acted upon information it received and used information it had in order to respond.
> 
> ********
>
> 
> DAVID: And again I ask the question, tell me 'how' the something could know anything, unless it was an organized intellect.
> 
> dhw: It could not. That is why I am questioning whether the "something" that caused the "energies of the universe" knew what it was doing. In other words, when did consciousness come into being ... before or after the Big Bang?-Based on my assumptions that quantum mechanics requires consciousness, that the reality we live in has a base layer of 'quantumness' that 'creates' our reality, and the universe come from quantum fluctuations from eternal virtual particles (see my Davies essay from yesterday), then quantum consciousness cones first and is eternal. 
> 
> *********
> 
> dhw: I'm having trouble with this. Do you mean "nothing" is not a probability? If so, I would agree, because like David I don't believe that something can come from nothing. Who are "they"? I don't understand what you mean by the "image" of the periodic table - how do "builders" resemble a systematically organized list? What is og? And how does the quote about the father link up with the question of whether the "energies of the universe" are the result of a deliberate action? I do apologize if my questions seem stupid to you, but I need a bit of help in following your train of thought! It would also be helpful if you would only quote the section of a post that you are responding to, rather than the whole post, as this might make the line of argument clearer. Sorry again if I seem pernickety.-GK, I have to agree. I know it seems you don't like writing, but it would help if you expanded your thoughts with a little more explanation. I've noted before, you obviously have much to contribute.

4861 views

DAVID: Do not tell me information. They do that automatically now and from the first cell.
dhw: That is your assumption and should not be stated as if it were a fact.
-DAVID: Whatever method got to the first cell, at that point it is a fair assumption the complete cell acted upon information it received and used information it had in order to respond.-Yes, that is how intelligence operates! The organism receives information, processes it and uses it to communicate with other organisms, take decisions etc. What we don't know is how it acquired the ability in the first place ... and that applies all the way through from bacteria to humans. It also applies to your God, with the added mystery that if he was nothing but pure energy, what information was there for him to receive and use prior to the formation of matter, and how did he acquire the ability to use information that didn't even exist? -********-DAVID: And again I ask the question, tell me 'how' the something could know anything, unless it was an organized intellect.
dhw: It could not. That is why I am questioning whether the "something" that caused the "energies of the universe" knew what it was doing. In other words, when did consciousness come into being ... before or after the Big Bang?-DAVID: Based on my assumptions that quantum mechanics requires consciousness, that the reality we live in has a base layer of 'quantumness' that 'creates' our reality, and the universe come from quantum fluctuations from eternal virtual particles (see my Davies essay from yesterday), then quantum consciousness comes first and is eternal. -You might as well say that based on your assumption that whatever created our reality must have been conscious, God exists. An atheist will assume that whatever created our reality was not conscious, and so God does not exist. Such assumptions do not provide a basis for belief. They ARE belief. I have opened a new thread to comment on the Paul Davies essay.

4848 views


> dhw:You might as well say that based on your assumption that whatever created our reality must have been conscious, God exists. An atheist will assume that whatever created our reality was not conscious, and so God does not exist. Such assumptions do not provide a basis for belief. They ARE belief. -Of course. Exactly

4781 views

Dhw: Perhaps you should reread Part One of the post with which I opened this thread: "According to David, "God is intelligence", is "both the particles and the organizer of the particles," and is "present in all that IS, living and inorganic"(BBella). This is the most extreme version of theistic panpsychism. I would like to develop a variation on it, with the proviso that I offer it as an alternative, not as a belief." You are perfectly prepared to accept the idea that intelligence is present in all the particles, provided we call it God. The hypothesis I am offering is the same, except that this form of intelligence did not precede the particles but evolved within them. 
> 
> DAVID: If you can give me a plausible mechanism by which cells can gain intelligence by themselves, I will give a little on my resistance to your hypothesis. 
> 
> That is fair, and is one reason why I offer the hypothesis as an alternative and not as a belief. If you can give me a plausible mechanism by which pure energy can have intelligence before it has anything to be intelligent about, and can have knowledge of matter before it has even turned itself into matter, I will give a little on my resistance to the hypothesis which you offer as a belief without any alternative.
> 
> DAVID: Do not tell me information. They do that automatically now and from the first cell.
> 
> That is your assumption and should not be stated as if it were a fact.
> 
> ********
> 
> GATEKEEPER: Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.
> Dhw: Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing. 
> 
> DAVID: And again I ask the question, tell me 'how' the something could know anything, unless it was an organized intellect.
> 
> It could not. That is why I am questioning whether the "something" that caused the "energies of the universe" knew what it was doing. In other words, when did consciousness come into being ... before or after the Big Bang?
> 
> *********
> 
> GATEKEEPER (as above): Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.
> Dhw: Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing. 
> GK: There are a limited number of "more probable" possibilities. "no nothing" is not one of them. My guess is if they built it, they are in the image of the periodic table and all it stands for.
> "I and the father are one" from og
> 
> I'm having trouble with this. Do you mean "nothing" is not a probability? If so, I would agree, because like David I don't believe that something can come from nothing. Who are "they"? I don't understand what you mean by the "image" of the periodic table - how do "builders" resemble a systematically organized list? What is og? And how does the quote about the father link up with the question of whether the "energies of the universe" are the result of a deliberate action? I do apologize if my questions seem stupid to you, but I need a bit of help in following your train of thought! It would also be helpful if you would only quote the section of a post that you are responding to, rather than the whole post, as this might make the line of argument clearer. Sorry again if I seem pernickety.
> 
> GK: How long have you two gone back and forth with this?
> 
> Almost since the website started, in January 2008! David and George Jelliss were among the very first contributors.-"they" is humans. It's us. the accelerator would be about the orbit Pluto or something. I would have to look it up again. But it was big. There is, although I have not read about it all, my notion that a particle entering a black hole could be accelerated to that energy. I mean if we can dream it the universe has already done it. IMO that is. So if we can image this big accelerator then there is one somewhere. That is a personal opinion only tho. I am not famous so my opinions don't count.-"image". This one is tricky because it is based somewhat on a person's experiences. But for me, I look for solution that can "fit" as many conditional changes as possible. The less conditions it fits, the less "useable". maybe "less useable" is not the right words. It does not mean invalid to me Because a function can have a single answer. And we are functions f(x). Not "matter". 
"no nothing". I can't image one thing "humans have" that the universe does not have more of. Can you?-I bounce around to many areas to fast sometimes. My bad. All this stuff is linked together. Like a photon takes every path. So humans are "every possible" human. It's a "j" thing. The more precise we are trying to be the more "j's" we need. What is "our image". it is not the body. Jesus even knew this. so what is it? -.

4835 views

Dhw (to Tony): "Pre-planning" and "complete knowledge" imply a creative intelligence with an overall view. I'm not discounting that, but am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival. All of life is made of single units combining, and that is the essence of my panpsychist hypothesis: no pre-planning, no complete knowledge, but a system that evolved through cooperation and natural selection, in the sense that whatever did not work perished, and only what did work survived. Even David now concedes the possibility of his God experimenting. This hypothesis offers the possibility of billions of organisms experimenting. [...] However, sooner or later, this hypothesis like all others, including that of a God, comes up against the brick wall of how such "intelligence(s)" originated. 
> 
> 
> I have described how evolution might have proceeded without any intervention by your God. I have left open the question of origins, as that is not the subject of this thread. But since you insist, what I have described contains no evidence for or against the existence of God. Stay at the bottom of the class.-
Ahem. Now class, can anyone point out the logical gap in the counter argument posed by David(DHW)? -"..(I) am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival.-What are these intelligences balancing? What forces are acting to disrupt their balance that cause them to need to stabilize? What governs these forces? What designed them, these forces that are so critical that some that must be within many many decimal points of precision? -Note, even now I am not talking about the origins of life, but rather the forces of nature that govern it. Evolution by chance is, by mathematical definition, impossible. That leaves intelligence somewhere in the process. The question then is which part of the process required the first intelligence. To know that, we have to look at the rules that were designed. Which rules HAD to be in place first? Fundamental forces of physics? Quantum Mechanics? Without these rules, these laws, these mechanisms, your cellular intelligence would have never made it into the material world to even exist. The Higgs Boson particle is just ONE example of a single item that had to be precise to an extreme degree or matter would not even exist. -You could be absolutely correct about cellular intelligence, but even if you are, you can not escape the fact that something some where had to design the rules that govern them to an extremely precise degree.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4857 views

dhw: (to David:) I have described how evolution might have proceeded without any intervention by your God. I have left open the question of origins, as that is not the subject of this thread. But since you insist, what I have described contains no evidence for or against the existence of God. Stay at the bottom of the class.-TONY: Ahem. Now class, can anyone point out the logical gap in the counter argument posed by DHW? 
Dhw: "..(I) am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival.-TONY: What are these intelligences balancing? What forces are acting to disrupt their balance that cause them to need to stabilize? What governs these forces? What designed them, these forces that are so critical that some that must be within many many decimal points of precision? 
Note, even now I am not talking about the origins of life, but rather the forces of nature that govern it. Evolution by chance is, by mathematical definition, impossible. That leaves intelligence somewhere in the process. The question then is which part of the process required the first intelligence. To know that, we have to look at the rules that were designed. Which rules HAD to be in place first? Fundamental forces of physics? Quantum Mechanics? Without these rules, these laws, these mechanisms, your cellular intelligence would have never made it into the material world to even exist. The Higgs Boson particle is just ONE example of a single item that had to be precise to an extreme degree or matter would not even exist.-Your questions are what inspired the atheist Higgs in the first place. He and many others are looking for answers. One is an infinite, eternal, (almost) omniscient, (almost) omnipotent form of energy that acquired its consciousness and its knowledge from nowhere as if by magic. To believe in such a power you must have faith, because science can't reveal it except by theoretical speculation. And the same objection can be raised against all other theories of origins relating to the universe and to life. All theoretical speculation. -TONY: You could be absolutely correct about cellular intelligence, but even if you are, you can not escape the fact that something some where had to design the rules that govern them to an extremely precise degree.-And you could be absolutely correct that the "something" is an eternal, conscious form of energy you call God. And folk like Higgs and Hawking could be absolutely correct that, for instance, "all the complicated structures that we see in the universe might be explained by the no boundary condition for the universe together with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics" (Brief History of Time). I don't understand most of these theories, including how first cause energy can be eternally conscious etc., but I have sufficient respect for those who cling to their own favourite version (which just like David they all call "the best") not to dismiss those explanations that sound in any way feasible to me. I also continue to search for ways of reconciling the various beliefs, but have yet to find one that convinces me. That's why I remain agnostic!

4836 views

dhw: And you could be absolutely correct that the "something" is an eternal, conscious form of energy you call God. And folk like Higgs and Hawking could be absolutely correct that, for instance, "all the complicated structures that we see in the universe might be explained by the no boundary condition for the universe together with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics" (Brief History of Time). I don't understand most of these theories, including how first cause energy can be eternally conscious etc., but I have sufficient respect for those who cling to their own favourite version (which just like David they all call "the best") not to dismiss those explanations that sound in any way feasible to me. I also continue to search for ways of reconciling the various beliefs, but have yet to find one that convinces me. That's why I remain agnostic!-This essay by Paul Davies is woth reading. He uses quantum theory and proposes the Universe popped up from a perturbation. An eternal timeless sort of nothing nothing but with quantum potentials of quantum energy before. Threfore something was always eternal:-http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

4862 views

DHW: The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment.-That would fall under the category of guided evolution. I also explicitly stated (elsewhere) that I am not discounting cellular intelligence, but I do question the limitations of such intelligence.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4794 views

DHW: The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment. -TONY: That would fall under the category of guided evolution. I also explicitly stated (elsewhere) that I am not discounting cellular intelligence, but I do question the limitations of such intelligence.-I'm sorry if I've forgotten your acknowledgement of "cellular intelligence" elsewhere. It wasn't mentioned in your list, and I would certainly not have put it under the category of guided evolution. Even if your God endowed the first forms of life with these mechanisms (and I have left the question of origins open), I would argue that they could have been left to their own devices - i.e. your God did not intervene once he had set the process in motion. Again, this provides an explanation for what I see as the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. I think you are right to question the limitations, just as you and David are right to question whether such mechanisms could themselves have been the product of panpsychist processes. I have as many reservations about this hypothesis as I have about the hypotheses of Chance and of an eternally conscious form of energy that knows how to build a universe and life even before it's turned itself into matter. But I think it is just as worthy of serious consideration as those alternatives.

4796 views

DHW: The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment. 
> 
> TONY: That would fall under the category of guided evolution. I also explicitly stated (elsewhere) that I am not discounting cellular intelligence, but I do question the limitations of such intelligence.
> 
> I'm sorry if I've forgotten your acknowledgement of "cellular intelligence" elsewhere. It wasn't mentioned in your list, and I would certainly not have put it under the category of guided evolution. Even if your God endowed the first forms of life with these mechanisms (and I have left the question of origins open), I would argue that they could have been left to their own devices - i.e. your God did not intervene once he had set the process in motion. Again, this provides an explanation for what I see as the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. I think you are right to question the limitations, just as you and David are right to question whether such mechanisms could themselves have been the product of panpsychist processes. I have as many reservations about this hypothesis as I have about the hypotheses of Chance and of an eternally conscious form of energy that knows how to build a universe and life even before it's turned itself into matter. But I think it is just as worthy of serious consideration as those alternatives.-Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two "nuclei to those energies? -maybe "something" did.

4779 views


> dhw: I have as many reservations about this hypothesis as I have about the hypotheses of Chance and of an eternally conscious form of energy that knows how to build a universe and life even before it's turned itself into matter. But I think it is just as worthy of serious consideration as those alternatives.-You should have 'many reservations' about your hypothesis. I have even more. I will not budge from my contention that individual cells are basically automatic biochemical factories.However, when put together as an organism, I will grant that organisms have a degree of epigenetic adaptability which allows for rapid responses to environmental challenges. Since this is a part of the genetic code, and codes are the result of intelligent conscious planning (at least among humans), one cannot avoid looking at the origin of such an arrangement.

4799 views

dhw: I have as many reservations about this hypothesis as I have about the hypotheses of Chance and of an eternally conscious form of energy that knows how to build a universe and life even before it's turned itself into matter. But I think it is just as worthy of serious consideration as those alternatives.
-DAVID: You should have 'many reservations' about your hypothesis. I have even more. I will not budge from my contention that individual cells are basically automatic biochemical factories. However, when put together as an organism, I will grant that organisms have a degree of epigenetic adaptability which allows for rapid responses to environmental challenges. Since this is a part of the genetic code, and codes are the result of intelligent conscious planning (at least among humans), one cannot avoid looking at the origin of such an arrangement.-You are of course free to insist that you are right, just as scientists like Margulis and Albrecht-Buehler are free to conclude from their specialized research that cells and especially cell communities are not automata. As for origins, it is perfectly possible to argue the case for evolution and how it works without discussing the origin of the "arrangement". The agnostic Darwin showed the way: "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated" (Difficulties on Theory). -DHW (to Tony): I'm sorry if I've forgotten your acknowledgement of "cellular intelligence" elsewhere. It wasn't mentioned in your list, and I would certainly not have put it under the category of guided evolution. -TONY: Internal guidance is no less guidance than that which is externally imposed. Read up on group psychology. One of the interesting thing is how information and guidance is passed both up and down the chain.-We may be talking at cross purposes again. I assumed you meant guidance from your God, either by intervention or by pre-programming. Group psychology works very well for my hypothesis, as it depends entirely on intelligent cooperation between individual sets of cells working towards a common goal, which in this case is survival or improvement through innovation. No intervention, no pre-programming.-DHW: Even if your God endowed the first forms of life with these mechanisms (and I have left the question of origins open), I would argue that they could have been left to their own devices - i.e. your God did not intervene once he had set the process in motion.-TONY: Ironically, even the bible doesn't say that he interfered with his creation AFTER he finished with his work. Where we disagree is at which point he finished.-Fair comment. My hypothesis suggests that he might have finished when he created the first cells capable of reproducing, adapting and innovating (see below).
 
DHW: Again, this provides an explanation for what I see as the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.
TONY: This is probably where we disagree more than anything. You see a higgledy-piggledy bush, I see a beautifully crafted symphony of life where each part is as elegant, graceful, and wonderful as it is strange and amazing. Each piece has its part to play, a purpose, and there is a time for every purpose under heaven. You struggle to SEE the purpose (or not to... or to simply refuse to accept as 'purpose' it until presented with a certified letter of intent.) I struggle to find the purpose, because I have yet to be presented with anything which I could not find a purpose for, and it is all the more beautiful for it. 

DAVID: What dhw means by the bush is that life is so diverse and so startlingly branched it resembles a bush more than a tree.-Once again we might be talking at cross purposes, since David believes humans were the purpose, and perhaps, Tony, you don't. I see the beauty, elegance and grace, and find it just as wonderful, strange and amazing as you do. So, incidentally, does Dawkins. And as I have said repeatedly, I see the purpose of survival and continuation and in some cases improvement. And if I believed in your God, I would probably believe that what David calls the "exuberance" IS the purpose. The bush suggests to me that God set the show in motion, and then sat back to see what would happen. What better entertainment than to be surprised by the billions of variations, rather than to know in advance just what's going to happen? He may even have deliberately built in the one random part of the equation ... environmental change ... to make the show more unpredictable. Just an idea, but it certainly fits in with the amazing diversity and higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of evolutionary history, doesn't it?-********-GATEKEEPER: Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.-Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing.

4849 views

dhw: I have as many reservations about this hypothesis as I have about the hypotheses of Chance and of an eternally conscious form of energy that knows how to build a universe and life even before it's turned itself into matter. But I think it is just as worthy of serious consideration as those alternatives.
> 
> 
> DAVID: You should have 'many reservations' about your hypothesis. I have even more. I will not budge from my contention that individual cells are basically automatic biochemical factories. However, when put together as an organism, I will grant that organisms have a degree of epigenetic adaptability which allows for rapid responses to environmental challenges. Since this is a part of the genetic code, and codes are the result of intelligent conscious planning (at least among humans), one cannot avoid looking at the origin of such an arrangement.
> 
> You are of course free to insist that you are right, just as scientists like Margulis and Albrecht-Buehler are free to conclude from their specialized research that cells and especially cell communities are not automata. As for origins, it is perfectly possible to argue the case for evolution and how it works without discussing the origin of the "arrangement". The agnostic Darwin showed the way: "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated" (Difficulties on Theory). 
> 
> DHW (to Tony): I'm sorry if I've forgotten your acknowledgement of "cellular intelligence" elsewhere. It wasn't mentioned in your list, and I would certainly not have put it under the category of guided evolution. 
> 
> TONY: Internal guidance is no less guidance than that which is externally imposed. Read up on group psychology. One of the interesting thing is how information and guidance is passed both up and down the chain.
> 
> We may be talking at cross purposes again. I assumed you meant guidance from your God, either by intervention or by pre-programming. Group psychology works very well for my hypothesis, as it depends entirely on intelligent cooperation between individual sets of cells working towards a common goal, which in this case is survival or improvement through innovation. No intervention, no pre-programming.
> 
> DHW: Even if your God endowed the first forms of life with these mechanisms (and I have left the question of origins open), I would argue that they could have been left to their own devices - i.e. your God did not intervene once he had set the process in motion.
> 
> TONY: Ironically, even the bible doesn't say that he interfered with his creation AFTER he finished with his work. Where we disagree is at which point he finished.
> 
> Fair comment. My hypothesis suggests that he might have finished when he created the first cells capable of reproducing, adapting and innovating (see below).
> 
> DHW: Again, this provides an explanation for what I see as the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.
> TONY: This is probably where we disagree more than anything. You see a higgledy-piggledy bush, I see a beautifully crafted symphony of life where each part is as elegant, graceful, and wonderful as it is strange and amazing. Each piece has its part to play, a purpose, and there is a time for every purpose under heaven. You struggle to SEE the purpose (or not to... or to simply refuse to accept as 'purpose' it until presented with a certified letter of intent.) I struggle to find the purpose, because I have yet to be presented with anything which I could not find a purpose for, and it is all the more beautiful for it. 
> 
> DAVID: What dhw means by the bush is that life is so diverse and so startlingly branched it resembles a bush more than a tree.
> 
> Once again we might be talking at cross purposes, since David believes humans were the purpose, and perhaps, Tony, you don't. I see the beauty, elegance and grace, and find it just as wonderful, strange and amazing as you do. So, incidentally, does Dawkins. And as I have said repeatedly, I see the purpose of survival and continuation and in some cases improvement. And if I believed in your God, I would probably believe that what David calls the "exuberance" IS the purpose. The bush suggests to me that God set the show in motion, and then sat back to see what would happen. What better entertainment than to be surprised by the billions of variations, rather than to know in advance just what's going to happen? He may even have deliberately built in the one random part of the equation ... environmental change ... to make the show more unpredictable. Just an idea, but it certainly fits in with the amazing diversity and higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of evolutionary history, doesn't it?
> 
> ********
> 
> GATEKEEPER: Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.
> 
> Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing.-There are a limited number of "more probable" possibilities. "no nothing" is not one of them. My guess is if they built it, they are in the image of the periodic table and all it stands for. -"I and the father are one" 
from og-How long have you two gone back and forth with this?

4823 views


> GATEKEEPER: Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.
> 
> dhw: Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing.-And again, I ask the question, tell me 'how' the something could know anything, unless it was an organized intellect.

4818 views


> > GATEKEEPER: Have you ever read about accelerating a particle(s) to the energies of the universe? How big the accelerator would be to collide two nuclei to those energies? Maybe "something" did.
> > 
> > dhw: Maybe. And the big question is whether the "something" knew what it was doing.
> 
> And again, I ask the question, tell me 'how' the something could know anything, unless it was an organized intellect.-the question is not "awareness". It is how much. What DWH is really asking is how much they knew. It is very possible they built the machine and have no clue they created us.

4781 views


> > David: And again, I ask the question, tell me 'how' the something could know anything, unless it was an organized intellect.
> 
> GK: the question is not "awareness". It is how much. What DWH is really asking is how much they knew. It is very possible they built the machine and have no clue they created us.-Is 'they' aliens? Bbella fancies that.

4826 views

**Sorry, I did not see this until after I wrote my other post.->DHW: I'm sorry if I've forgotten your acknowledgement of "cellular intelligence" elsewhere. It wasn't mentioned in your list, and I would certainly not have put it under the category of guided evolution. -Internal guidance is no less guidance than that which is externally imposed. Read up on group psychology. One of the interesting thing is how information and guidance is passed both up and down the chain. ->DHW: Even if your God endowed the first forms of life with these mechanisms (and I have left the question of origins open), I would argue that they could have been left to their own devices - i.e. your God did not intervene once he had set the process in motion.-Ironically, even the bible doesn't say that he interfered with his creation AFTER he finished with his work. Where we disagree is at which point he finished.-
>DHW: Again, this provides an explanation for what I see as the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.-This is probably where we disagree more than anything. You see a higgledy-piggledy bush, I see a beautifully crafted symphony of life where each part is as elegant, graceful, and wonderful as it is strange and amazing. Each piece has its part to play, a purpose, and there is a time for every purpose under heaven. You struggle to SEE the purpose (or not to... or to simply refuse to accept as 'purpose' it until presented with a certified letter of intent.) I struggle to find the purpose, because I have yet to be presented with anything which I could not find a purpose for, and it is all the more beautiful for it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4826 views

DHW: Again, this provides an explanation for what I see as the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.
> 
> Tony;This is probably where we disagree more than anything. You see a higgledy-piggledy bush, I see a beautifully crafted symphony of life where each part is as elegant, graceful, and wonderful as it is strange and amazing. Each piece has its part to play, a purpose, and there is a time for every purpose under heaven. ....I struggle to find the purpose, because I have yet to be presented with anything which I could not find a purpose for, and it is all the more beautiful for it.-What dhw means by the bush is that life is so diverse nd so startlingly branched it resembles a bush more than a tree. I'm with you in that this enormous ocean of life, this exhuberance is a testimony to the purpose of life appearing and it supplies an amazing balance of nature, which we humans tend to corrupt, resulting in some very bad results. Look at Australia and all that should not have been introduced.

4777 views

DHW: Again, this provides an explanation for what I see as the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.
> > 
> > Tony;This is probably where we disagree more than anything. You see a higgledy-piggledy bush, I see a beautifully crafted symphony of life where each part is as elegant, graceful, and wonderful as it is strange and amazing. Each piece has its part to play, a purpose, and there is a time for every purpose under heaven. ....I struggle to find the purpose, because I have yet to be presented with anything which I could not find a purpose for, and it is all the more beautiful for it.
> 
>David: What dhw means by the bush is that life is so diverse nd so startlingly branched it resembles a bush more than a tree. I'm with you in that this enormous ocean of life, this exhuberance is a testimony to the purpose of life appearing and it supplies an amazing balance of nature, which we humans tend to corrupt, resulting in some very bad results. Look at Australia and all that should not have been introduced.-Yes, we've discussed that before. My point is that it only looks like a bush if you assume a bunch of things that are not necessarily true. It looks like a bush if, for example, you assume that we all had a common ancestor. It looks like a bush if you assume common descent down specific lines. It looks like a bush if you assume that our classifications, based on superficial things such as appearance, have any relationship to reality, which is something that DNA evidence is refuting daily. You yourself have posted numerous examples of where our understanding of the 'bush of life' is turned on its head. When something is disproven over and over and over again, do we continue to cling to it as if it were gospel truth?-Perhaps it is a clear sign that our view of 'the higgledy-piggledy' bush of life is no more than a flight of fancy dreamed up by Darwin; a shared hallucination along the lines of 'the world is flat' and 'the sun circles the earth'.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4837 views


> Tony:Yes, we've discussed that before. ..... It looks like a bush if you assume that our classifications, based on superficial things such as appearance, have any relationship to reality, which is something that DNA evidence is refuting daily. You yourself have posted numerous examples of where our understanding of the 'bush of life' is turned on its head. -> Perhaps it is a clear sign that our view of 'the higgledy-piggledy' bush of life is no more than a flight of fancy dreamed up by Darwin; a shared hallucination along the lines of 'the world is flat' and 'the sun circles the earth'.-I was just clarifying the discussion. DNA is turning Darwin on its head. Analagous amd homologous are very important distinctions.

4848 views

Not continental drift, not oxygen shifts. These open up the door, but something else has to push it.-http://phys.org/news/2014-10-oxygen-percent-today-roughly-billion.html-OOL researchers love to push reasons like this for the appearance of life and of evolutionary progress. Factors yet, but O2 only allows for progress, but doesn't create the progress. Science writers are close to worthless in descrimination.

4705 views

Not continental drift, not oxygen shifts. These open up the door, but something else has to push it.
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-oxygen-percent-today-roughly-billion.html&#10... 
> OOL researchers love to push reasons like this for the appearance of life and of evolutionary progress. Factors yet, but O2 only allows for progress, but doesn't create the progress. Science writers are close to worthless in descrimination.-So, the atmosphere would actually have prevented the rise of life that was necessary in order to actively change the atmosphere to what it is today, and then it fantastimagically changed just-so by completely random chance just as life was ready and waiting to spring into existence. .... ... ... And people are critical of me for believing in God....

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4753 views

DAVID: Not continental drift, not oxygen shifts. These open up the door, but something else has to push it.-http://phys.org/news/2014-10-oxygen-percent-today-roughly-billion.html-OOL researchers love to push reasons like this for the appearance of life and of evolutionary progress. Factors yet, but O2 only allows for progress, but doesn't create the progress. Science writers are close to worthless in descrimination.-TONY: So, the atmosphere would actually have prevented the rise of life that was necessary in order to actively change the atmosphere to what it is today, and then it fantastimagically changed just-so by completely random chance just as life was ready and waiting to spring into existence. .... ... ... And people are critical of me for believing in God....-We seem to have read different articles. They are not talking about the origin of life, but about the rise of animal life. There is an interesting article attached to this one (click on animal life), which suggests that multicellular life existed 60 million years before the Cambrian Explosion. I'm a bit surprised at the sneering tone of your posts (both here and on David's Cambrian thread). No matter what explanation you may have for the evolution of animals, there has to be a reason why it took place at that particular point in Earth's history. Animals need a certain amount of oxygen, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that until oxygen was present in the right quantities, animal life could not be sustained. You may impose your own view that your God decided to change the Earth's atmosphere so that he could make new organisms, or he saw that the new atmosphere could allow for new forms of life so he dabbled. That's up to you. But the article itself merely associates the rise of animal life with a possible change in the atmosphere. Perfectly logical.
 
--

4700 views

TONY: So, the atmosphere would actually have prevented the rise of life that was necessary in order to actively change the atmosphere to what it is today, and then it fantastimagically changed just-so by completely random chance just as life was ready and waiting to spring into existence. .... ... ... And people are critical of me for believing in God....
> 
> dhw: We seem to have read different articles. They are not talking about the origin of life, but about the rise of animal life..... You may impose your own view that your God decided to change the Earth's atmosphere so that he could make new organisms, or he saw that the new atmosphere could allow for new forms of life so he dabbled. That's up to you. But the article itself merely associates the rise of animal life with a possible change in the atmosphere. Perfectly logical.-It is a matter of your mindset. Your interpretation is logical for you. The main point is still, even if oxygen appeared in large amounts, life did not have a requirement to advance. Oxygen probably did allow that to happen, but something or someone had to drive the innovations, as in our IM discussions.

4673 views

What "pushes" the cells in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the protiens in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the atoms? What pushes the "feields" that are you? What drives tha fabric of space that is "you" to be you? ;-) -Now go powers of 10 "bigger". Went you reach X x 10^43 (by volume) look around. Take a guess at what you will probably see? :-)

4685 views

GK: What "pushes" the cells in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the protiens in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the atoms? What pushes the "feields" that are you? What drives tha fabric of space that is "you" to be you? 
> 
> Now go powers of 10 "bigger". Went you reach X x 10^43 (by volume) look around. Take a guess at what you will probably see? -All I see is purpose

4696 views

What "pushes" the cells in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the protiens in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the atoms? What pushes the "feields" that are you? What drives tha fabric of space that is "you" to be you? -Symbiosis.
 
> 
> Now go powers of 10 "bigger". Went you reach X x 10^43 (by volume) look around. Take a guess at what you will probably see?

4625 views

bBella: What "pushes" the cells in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the protiens in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the atoms? What pushes the "feields" that are you? What drives tha fabric of space that is "you" to be you? 
> 
> Symbiosis.-If symbiosis is two different organisms working together, please explain what you mean. Simply living parts of us working together?

4605 views

What "pushes" the cells in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the protiens in your body to do what they do? What "pushes" the atoms? What pushes the "feields" that are you? What drives tha fabric of space that is "you" to be you? 
> 
> Symbiosis.
> 
> > 
> > Now go powers of 10 "bigger". Went you reach X x 10^43 (by volume) look around. Take a guess at what you will probably see? -now address the 10^43 bigger. Assume we are between plank's.-You used the word "aliens" before. Can you modify that description for me? Just a little? Can you remove the "us" and "them" and solve for ' Contingent evolution" all in one swoop? With the least amount of assumptions? -sometimes I wish I could give it back really.

4650 views

GK: You used the word "aliens" before. Can you modify that description for me? Just a little? Can you remove the "us" and "them" and solve for ' Contingent evolution" all in one swoop? With the least amount of assumptions? -To me contingent evolution means one step follows another. For Gould this meant a chance sequence. Evolution is either by chance or it is planned. There is no third way.

4720 views

GK: You used the word "aliens" before. Can you modify that description for me? Just a little? Can you remove the "us" and "them" and solve for ' Contingent evolution" all in one swoop? With the least amount of assumptions? 
> 
> To me contingent evolution means one step follows another. For Gould this meant a chance sequence. Evolution is either by chance or it is planned. There is no third way.-Unless you are lumping this under "planned", there is a third way. That third way is variation within kinds confined by stringent limitations. It is kind of the halfway point between the two you listed. It allows for change (read evolution) and adaptation (read evolution) but only within tightly defined parameters, some of which will automagically default back to their original settings after several generations if the originating pressure that triggered the change is removed (read epigenietics).

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4664 views

David To me contingent evolution means one step follows another. For Gould this meant a chance sequence. Evolution is either by chance or it is planned. There is no third way.
> 
> Tony: Unless you are lumping this under "planned", there is a third way. That third way is variation within kinds confined by stringent limitations. It is kind of the halfway point between the two you listed. It allows for change (read evolution) and adaptation (read evolution) but only within tightly defined parameters, some of which will automagically default back to their original settings after several generations if the originating pressure that triggered the change is removed (read epigenietics).-This is my position exactly, but you have stated it better than I have in my DILEMMA discussions. You are describing what I think of as micro-evolution, adaptive changes in fully established species. And this is all an inventive mechanism can do. We cannot excape the fact that the fossil rcord repeatedly tells us all new advanced species arrive full-blown, fully functional. This is the loud and clear message from the Cambrian Explosion.-I don't view your point as a third way, but a method by which species can adapt to challenges for the time being or permanently. But, they are still the same species. Just as penicillin-resistent Staph aureus are still Staph. It is what Shapiro's research is all about.

4683 views

DHW: We seem to have read different articles. They are not talking about the origin of life, but about the rise of animal life. There is an interesting article attached to this one (click on animal life), which suggests that multicellular life existed 60 million years before the Cambrian Explosion. I'm a bit surprised at the sneering tone of your posts (both here and on David's Cambrian thread). No matter what explanation you may have for the evolution of animals, there has to be a reason why it took place at that particular point in Earth's history. Animals need a certain amount of oxygen, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that until oxygen was present in the right quantities, animal life could not be sustained. You may impose your own view that your God decided to change the Earth's atmosphere so that he could make new organisms, or he saw that the new atmosphere could allow for new forms of life so he dabbled. That's up to you. But the article itself merely associates the rise of animal life with a possible change in the atmosphere. Perfectly logical.
> 
> ---Because evolution claims that given enough time and just perfect conditions random chance could create the vast variety of life that exists today, then turn around and say that there wasn't enough time and the conditions were not perfect but that it still happened 'just so' by random chance.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4695 views

Dhw: Animals need a certain amount of oxygen, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that until oxygen was present in the right quantities, animal life could not be sustained. You may impose your own view that your God decided to change the Earth's atmosphere so that he could make new organisms, or he saw that the new atmosphere could allow for new forms of life so he dabbled. That's up to you. But the article itself merely associates the rise of animal life with a possible change in the atmosphere. Perfectly logical.-TONY: Because evolution claims that given enough time and just perfect conditions random chance could create the vast variety of life that exists today, then turn around and say that there wasn't enough time and the conditions were not perfect but that it still happened 'just so' by random chance.-Evolution doesn't claim anything. Evolutionists make claims, and you are right that some evolutionists - probably a very large majority - attribute the vast variety of life to chance, but as I keep pointing out to you, the theory is open to other interpretations, which is why the Church is able to accept it. Even David, who is as scathing about chance as you are, believes in theistic evolution. Perhaps it would be useful for you to hear his scientific reasons for believing in common descent as opposed to separate creation. My objection to your comments on the article about oxygen was that you were sneering at research which merely associated the Cambrian with a possible increase in oxygen. Even theistic evolution would require compatibility between organisms and the environment. You claim that the bible encourages scientific research so long as it doesn't take people away from God. You seem to have dismissed evolution because so many evolutionists misuse it as a buttress for their atheism. That is as unscientific as atheists dismissing all arguments for design because so many ID-ers use it as a buttress for their faith in God.

4582 views

DHW: Evolution doesn't claim anything. Evolutionists make claims, and you are right that some evolutionists - probably a very large majority - attribute the vast variety of life to chance, but as I keep pointing out to you, the theory is open to other interpretations, which is why the Church is able to accept it. Even David, who is as scathing about chance as you are, believes in theistic evolution. Perhaps it would be useful for you to hear his scientific reasons for believing in common descent as opposed to separate creation. My objection to your comments on the article about oxygen was that you were sneering at research which merely associated the Cambrian with a possible increase in oxygen. Even theistic evolution would require compatibility between organisms and the environment. You claim that the bible encourages scientific research so long as it doesn't take people away from God. You seem to have dismissed evolution because so many evolutionists misuse it as a buttress for their atheism. That is as unscientific as atheists dismissing all arguments for design because so many ID-ers use it as a buttress for their faith in God.-I haven't dismissed evolution because of how it has been used for atheism. I dismiss it because it isn't very scientific. There is no EVIDENCE of common descent, only speculation of it. There is no EVIDENCE that random chance could create the information needed for the genome to advance, only speculation. Read virtually any article on evolution carefully and you will see lots and lots of terms and phrases that are nothing but speculation presented as fact. That is not science. What Darwin did was speculate, and his speculation appealed to the naturalist at the time. They became intoxicated with the idea that they could explain life, and have been trying to do so for the last 150 years with little more than speculation to back up their claims.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4649 views


> Tony: I haven't dismissed evolution because of how it has been used for atheism. I dismiss it because it isn't very scientific. There is no EVIDENCE of common descent, only speculation of it. There is no EVIDENCE that random chance could create the information needed for the genome to advance, only speculation. Read virtually any article on evolution carefully and you will see lots and lots of terms and phrases that are nothing but speculation presented as fact. That is not science. What Darwin did was speculate, and his speculation appealed to the naturalist at the time. They became intoxicated with the idea that they could explain life, and have been trying to do so for the last 150 years with little more than speculation to back up their claims.-This is why I believe in theistic evolution. All the scientific findings when added up point to it IMHO.

4696 views

TONY: I haven't dismissed evolution because of how it has been used for atheism. I dismiss it because it isn't very scientific. There is no EVIDENCE of common descent, only speculation of it. There is no EVIDENCE that random chance could create the information needed for the genome to advance, only speculation. Read virtually any article on evolution carefully and you will see lots and lots of terms and phrases that are nothing but speculation presented as fact. That is not science. What Darwin did was speculate, and his speculation appealed to the naturalist at the time. They became intoxicated with the idea that they could explain life, and have been trying to do so for the last 150 years with little more than speculation to back up their claims.-Once more you are generalizing. Explain life is not clear. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (atheists plump for abiogenesis), but focuses on how the first forms of life developed into the vast variety we see today. It is based on decades of scientific research, but yes, like all theories including that of the existence of God, its conclusions are speculative because nobody knows the full story. However, it entails a progression (though not smooth - hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium) from simpler to more complex forms, which has been confirmed by the fossil record, unless you are also questioning the dating methods scientists use. Of course you can question all the scientific data we have, just as I can question the validity of ancient texts and your interpretation of them. Nothing is certain, and so we go by consensus, if there is one, and currently there is scientific consensus that some fossils are older than others, and many millions of years older than, for instance, the creationists would have us believe. What David calls the patterns fit in nicely with the idea that organisms have inherited basic forms and over time have branched out in all directions. How much of this, if any, was planned and directed by a god or by what atheists prefer to call natural laws is anybody's guess. No, it's not a fact, and gradualism and random mutations are highly dubious elements of the theory, but if a theistic scientist like David believes in common descent, and the science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism, I don't know why you can't at least keep an open mind instead of dismissing it. -(More tomorrow!)

4708 views

DHW: Once more you are generalizing. Explain life is not clear. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (atheists plump for abiogenesis), but focuses on how the first forms of life developed into the vast variety we see today. ... No, it's not a fact, and gradualism and random mutations are highly dubious elements of the theory, but if a theistic scientist like David believes in common descent, and the science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism, I don't know why you can't at least keep an open mind instead of dismissing it. 
> 
> (More tomorrow!)-I did say explain life, not the origins thereof, and that is exactly what evolution tries to do. It tries to explain (in relation to life and living organisms) why we are the way we are, and why everything else is the way it is, and how it all got to be that way. It is based on a tremendous number of assumptions, not the least of which are:-


The efficacy of random chance

That the accretion of tiny mutations to create something new.

The the accretion of tiny mutations to create something useful.

That it can all be explained in mechanical terms.

That it is possible for a species to become a different species, even a member of a different phylogenic family of species.

And as a sub-premise, that all of this can happen undirected, without outside influence.

-And they are more than happy to discard/overlook/otherwise ignore:-


A fossil record that does not support the theory(Species show up fully formed).

No direct observation of ANY organism breaking the actual species boundary(in fact some proponents often change the definition of species depending on who they are debating)

The lack of time. (The explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)

That genetics has shown (repeatedly) that the phylogenetic tree is burnt up.

That the genome FIXES itself when mutations occur, thus undercutting the prime mechanism for evolution.

That mutations are, by the vast majority, harmful instead of beneficial.

That there are tremendous number of 'chicken and egg' scenarios that make a given adaptation useless without a prior or simultaneous mutation of one or more different species. (Flowers, Bees, Humming Birds, and Beetles)

-
Science discards a theory in part or in its entirety when it doesn't fit the data. The data doesn't fit, yet it is still held as fact. That is not science.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4704 views

Tony: And they are more than happy to discard/overlook/otherwise ignore:
> 
> 
>

A fossil record that does not support the theory(Species show up fully formed).
>
No direct observation of ANY organism breaking the actual species boundary(in fact some proponents often change the definition of species depending on who they are debating)
>
The lack of time. (The explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)
>
That genetics has shown (repeatedly) that the phylogenetic tree is burnt up.
>
That the genome FIXES itself when mutations occur, thus undercutting the prime mechanism for evolution.
>
That mutations are, by the vast majority, harmful instead of beneficial.
>
That there are tremendous number of 'chicken and egg' scenarios that make a given adaptation useless without a prior or simultaneous mutation of one or more different species. (Flowers, Bees, Humming Birds, and Beetles)
>

> 
> 
> Science discards a theory in part or in its entirety when it doesn't fit the data. The data doesn't fit, yet it is still held as fact. That is not science.-A marvelous list that calls Darwin's now-modified evolution theory into severe question, which is why I have chosen a third way, theistic evolution. God guides all, which is why a built-in IM (if present) is under tight control.-Note the final point. It is the balance of nature, which is a requirement for life to succeed

4654 views

DHW: Once more you are generalizing. Explain life is not clear. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (atheists plump for abiogenesis), but focuses on how the first forms of life developed into the vast variety we see today. ... No, it's not a fact, and gradualism and random mutations are highly dubious elements of the theory, but if a theistic scientist like David believes in common descent, and the science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism, I don't know why you can't at least keep an open mind instead of dismissing it. -TONY: I did say explain life, not the origins thereof, and that is exactly what evolution tries to do. It tries to explain (in relation to life and living organisms) why we are the way we are, and why everything else is the way it is, and how it all got to be that way. It is based on a tremendous number of assumptions, not the least of which are:
	The efficacy of random chance
	That the accretion of tiny mutations to create something new.
	The the accretion of tiny mutations to create something useful.
	That it can all be explained in mechanical terms.
	That it is possible for a species to become a different species, even a member of a different phylogenic family of species.
	And as a sub-premise, that all of this can happen undirected, without outside influence.
And they are more than happy to discard/overlook/otherwise ignore:
	A fossil record that does not support the theory(Species show up fully formed).
	No direct observation of ANY organism breaking the actual species boundary(in fact some proponents often change the definition of species depending on who they are debating)
	The lack of time. (The explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)
	That genetics has shown (repeatedly) that the phylogenetic tree is burnt up.
	That the genome FIXES itself when mutations occur, thus undercutting the prime mechanism for evolution.
	That mutations are, by the vast majority, harmful instead of beneficial.
	That there are tremendous number of 'chicken and egg' scenarios that make a given adaptation useless without a prior or simultaneous mutation of one or more different species. (Flowers, Bees, Humming Birds, and Beetles)
Science discards a theory in part or in its entirety when it doesn't fit the data. The data doesn't fit, yet it is still held as fact. That is not science.-This is an impressive-looking list, but almost every item on it has already been covered in our past exchanges. You have quoted my point about the dubiousness of random mutations and gradualism, which some would say adds weight to the case for theistic evolution. (I still don't understand why you refuse to consider the possibility of evolution as a process initiated and guided by God, which would remove most of your objections anyway.) Evolution itself is in a period of stasis, so of course there has been no direct observation - there has been no direct observation of God creating new species either. If species are successful, their genome is bound to be fixed until something (most likely a change in conditions) triggers it to unfix itself and adapt or innovate. The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex organisms, and what David calls the patterns suggest common ancestry. Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis). We have already agreed that the theory is a theory and not a fact. The God theory is also a theory and not a fact, and is based on a great variety of assumptions without one shred of objectively verifiable evidence, but neither you nor I would see that as a reason to dismiss it.

4654 views

DHW: (I still don't understand why you refuse to consider the possibility of evolution as a process initiated and guided by God, which would remove most of your objections anyway.)-Because I see no case for evolution. Why would I try and fit in a theory that I see as even more fanciful than "God did it"?->DHW: Evolution itself is in a period of stasis, so of course there has been no direct observation - there has been no direct observation of God creating new species either... Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).-Is it? Or could it be that it simply did not occur as defined. Punctuated equilibrium makes the problem worse, not better, because that would require extremely rapid evolution, instantaneous, one might say. Now, since the text book definition of evolution is 'change over time', does 'instantaneous fully formed appearance' of an organism fit that description?-
>DHW: The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex organisms, and what David calls the patterns suggest common ancestry. -I suppose that depends on what you are implying with the word "progression". If you mean a linear curve, then you would be mistaken. If, instead, you meant a stepwise series of gaps from less complex to more, then yes, that is indeed what it shows, and that is antithetical to evolution.-
>The God theory is also a theory and not a fact, and is based on a great variety of assumptions without one shred of objectively verifiable evidence, but neither you nor I would see that as a reason to dismiss it.-I would say that the evidence is acutely in favor of the God theory.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4687 views

DHW: (I still don't understand why you refuse to consider the possibility of evolution as a process initiated and guided by God, which would remove most of your objections anyway.)
TONY: Because I see no case for evolution. Why would I try and fit in a theory that I see as even more fanciful than "God did it"?	-You see it as fanciful because you focus on aspects that theistic evolutionists have already rejected. As my agnostic credentials make me a poor advocate, here is a website which sets out to present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation. This article is purely scientific, but you will find other links that incorporate God.
	
Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution ...-https://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion-DHW: Evolution itself is in a period of stasis, so of course there has been no direct observation - there has been no direct observation of God creating new species either... Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).-TONY: Is it? Or could it be that it simply did not occur as defined. Punctuated equilibrium makes the problem worse, not better, because that would require extremely rapid evolution, instantaneous, one might say. Now, since the text book definition of evolution is 'change over time', does 'instantaneous fully formed appearance' of an organism fit that description?-Punctuated equilibrium is Gould's challenge to Darwin's gradualism, in the sense that evolution happens in fits and starts, not as a continuous, smooth progression. The Cambrian Explosion lasted for 10-20 million years (different sources give different figures), so rapidity is a relative term. But theists don't have a problem with rapidity. I have no idea how a non-fully-formed organism would leave behind a fossil, or what it might look like, but according to BioLogos, new fossils (they give examples) from the Cambrian and Precambrian era are bringing more clarity to the evolutionary puzzle, and It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms [...] did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time."
 
DHW: The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex organisms, and what David calls the patterns suggest common ancestry. 
TONY: I suppose that depends on what you are implying with the word "progression". If you mean a linear curve, then you would be mistaken. If, instead, you meant a stepwise series of gaps from less complex to more, then yes, that is indeed what it shows, and that is antithetical to evolution.-On the basis that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms (which underpins the whole theory), every innovation marks a change or step. Darwin's random mutations, my hypothetical inventive mechanism, and David's hypothetical 3.7-billion-year-old computer programme or divine dabblings all produce innovative steps within existing organisms. If the mutation works, you have a new, fully functioning form (no gap). If it doesn't, it won't survive. Over time, each new organism may itself be transformed by further innovations: hence the jerky (punctuated) progression from single cell to complex organisms like us humans and our fellow animals. Your alternative is that God created each one from scratch (= separate creation), so where do you draw the line between separate creation and the evolution you dismiss? If limbs did not evolve from fins, they were separately created. If wings did not evolve from limbs, they were separately created. Insect wings are different from birds' wings, so they were separately created. Insects nearly all have the same basic structure, which is why evolutionists propose common ancestry, but without common ancestry the implication would be that God created, say, bees, grasshoppers and ants separately too. Extend the separateness across the different kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, along with all the innovations that have led to their separateness, and you have a vast collection of organisms, all seeming to spring from nowhere (no antecedents), but actually placed on Earth by the invisible hand of God. Why do you find that less fanciful than God creating an inventive brain within organisms, or preprogramming evolution, or dabbling with existing organisms?-dhw: The God theory is also a theory and not a fact, and is based on a great variety of assumptions without one shred of objectively verifiable evidence, but neither you nor I would see that as a reason to dismiss it.
TONY: I would say that the evidence is acutely in favor of the God theory.-Of course you would, although I'm sure you would accept that the evidence is not objectively verifiable. Evolutionists say the evidence is acutely in favour of the theory that all forms of life descended from earlier forms, and as I keep pointing out, there is no conflict between those two theories, unless you insist on identifying evolutionary theory with its atheistic versions. According to BioLogos, "The important thing is that [...] God's sustaining presence undergirds all of life's history from the beginning to the present." But they're evolutionists. Ignorance, malice, self-interest?

4698 views

Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium-Punctuated equilibrium is based on the idea that we cannot see changes in a species, so there must (this is typical language that means the evidence does not fit the theory)be very long periods of no changes of species. That is the equilibrium part of punctuated equilibrium. However, we do know that species do change (but not the extent, and no evidence of cross-species changes), so there has to be a period of time where those changes occur. Punctuated equilibrium asserts these changes over a relatively short amount of time "punctuating" the long periods of equilibrium.-http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html-
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. " *Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. (Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]-
I think that's enough. Believe, choose not to believe, or choose not to choose whatever you like.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4697 views

TONY: Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium-Punctuated equilibrium is based on the idea that we cannot see changes in a species, so there must (this is typical language that means the evidence does not fit the theory)be very long periods of no changes of species. That is the equilibrium part of punctuated equilibrium. However, we do know that species do change (but not the extent, and no evidence of cross-species changes), so there has to be a period of time where those changes occur. Punctuated equilibrium asserts these changes over a relatively short amount of time "punctuating" the long periods of equilibrium.-One of your arguments against evolution was the lack of time. (They explain it away with punctuated equilibrium). I pointed out to you that p.e. explains [I should have said describes] the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis). This has nothing to do with lack of time, and as you pointed out yourself, it actually shortens the time available for change. As I see it, the theory does fit the evidence - there are long periods with no apparent change - but yes, it's a theory, not a fact. From the standpoint of theistic evolution, however, it strengthens the case for divine planning or intervention, though I don't see how it invalidates the case for common descent.-TONY: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html-I agree with much of what they say about origins, which is a major reason for my not being an atheist, but they also inadvertently pinpoint a major reason for my not being a theist. In their attack on Hawking , Lennox explains by saying: If I say X creates X', I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent. And to presuppose the existence of God to account for God's existence is also logically incoherent. 
 
TONY (quoting Aldous Huxley): "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. " *Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. (Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]-I think that's enough. Believe, choose not to believe, or choose not to choose whatever you like.-This is a truly shocking confession, taken (out of context, according to some critics) from a book entitled Ends and Means that Huxley wrote in 1937 - he died in 1963 - but I have no idea why you've offered it as a response to a rational discussion on the possibility of theistic evolution. I would also find it shocking if you genuinely believed that everyone who doubted your version of life and its history was driven to do so by the self-interest exemplified in the above quote. However, if in the context of theistic evolution or any other subject, you find my ignorance - which I fully acknowledge, though I would vehemently reject the charge of malice or self-interest - too frustrating, we should end that particular discussion. I remain as anxious as ever not to offend, and despite my stubborn refusal to come down from my picket fence, I find our exchanges extremely interesting and valuable!

4625 views


> dhw: One of your arguments against evolution was the lack of time. (They explain it away with punctuated equilibrium). I pointed out to you that p.e. explains [I should have said describes] the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis). This has nothing to do with lack of time, and as you pointed out yourself, it actually shortens the time available for change. As I see it, the theory does fit the evidence - there are long periods with no apparent change - but yes, it's a theory, not a fact. From the standpoint of theistic evolution, however, it strengthens the case for divine planning or intervention, though I don't see how it invalidates the case for common descent.-You are quite correct, Punc-Eq is a descriptive term but an observational term, and not much of a theory. It does suggest divine planning and it doesn't deny common descent.

4635 views

TONY: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
> 
>DHW: I agree with much of what they say about origins, which is a major reason for my not being an atheist, but they also inadvertently pinpoint a major reason for my not being a theist. In their attack on Hawking , Lennox explains by saying: If I say X creates X', I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent. And to presuppose the existence of God to account for God's existence is also logically incoherent. 
> -We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. - 
>DHW: This is a truly shocking confession, taken (out of context, according to some critics) from a book entitled Ends and Means that Huxley wrote in 1937 - he died in 1963 - but I have no idea why you've offered it as a response to a rational discussion on the possibility of theistic evolution. I would also find it shocking if you genuinely believed that everyone who doubted your version of life and its history was driven to do so by the self-interest exemplified in the above quote. However, if in the context of theistic evolution or any other subject, you find my ignorance - which I fully acknowledge, though I would vehemently reject the charge of malice or self-interest - too frustrating, we should end that particular discussion. I remain as anxious as ever not to offend, and despite my stubborn refusal to come down from my picket fence, I find our exchanges extremely interesting and valuable!-LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4639 views

TONY: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html-DHW: I agree with much of what they say about origins, which is a major reason for my not being an atheist, but they also inadvertently pinpoint a major reason for my not being a theist. In their attack on Hawking , Lennox explains by saying: If I say X creates X', I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent. And to presuppose the existence of God to account for God's existence is also logically incoherent. 
TONY: We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. -That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent.-TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.-I couldn't understand why you had suddenly abandoned our rational discussion, ignoring the detailed responses I had given to your objections - nearly all of which are covered by theistic evolution. I'm relieved that you were not offended, but dismayed by the actual reason for your pulling out. Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.

4579 views

TONY: We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. 
> 
> That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent.
>-The biggest difference between the two is that theism accepts that there is a God, and that we can not know his origins unless he decides to enlighten us. Atheism makes up a story from which something comes from nothing and truly believes that it is possible for something to come from nothing. 
 
> TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.
> 
>DHW: I couldn't understand why you had suddenly abandoned our rational discussion, ignoring the detailed responses I had given to your objections - nearly all of which are covered by theistic evolution. I'm relieved that you were not offended, but dismayed by the actual reason for your pulling out. Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.-
I didn't equate Atheism with immorality, I simply pointed out Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog, outright admitted why he pushed so hard for that naturalist theory. It was never that it made sense, only that it gave him a way out of moral accountability to a higher court whose laws were not man's laws. I.E. If things are mechanical than it doesn't matter what he does so long as it can be justified because when he dies, he is simply dead. This same mode of thinking allowed for Eugenics and a host of other dehumanizing modes of thinking. In short, I am not equating atheism or evolution with immorality, I am saying that the beginnings of naturalism and the push for atheism had their roots in it. Not all subscribers to a theory or religion are good or bad, moral or immoral. Once that mode of thinking has taken root, it doesn't matter because it is touted as fact and people grow up believing it without knowing or caring about the origins of it, much the same way that good people fuel up their care without thinking about the wars that were fought and people that died so they could do so cheaply.-
People are people, and people will do whatever they think they can justify under their dominant mode of thinking. Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4583 views

Dhw: That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent.-TONY: The biggest difference between the two is that theism accepts that there is a God, and that we can not know his origins unless he decides to enlighten us. Atheism makes up a story from which something comes from nothing and truly believes that it is possible for something to come from nothing.-We don't know the First Cause. Theism makes up a story that it is a conscious something that has either always been there or came from nothing. Atheism makes up a story that a non-conscious something has always been there or came from nothing. The only difference I can see is that theism believes (not accepts) in something that won't tell us where it came from, and atheism believes in something that can't tell us where it came from.
 
TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.
DHW: Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.-TONY: I didn't equate Atheism with immorality, I simply pointed out Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog, outright admitted why he pushed so hard for that naturalist theory.-Aldous Huxley was the grandson of T.H. Huxley, who was Darwin's Bulldog, was neither theist nor atheist, and coined the term agnostic.-TONY: It was never that it made sense, only that it gave him a way out of moral accountability to a higher court whose laws were not man's laws. I.E. If things are mechanical than it doesn't matter what he does so long as it can be justified because when he dies, he is simply dead. This same mode of thinking allowed for Eugenics and a host of other dehumanizing modes of thinking. -The quote concerns the philosophy of meaninglessness, which may provide a philosophical basis for immorality, but doesn't mean that people who disbelieve in God can't find meaning in life. (Aldous H. later turned to mysticism). While religion provides meaning, throughout its history one sect has persecuted others in the belief that their god(s) want(s) them to do so. This dehumanizing mode of thinking allowed for throwing Christians to the lions, burning heretics at the stake, and slaughtering people of all denominations. As you say later, Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others. This has nothing to do with the truth of theism, atheism or evolution.-TONY: In short, I am not equating atheism or evolution with immorality, I am saying that the beginnings of naturalism and the push for atheism had their roots in it.-You are basing this assumption on a paragraph taken (possibly out of context) from a book written in 1937. Darwin published Origin in 1859, following decades of painstaking research, and feared that his theory might offend religious people. His contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace, an anti-materialist and the hero of many theistic evolutionists, believed that evolution was designed and purpose-driven. These two dedicated scientists provided the roots of evolutionary theory. How can you claim that their motives were rooted in a desire to justify immorality? You also persist in ignoring the fact that countless theists believe in the theory. Switching the subject from evolution to the roots of atheism simply won't wash. It is a genuine attempt to understand how life on this planet has developed from comparatively simple forms to the complexities of ourselves, and its exploitation for other purposes is no more relevant to its possible truth than the exploitation of the bible for other purposes.
 
TONY: Not all subscribers to a theory or religion are good or bad, moral or immoral. Once that mode of thinking has taken root, it doesn't matter because it is touted as fact and people grow up believing it without knowing or caring about the origins of it, much the same way that good people fuel up their care without thinking about the wars that were fought and people that died so they could do so cheaply. People are people, and people will do whatever they think they can justify under their dominant mode of thinking. Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.-We are in complete agreement, so long as you acknowledge that these observations apply just as much to the religious as to the irreligious, and have nothing to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the theory of evolution. 
--

4548 views

dhw: Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).-You surprise me. Punc-eq is a term given to an observation of species appearing following stasis. It is a descriptive term. It explains nothing.

4685 views

dhw: Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis). -DAVID: You surprise me. Punc-eq is a term given to an observation of species appearing following stasis. It is a descriptive term. It explains nothing.
-Quite right. Careless of me. I was responding to an item on Tony's list of objections to evolutionary theory: "the lack of time. (They explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)". I have made the correction in my latest response to him. Thank you.

4606 views

Tony: So, the atmosphere would actually have prevented the rise of life that was necessary in order to actively change the atmosphere to what it is today, and then it fantastimagically changed just-so by completely random chance just as life was ready and waiting to spring into existence. .... ... ... And people are critical of me for believing in God....-Remember there are lots of anaerobic single-celled organisms in early life. The lack of oxygen didn't stop life from appearing. But oxygen is needed for a more advanced type of energy system.

4748 views

Tony: So, the atmosphere would actually have prevented the rise of life that was necessary in order to actively change the atmosphere to what it is today, and then it fantastimagically changed just-so by completely random chance just as life was ready and waiting to spring into existence. .... ... ... And people are critical of me for believing in God....
> 
> Remember there are lots of anaerobic single-celled organisms in early life. The lack of oxygen didn't stop life from appearing. But oxygen is needed for a more advanced type of energy system.-Poor choice of wording on my part "existence". Would "spring into greatly increased complexity that did not have the time to actually form according to evolutionary theory" appease both yourself and DHW?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4697 views


> > David: Remember there are lots of anaerobic single-celled organisms in early life. The lack of oxygen didn't stop life from appearing. But oxygen is needed for a more advanced type of energy system.
> 
> Tony: Poor choice of wording on my part "existence". Would "spring into greatly increased complexity that did not have the time to actually form according to evolutionary theory" appease both yourself and DHW?-There is not enough time in the life of the univers or even less the life of the Earth for chance to search all of protein-space possibilities to find the proper life-giving molecules that work together for the first cells, much less advance to human beings.

4719 views

David: There is not enough time in the life of the univers or even less the life of the Earth for chance to search all of protein-space possibilities to find the proper life-giving molecules that work together for the first cells, much less advance to human beings.-I know this. Time, however, seems to get progressively shorter for the evolutionary OOL group. I was just merely pointing that out. We are on the same page here.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4656 views


> Firstly, I make no such assumption. I'm pointing out that the researchers' findings are open to both interpretations. ...May I in turn ask you what the evidence is for the assumption that this process has a purpose?-As always the amazing appearance of conscious humans who have the ability to explore the tgheoretical workings of the universe.

4851 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum