Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

[James R]

Quantum Quack:

I think that a lot of your post about indigenous Australians is wrong. Where did you get your information?

The Indigenous Australian, the aboriginal, has apparently co-existed in Australia for over 50,000 years with out any noticable change. It is theorised they arrived in Australia with their dingo dogs by crossing an exposed land bridge between Papua and possibly Indonesia.

It is doubtful that there was ever a land bridge. More likely, they arrived here by sea. Dingos are wild dogs. They came here independently.

They appear very distinct in physical appearance to all Asiatic, African, European races and Pacific island groups. [quite unique]

They have been isolated for quite a while.

Over 70 different pseudo languages. [ apparently they could not communicate very well across tribes. ]

Why "pseudo"? Aboriginal languages are no less pseudo-languages than English is.

They stand out in the evolutionary scheme of things.

How so? Australian aborigines are Homo sapiens, just like you.

How did they come to be?

They came out of Africa, walked through Asia, and probably came by boat to Australia. Where's the mystery?

Please excuse if my post is not entirely factually correct... all from misty recall...

That's ok. My post is based on my misty recall too.

 

[sideshowbob]

If the evolutionary process was purely as thought, then how and why would evolution seek the future for survival and also sustainability of the collective?

Evolution doesn't "seek" anything. Survival isn't a goal; it's an after-effect. Individual organisms are selected by the environment to survive and reproduce. If the survivors happen to pass on mutations that helped them survive, then there will be a net beneficial effect on the species.

The Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how species got where they are. It makes no pretense to predict how they will develop or if they will survive in the future.

If there was motivation in the genome there wouldn't be so many extinctions.

 

[spidergoat]

if this is the case then why would there be any interest in diversity of the genome... why strive to survive at all...if just mere puddles doing what puddles do. why evolve at all...

Because that's what they do, it's a naturally forming arms race.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Sarkus

The simple answer is that there is no conscious "priority"... and that those species that survive have been the ones that, for one reason or another, have been more successful at whatever is needed to keep the species going.
I do not see any intelligence guiding them, just a mechanism or two, or three, or more, which lead to evolution.
That they have succeeded is by default, not by intelligence.

Oh I am not meaning to suggest that there is an intelligence "guiding" evolutions as such. I am suggesting that evolution may be seen as in itself intelligence at work.
The notion of "instinctive intelligence" is curently underdeveloped and evolved in itself so please excuse any inconsistancies that may turn up in this discourse.
There are no solid online resources to call upon to support any of it. [As far as I can find]

Instinctive intelligence is about innate, passive intelligence that has no need for volition or decision making. It is a naturally derived system of self evolution.
In my observations I can not, no matter how hard I try, discount entirely the "obvious" intelligence required to evolve the human being for example.
I can not subscribe to a creator God like entity as first cause either.
How ever there remains the observation of extreme "cleverness" that transcends anything we humans can attempt to mimic or emmulate. After all mankind is only immitating his environment and is not the originator of that environment.

It is this cleverness that leads me to feel that a possible way to reconcile both religious doctrines and scientific concerns is to take a serious loook at the notion of "instinctive intelligence"
Because it all looks terribly intelligent to me.
I used to say to my self years ago, "If I was only 10% as clever as my own bodies design I would be the smartest man in the universe."
which is saying that if I was a mere 10% as clever as I already am but unrealised, I would be the smartest man in the universe.

In a sense it is like a sophisticated computer program that self teaches, locked up in the DNA.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is called extrapolation; the difference being that it must still comply with observations.

agrees and if theory can not comply with observation that theory is up for ammendment yes?

Why do you assume a background intelligence? Why can it not be a direct property of our intelligence? After all, it is a direct extension of the unconscious forces of evolution: Once we understand these, we will be motivated to consciously pusue our survival, both as individuals, and as species.

we as humans are only immitators we only take what the universed inspires and concuct what we claim to be something "original". Unfortunatey it is the nature of the ego to sometimes beleibve that we are superior to our source of inspiration. Example: Computer technology or any science or art form is merely a rendition of what we learn about ourselves and the universe around us.

How can you conclude that they are unanswerable?

Using the current limitations of theory they are... however extending that theory to the whole picture including historical human behaviour, and the whole of existance including ourselves may prove beneficial in finding those answers. Afterall human behaviour is also a product of evolution...

I assume you are attempting to (partly) falsify evolution here, but you are really just arguing from ignorance. Some answers have been attempted here, but a perfectly valid answer would be: I haven't the foggiest idea. Just because we don't currently know the answer you cannot conclude that it doesn't exist.

As explained see above...

To me that is not the only solution.

yet to me it appears to be so...

No, we don't know that this link is present. The general laws of physics, as gravity, cannot explain how a background intelligence, should it exist, is able to manipulate things, e.g. humans. This is a basic weakness of all attempts to build a 'rational god hypothesis': Eventually, you need to introduce magic.

Hans

there is nothing magical about the universal constants. Nor is there anything magical about proven phenonema such as quantum entanglement. It is not hard to see if one is not afraid of magic that those two phenonema are intrinsically linked. It is also not hard to see how quantum entanglement could explain the interconnected ness of all things if one wishes to extend the logic further than it's original brief.
At the moment Gravity is entirely "magical" and we experience it evey day, science simply has yet to discover the linkage or mechanism that provides constancy, yet it continues to do so. why? When searching for magic seems rather silly doesn't it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

They came out of Africa, walked through Asia, and probably came by boat to Australia. Where's the mystery?

I would strongly suggest that the indigenous peoples of Australia have no "African" genetic roots. I do recall some research on this but would have to dig the net really hard to find it. [ no not just a wiki will do in this case ]
There are way to many differences and unique attributes to indigenous Australians that have been present for over 50,000 years. Possibly the Africans have their roots in Indigenous Australians. Have you considered that as a prospect?

Why "pseudo"? Aboriginal languages are no less pseudo-languages than English is.

English is primarily a verbal or spoken tool.

The Traditional Aboriginal languages appear to be primarily a body language that uses exlamations of a verbal kind to reinforce what the wish to communicate. Very rudimentary and yet very effective for their needs.
Their mind set [ way of thinking] is uniquely developed to cope with their lifestyle and is intinsically different to any other race on this planet as far as i can tell.
They do not draw a distinction between what we refer to a psychic communication and conventional communication [ shared dreaming is often referred to but ignored by those wishing to understand them.]

One of the reasons we in Australia have had so much diffciulty in coming to terms with co-existing with indigenous Australians is that we constantly try to think of them in European/African,Asian, Polynesian or Melanesian terms and they simply do not fit into those categories of race. Quite unique in my opinion... and greaty respected accordingly... [ I worked at ULURU national park central Australia for 9 months and have had some traditional exposure]

 

[Oystein]

I would strongly suggest that the indigenous peoples of Australia have no "African" genetic roots.

I'd like to see where you dug that nugget up. I'll be coming back here, looking for your reference.

 

[Quantum Quack]

All I am saying regarding the OP is that there may be a middle ground that makes alot of sense. I do not agree with the context of the OP requiring a classical call to divinity. However I believe that that so called divinity may very well be founded scientifically if one chooses to redefine what is meant by "divinity" and take into account contemporary psychology, sociology, psychiatry and philosophy. [all fields are sciences I might add]

As to the notion of "instinctive intelligence" I shall start another topic if time permits me to evolve the thinking more so. [the thinking is abot 4 years ago and I have to revisit my notes.]

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'd like to see where you dug that nugget up. I'll be coming back here, looking for your reference.

yeah, I don't mind going out on a limb if I need to... [chuckle] I also know that my comments are in defiance of currently held "gov policy" and the supporting lobbyists.
But until the Government and people of Australia recognise and acknowledge the utter uniqueness of the Australian Aborginal Race we are going to be hard up against a brick wall... trying to work out what to do. And it is not a trivial issue by any means... a very serious issue for Australia.
A good read for those interested in Aboriginal "affairs" is a work called: Poor fellow my country by Xavier Herbert 1975 MF award winner. A hard slog but really quite insightful. IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

If one does a little research into the "Out of AFrica" scenario you will find a contradictory claim made by Israel predating the African claim by a considerable amount.
To me this indicates we really don't know and opens up the possibility that tomorrow we may find remains in Australia or any where predating all of them ...
It is also worth noting that there is considerable contraversy within the field as to the validity of statistical usage and relevant outcomes.
So for me. personally, to make any serious investment in this notion that Aboriginal Australians originated "out or Africa" would be silly based on the limitations involved.

@Aqueous
regarding Darwins finches:
You have asked: How they got there, not whether I think the theory that was founded based upon Darwins observation is worthy of consideration or not.
There are interesting factors involved with this collection of islands.
The first one is that if one assumes that Darwin was an fastidious and astute observer, which would be a safe bet, then when reading his commentary in the chapter "origin of species" it appears he places considerable emphasises the the similarities of the isalnd group and the American mainland. He would not have done so at a whim.

the naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, yet feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plain a stamp of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which resembles closely the conditions of the South American coast: in fact there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects.

and then one finds this:

The group consists of 15 main islands, 3 smaller islands, and 107 rocks and islets. The islands are located at the Galapagos Triple Junction. The archipelago is located on the Nazca Plate (a tectonic plate), which is moving east/southeast, diving under the South American Plate at a rate of about 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) per year.[3] It is also atop the Galapagos hotspot, a place where the Earth's crust is being melted from below by a mantle plume, creating volcanoes. The first islands formed here at least 8 million and possibly up to 90 million years ago.[4]

While the older islands have disappeared below the sea as they moved away from the mantle plume, the youngest islands, Isabela and Fernandina, are still being formed, with the most recent volcanic eruption in April 2009 where lava from the volcanic island Fernandina started flowing both towards the island's shoreline and into the centre caldera.

If one assumes 1 million years worth of evolution at 2.5 inches a year that is 2.5million inches of movement. that is only 39 miles.
The island is situated approximately as shown in this image I put together:

The distance to the mainland is only 605 miles.
The direction of plate movement is east/south-east.
The border with the Cocos plate is approximately 1/2 of the distance to the mainland a mere 300 miles or so.
the Island group is currently positioned right on top of a mantle plume and the plate is moving at approx. 39 miles per 1 million years.
Due to all this seismic activity it is impossibe to speculate on what land features may have existed millions of years ago...so the question of how the finches got there is impossible to even guess other than what has already been suggested casually, let alone come to any solid hypothesis.

However [the reason for me making the effort];

Given Darwins incredible powers of observation I would tend to take his comments about how similar the islands were to the mainland of the Americas seriously and worthy of consideration beyond mere anecdote. [Due to the significant seismic activity the region is and was experiencing]
I guess over all what I am trying to demonstrate and reinforce in my own thinking, is to always be mindful of the limitations of the methods and evidence provided before making any firm committment to any belief system.

 

[Sarkus]

Oh I am not meaning to suggest that there is an intelligence "guiding" evolutions as such. I am suggesting that evolution may be seen as in itself intelligence at work.

You mean just like a puddle will think that the world was built for it, how it created this litle depression in the ground just for the puddle?
Or how a rock "intelligently" rolls down a hill and comes to rest at the bottom?

The notion of "instinctive intelligence" is curently underdeveloped and evolved in itself so please excuse any inconsistancies that may turn up in this discourse.
There are no solid online resources to call upon to support any of it. [As far as I can find]

Sure... you're thinking out loud... I can appreciate that.

Instinctive intelligence is about innate, passive intelligence that has no need for volition or decision making. It is a naturally derived system of self evolution.

I think one issue is with your use of the term "intelligence" for such passivity, where we only have evidence for a natural mechanism.
If a load of soil gets put on a soil-sifter and small lumps of soil fall through to leave only the larger lumps, would you say the larger lumps have done anything intelligent? Or that the sifter itself is intelligent? And if the sifting is merely a natural change in environment, is this somehow intelligent?

In my observations I can not, no matter how hard I try, discount entirely the "obvious" intelligence required to evolve the human being for example.

Again I would dispute the use of the term "intelligence".
If one looks backwards and assumes humans are the desired conclusion then you might conclude it took some guidance, some intelligence to get us where we are.
But if you look from the start and realise that humans were not the conclusion but merely one of billions of species that have resulted from the continual evolution of life, and that the reason "life" (as we know it) evolves is because life that didn't most likely died out, then you might conclude that there is really just a dumb natural process at work.

I can not subscribe to a creator God like entity as first cause either.
How ever there remains the observation of extreme "cleverness" that transcends anything we humans can attempt to mimic or emmulate. After all mankind is only immitating his environment and is not the originator of that environment.

It is this cleverness that leads me to feel that a possible way to reconcile both religious doctrines and scientific concerns is to take a serious loook at the notion of "instinctive intelligence"
Because it all looks terribly intelligent to me.

But looking intelligent doesn't mean that there is intelligence behind it, rather the merely complex and naturally filtered over billions of years.

It's as if you want to see intelligence (or perhaps you can not accept that there is no intelligence) and so you see it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

ok ok, I'll do a bit of research and find out why you are persisting with it... back later

My reason is simply to encourage you to drop the other issues and address only the science.

Data:

(1) Certain birds found on Galapagos are found nowhere else in the world.
(2) The birds in question are a dozen species from the same family, commonly called finches.
(3) The Galapagos are a chain of volcanic islands some 500 nautical miles off the coast of Ecuador.
(4) Birds inhabited South America before the volcanoes formed the islands.

Please explain in your own words how these birds came into existence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You mean just like a puddle will think that the world was built for it, how it created this litle depression in the ground just for the puddle?
Or how a rock "intelligently" rolls down a hill and comes to rest at the bottom?
Sure... you're thinking out loud... I can appreciate that.
I think one issue is with your use of the term "intelligence" for such passivity, where we only have evidence for a natural mechanism.
If a load of soil gets put on a soil-sifter and small lumps of soil fall through to leave only the larger lumps, would you say the larger lumps have done anything intelligent? Or that the sifter itself is intelligent? And if the sifting is merely a natural change in environment, is this somehow intelligent?
Again I would dispute the use of the term "intelligence".

ahh I see we are using the word "natural" in a different context. to me all that exists in this universe is natural including mankinds intelligent offerings.
Mankind has also evolved his intelligence ... for what goal do you think?

If one looks backwards and assumes humans are the desired conclusion then you might conclude it took some guidance, some intelligence to get us where we are.
But if you look from the start and realise that humans were not the conclusion but merely one of billions of species that have resulted from the continual evolution of life, and that the reason "life" (as we know it) evolves is because life that didn't most likely died out, then you might conclude that there is really just a dumb natural process at work.

Pray tell how you can look from the start? I understand your point with out a problem, but you are making assumption of knowing the start conditions when that is the biggest question about evolution so far unanswered. I would naturally recommend that we get the start bit sorted out first before presuming to know and forward engineer [ from the unknown start] instead of what we normally do and that is reverse engineer.

But looking intelligent doesn't mean that there is intelligence behind it, rather the merely complex and naturally filtered over billions of years.

if you wish to believe this then fine... I have no problems with that.

It's as if you want to see intelligence (or perhaps you can not accept that there is no intelligence) and so you see it.

the sheer fact that we as a race have no ability to evolve a life, understand death, or even tell what is happening in this universe today is evidence of something beyond our current comprehension.
When looking at a biology of a human and the complexity of it's form and realise we know jack sh*t about the intelligence required to evolve such a thing you can't help but accept that we are so ignorant and intellectually inferior compared to it.
example: tell me you want to evolve a finch from a muddy pool?
the universe's reply: "sorry done that already...." [chuckle]

 

[Quantum Quack]

My reason is simply to encourage you to drop the other issues and address only the science.

Data:

(1) Certain birds found on Galapagos are found nowhere else in the world.
(2) The birds in question are a dozen species from the same family, commonly called finches.
(3) The Galapagos are a chain of volcanic islands some 500 nautical miles off the coast of Ecuador.
(4) Birds inhabited South America before the volcanoes formed the islands.

Please explain in your own words how these birds came into existence.

why when Darwin has already made such a marvelous contribution...?

just a theory you know... just a theory...
didn't you read my post #390 ? was it not science?

You wish to force your dogma upon me is that it? I resent that as I do evanglists crying religion...
I am a pure skeptic and don't believe any of it and take it all with a pinch of salt.
as I said in post #390 given the siesmic activity no solid theorising is really possible.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Aqueous,
do you know what skepticism is?
do you know what agnotism is?
Do you know how important these two "things" are to doing good science?

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Aqueous and others, a test...

Do you believe that metric cosmic expansion is occuring currently? and if so why?

 

[MRC_Hans]

there is nothing magical about the universal constants. Nor is there anything magical about proven phenonema such as quantum entanglement. It is not hard to see if one is not afraid of magic that those two phenonema are intrinsically linked. It is also not hard to see how quantum entanglement could explain the interconnected ness of all things if one wishes to extend the logic further than it's original brief.

Quantum entanglement is an interesting, but marginal phenomenon. It does not explain any interconnection between things.

Hans

At the moment Gravity is entirely "magical" and we experience it evey day,

Unknown =/= magical.

Hans

 

[Aqueous Id]

why when Darwin has already made such a marvelous contribution...?

just a theory you know... just a theory...
didn't you read my post #390 ? was it not science?

You wish to force your dogma upon me is that it? I resent that as I do evanglists crying religion...
I am a pure skeptic and don't believe any of it and take it all with a pinch of salt.
as I said in post #390 given the siesmic activity no solid theorising is really possible.

No, you're still missing my point.

I'm asking you to drop all the the other issues and consider this one question in isolation. This is a technical challenge for any person who is trying to understand how nature works. How did the birds get to Galapagos?
They exist nowhere else on earth. The volcanoes are recent, meaning that the islands came into existence long after birds were flourishing on the mainland.

Are you able to explain how the birds got there, that's the question.

This is the linchpin for any discussion either for or against evolution. It must be answered in isolation, that is, objectively, only considering the evidence. Can you explain it or not?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, you're still missing my point.

I'm asking you to drop all the the other issues and consider this one question in isolation. This is a technical challenge for any person who is trying to understand how nature works. How did the birds get to Galapagos?
They exist nowhere else on earth. The volcanoes are recent, meaning that the islands came into existence long after birds were flourishing on the mainland.

Are you able to explain how the birds got there, that's the question.

This is the linchpin for any discussion either for or against evolution. It must be answered in isolation, that is, objectively, only considering the evidence. Can you explain it or not?

And you are missing the point when you state without reservation that you know how nature works... because you don't know how nature works.. go on admit it...

My answer is that due to the siesmic activity it is impossible to theorise with any accuracy how they may have got there and that Darwin made deliberate signifcant mention of the fact that the islands appeared as if mainland America.

...as explained in post #390

You state only considering the evidence, but fail to realise that that includes evidence that is not presented so that a proper assessment can be made...
and I am saying that there is insufficient evidence to make any claim

If I asked you for example to do the same with the following:
explain the existance of an apple?

using the following data:
soil temperature is constant +-10deg c
height of trees no more than 5 feet.
found no where else in the world.


ok based on only the evidence can you explain the existance of the apple.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum entanglement is an interesting, but marginal phenomenon. It does not explain any interconnection between things.

Hans



Unknown =/= magical.

Hans

uhmm what do you think quantum entanglement is about? [ if not about connecting "things" ]
There is ample evidence that shows quite clearly that all things share the same constant. Your body , your brain does as well. It doesn't take a too enormous leap in logic to see how this could relate to "interconnectedness" now does it? No magic needed...