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

[wynn]

Not when born with an open cranium, or living in a vegetative state, or any of countless other ways that life is made conditional, that contemplation is made conditional, based upon a complex set of random processes.

If you posit that one bodily life is all there is to a person, then you indeed end up with such problems ...


But since you are the one claiming

The evident purpose is survival. To say otherwise is to overrule the evidence.

you need to explain how this

The evident purpose is survival. To say otherwise is to overrule the evidence.

goes hand in hand with evidence like

born with an open cranium, or living in a vegetative state, or any of countless other ways that life is made conditional

If the evident purpose is survival, then why
- is quite a percentage of living beings spontaneously aborted,
- the majority of living beings that were born, die before they reach sexual maturity,
- is a considerable percentage of living beings born with severely deformed bodies or other life-threatening complications,
- are they subject to aging, illness and death

- ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

We look designed?

Yes, based on other things that are designed.

How would you know? i.e. how would you be able to tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is the result of a non-sentient process such as evolution? Or do you consider the latter to be "design" also?

How I know?
I haven't claimed to know, I just think we are.
Actually may question was why do you think we're not.
Still waiting for an answer, from anyne. Thank in advance.

And how does it seem that we act with a purpose? What purpose? Do we all have the same?

You're fixing for a ''where is the actual evidence'' discussion. Aren't you?
I think we have a purpose/direction because we strive for things by working, studying, practising, etc. We're not just satisfied having babies, and caring for them. Although our bodies are machines, we work to enjoy and be happy.
This seems to be universal, although it's not a science.

Now please give your THOUGHTS on the same points. If you believe in darwins theory, then please explain what it was you believed before, why you believed it, and why you now believe in his theory. Thanks.


This request goes for all y'all folk who hold similar ideas.

Again, how can you tell that this is given to us rather than just the result of a non-sentient process such as evolution?

Again, I THINK it is. I've never seen anything created naturally with the ability to grow, reproduce, think, enjoy, be in pain, etc.. that wasn't the product of some form of life, no matter how basic. But as I said, this is what I think.

Now what is your answer in the oppositie scenario?
Please engage in the discussion, instead of repackaging questions.

And unless you know the intention, how can you comment on whether the designer is intelligent, let alone actually knowing that there is an intention?

You've basically slightly repackaged my question, and thrown it back at me.



As I asked the question first, I think it is only right you answer me first.

Again. Thanks in advance.

jan.

 

[elte]

I just found an article about Richard Leakey. I did my high school biology term paper on his father's work involving discovering "Lucy," the Australopithecine, which he apparently played a big part in too.

http://news.yahoo.com/scientist-evolution-debate-soon-history-155252505.html

 

[wynn]

What do you understand by nihilism? The philosophy that we have no objective purpose, intrinsic value or meaning?
And what do you mean to "live it"?

Do you expect those who hold such a nihilistic philosophy to somehow be able to override their instinctive traits of self-preservation, such as the self-creation of a subjective purpose, or to break the "addiction" to the feeling of being alive etc?
Do you expect nihilists to think "we're ultimately of no value... what's the point in living" (or at least along that vein)?
Do you expect nihilists, who might hold life of no obective value, not to assign a subjective value?

I'm just struggling to understand what/how you expect nihilists to act.

Things like this, yes. Consistent nihilism is madness.

We look designed?
How would you know? i.e. how would you be able to tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is the result of a non-sentient process such as evolution? Or do you consider the latter to be "design" also?

To me, we seem neither designed nor non-designed - I think that by merely looking at the body, nothing can be detected about its purpose.
To me, this issue of design first and foremost opens up some important questions.

And how does it seem that we act with a purpose? What purpose? Do we all have the same?

It's common for people to think in terms of cause and effect - "Do this to get that." This reveals that humans act with a sense of purpose.

Again, how can you tell that this is given to us rather than just the result of a non-sentient process such as evolution?

And unless you know the intention, how can you comment on whether the designer is intelligent, let alone actually knowing that there is an intention?

I think the interesting and important thing about this is how an individual resolves these questions.

What one thinks about one's origin, one's functioning, one's purpose informs what one will do, how one will go about one's daily life, what one will strive for, what one will give up.

Living in human society, we become familiar with many ways of answering these questions. Not rarely, it happens that proponents of an answer claim it to be definitive. But there is definitely no society-wide consensus on these matters.
We can also observe that there are differences between people and these differences seem to do with the beliefs they hold, with how they have resolved those questions.

 

[Aqueous Id]

If you posit that one bodily life is all there is to a person, then you indeed end up with such problems ...

Earlier I said the brain is the seat of the mind. I don't think anyone here would argue that people are physical beings with minds.

But since you are the one claiming (survival)

You mean repeating. I'm repeating "survival of the fittest". It's a universal theme, don't you agree?

you need to explain how this (survival) goes hand in hand with evidence like (disease/death)

Because, depending the many random processes in play, marginal survival can be adequate to effectuate the survival of the fittest.

If the evident purpose is survival, then why
- is quite a percentage of living beings spontaneously aborted,
- the majority of living beings that were born, die before they reach sexual maturity,
- is a considerable percentage of living beings born with severely deformed bodies or other life-threatening complications,
- are they subject to aging, illness and death
-

Same as above. Survival of the fittest is a game of chance that can be won even with defects and limitations.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Actually may question was why do you think we're not. (designed).
Still waiting for an answer, from anyne.

Because we know we evolved, just as all life evolved, and we know the process involves random mutation, and natural selection, which is a stochastic process in itself. The mere fact of randomness and the arbitrary way that genotyes diverge and speciate, merely because resources are available, precludes any kind of external intervention, since the laws of nature account for mutation, divergence and selection for better alleles, and the eventual establishment of the new phenotype within its given niche.

 

[Grumpy]

Sarkus

I would still question that reproduction is our purpose, rather than merely a trait that allows our species to continue beyond a single generation, and also to evolve.

Life has one OBJECTIVE purpose, to produce the next generation. If life fails at that purpose it ceases to exist(extinction). It is at the base of any other thing life does and everything else life does, all it's traits and abilities, are in support of that one purpose Nature gives all life. Every change evolution makes in a lifeform is tested by survival to reproduce. It would do no good at all if some humans suddenly were born with wings and started to fly if every person with wings was sterile. Flying humans would be extinct in one generation.

But there is no-one looking over us to gauge whether we are "successful"... nature couldn't give a proverbial whether we died out or not... or whether anything ever lived or not. Nature has no measure of success in this regard.

Nature is not an entity capable of feelings, don't think of it as one. And survival to reproduce is the ONLY criteria the success of a lifeform is measured with. Reproduce=continued existence of that lifeform, failure to reproduce=end of story for that life form. Nature doesn't know or care one way or another, but it is either success or failure for the lifeform.

As such I do not even consider reproduction to be an objective purpose.

Name any more vital purpose, then. You can't, there is no other OBJECTIVE purpose for life, all else is detail to that purpose.

Evolution is not process with a goal in mind.
Evolution is a process that exists because life reproduces. But I wouldn't call it a purpose of evolution.

How many times on this thread have I posted that there is no goal in Nature, no plan, no final outcome. Survival to reproduce is what the changes in organisms are driven by in the competition of life. So that testing of evolutionary changes gives retroactive purpose to the mindless, directionless process of evolution as it guides it to reproductive success or elimination from the gene pool. A car jack is as brainless as a rock, but random movement of it's handle only produces movement of the jack in one direction, up. The random movements of the handle are analogous to the variations in organisms, the mechanism of the jack is anologous of survival to reproduce, that mechanism eliminates all movement that are not "up"(reproductive success). Just because evolution is a mindless process does not mean it has no purpose. That purpose is survival to reproduce, period. All else is detail.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

there is no goal in Nature, no plan, no final outcome.
Grumpy

I think that's the crux of the matter, which distinguishes a random process from one that's deterministic.

Apparently the ID-ists are trying to say "deterministic" design, but they just can't spit it out, because then they need to acknowledge the principles of probability theory. That's the crux of it, which you nailed squarely on the head. There's really a lot of dishonesty behind the unwillingness to be confront this head-on. Like I say, then they would have to validate probability theory. It's the Achilles Heel of the whole ID argument.

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

Actually may question was why do you think we're not. (designed).
Still waiting for an answer, from anyne.

This is disingenuous at best, you have received several replies, though they may not be what you were looking for or maybe they just disagree with your preconceptions. WE DO NOT SEE DESIGN ANYWHERE IN NATURE. There, did you see that one? You look superficially at the lifeforms around you and say "They appear designed" but what you do not see is the vast majority of other lifeforms that FAILED to reproduce out of all the random forms generated by mutation and other forces of evolution. Nature is a scattershot affair, generate a whole bunch of different variations and the few that survive seem to have been better designed for their niche, but it was all luck that they have better survival traits. No design at all.

You're fixing for a ''where is the actual evidence'' discussion. Aren't you?
I think we have a purpose/direction because we strive for things by working, studying, practising, etc. We're not just satisfied having babies, and caring for them. Although our bodies are machines, we work to enjoy and be happy.
This seems to be universal, although it's not a science.

It is all irrelivant to Nature and subjective to the individual or society. Having babies and caring for them is the only objective purpose universal to all life. EVERYTHING else you put forward as a purpose is self chosen and subjective.

If you believe in darwins theory, then please explain what it was you believed before, why you believed it, and why you now believe in his theory. Thanks.

I don't believe in Darwin, I know what the known facts are and accept his explanation as the most logical and consistent with that evidence. As Lewellen said "Nothing in biology makes sense without Darwin. Everything in biology becomes clearer with Darwin." I have never accepted anything else from the time I was a student and first investigated the question. Belief never entered into it. When you have facts and logic belief is not necessary.

Again, I THINK it is. I've never seen anything created naturally with the ability to grow, reproduce, think, enjoy, be in pain, etc.. that wasn't the product of some form of life, no matter how basic. But as I said, this is what I think.

I suggest you look beyond the superficial appearance of the tiny minority of forms that exist today and delve into the deep sea of lifeforms that failed to survive. Were they designed? If so this designer is really, really terrible at his work. 99.999...% of all lifeforms that have ever existed failed to survive to be in the pretty picture we see today(thankfully. T-Rex was not a good neighbor). Would we call a builder of aircraft a good designer if almost every aircraft he made crashed and burned? Death of a species is Nature's way of telling you that your species is not good enough. And life is chemistry, complicated and convoluted, but chemistry, nothing more.

wynn

Things like this, yes. Consistent nihilism is madness.

Your opinion is noted, but you have a bad habit of mischaracterizing the beliefs of others and of what those beliefs mean. In fact mischaracterization seems to be your major argumentative tactic.

It's common for people to think in terms of cause and effect - "Do this to get that." This reveals that humans act with a sense of purpose.

Humans are also the source for any purpose we have other than survival to reproduce.

What one thinks about one's origin, one's functioning, one's purpose informs what one will do, how one will go about one's daily life, what one will strive for, what one will give up.

All of which has no effect whatsoever on what is actually true about those questions. How you feel about being at the end of an extremely long history of lucky accidents and winners in the struggle to survive doesn't change the fact that this is true. And dealing with reality as it is is also a survival trait. This is all just detail to Nature. If you survive to reproduce you are a winner, if you don't you are dust.

If you posit that one bodily life is all there is to a person, then you indeed end up with such problems

But there is no reason to think otherwise, so the problems are inherent to life, live with it.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

Aqueous Id

I think that's the crux of the matter, which distinguishes a random process from one that's deterministic.

Evolution could be seen as both a random and a deterministic process. Variation is random, but the test of survivability is,in a sense, deterministic. But it is not INTELLIGENTLY deterministic any more than a jack needs intelligence to lift your car, even with a very loose handle being moved in random directions it is only the direction of "up" that succeeds in doing anything.

Apparently the ID-ists are trying to say "deterministic" design, but they just can't spit it out, because then they need to acknowledge the principles of probability theory. That's the crux of it, which you nailed squarely on the head. There's really a lot of dishonesty behind the unwillingness to be confront this head-on. Like I say, then they would have to validate probability theory. It's the Achilles Heel of the whole ID argument.

They are trying to push their religious beliefs onto the natural world and it just causes cognitive dissonance. Either they remain ignorant of the evidence(often with intent)or they ignore it in favor of their own preconceived notions. When one is investigating a subject Occam tells us to make as few and as basic a number of assumptions as we can. If you assume up front an outside intelligence you are already lost and you will learn nothing about the process that can be called true, you've already conceeded it's all magic.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

Exactly.

This got me to thinking:

Variation is random, but the test of survivability is,in a sense, deterministic.

That test will change slowly (normally) which gives it a deterministic quality against the more rapid mutations that occur. Yet on a different scale - for example, long before and long after an ice age - there is still that random aspect...like the first day it snowed at the equator (an exaggeration, but maybe you catch my meaning.)

 

[Grumpy]

Aqueous Id

That test will change slowly (normally) which gives it a deterministic quality against the more rapid mutations that occur. Yet on a different scale - for example, long before and long after an ice age - there is still that random aspect...like the first day it snowed at the equator (an exaggeration, but maybe you catch my meaning.)

Good thoughts, but consider that every creature has many traits that in the normal sceme of things are largely neutral. But sudden change in the environment might mean that some of those neutral traits give an advantage in the new paradigm. The first would be the norm during gradualistic evolution, the second could lead to Punctuated Equalibrium type of change. For instance, pigs have little fur, boars are well covered in fur. They both eat basically the same thing and compete with each other over available resources. If the climate gets warmer suddenly the pigs will have an advantage as they can deal with heat better, but if a sudden Ice Age set in the boars will be more likely to survive and flourish. Both are equally advantaged in mild climates and reach a balance of sorts. In all cases it is survival to reproduce that determines who wins and who goes extinct so evolution is deterministic at all times, with the single criteria of survival.

Grumpy

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, based on other things that are designed.

Do you see evolution as a means for the designer to achieve their aim? Or do you see evolution as wrong?

How I know?
I haven't claimed to know, I just think we are.

Then assume I'm asking how you think you would know the difference.

Actually may question was why do you think we're not.
Still waiting for an answer, from anyne. Thank in advance.

Because there is no evidence for it.

You're fixing for a ''where is the actual evidence'' discussion. Aren't you?

If you want to make claims, even "think" things - I'd have thought you'd do so with more than guesswork?

I think we have a purpose/direction because we strive for things by working, studying, practising, etc. We're not just satisfied having babies, and caring for them. Although our bodies are machines, we work to enjoy and be happy.
This seems to be universal, although it's not a science.

And you don't see how this might be a matter of the society that we live in rather than an inherent, objective purpose?

Now please give your THOUGHTS on the same points. If you believe in darwins theory, then please explain what it was you believed before, why you believed it, and why you now believe in his theory. Thanks.

I used to believe God created Adam and Eve, and that we were all descended from them.
Then I used to believe that God created the initial lifeforms, and that evolution took over from there until the culmination of His plan... humanity.
Then I turned 14 and came to realise that other than the "initial cause", there is nothing that I thought required God... and that the initial cause is unknowable. So why believe in God rather than anything else? Why not just admit that I don't know and say "I don't know", rather than claim something for which I can see no evidence?

As for evolution - Darwin's is just one of a number of theories.
I certainly accept evolution as the most plausible explanation behind the fossil record and our arrival on this planet. But that's because of the evidence.

Again, I THINK it is. I've never seen anything created naturally with the ability to grow, reproduce, think, enjoy, be in pain, etc.. that wasn't the product of some form of life, no matter how basic. But as I said, this is what I think.

But why equate natural creation with design, which is what you're doing?

 

[wynn]

Because we know we evolved, just as all life evolved, and we know the process involves random mutation, and natural selection, which is a stochastic process in itself. The mere fact of randomness and the arbitrary way that genotyes diverge and speciate, merely because resources are available, precludes any kind of external intervention, since the laws of nature account for mutation, divergence and selection for better alleles, and the eventual establishment of the new phenotype within its given niche.

What do you gain by explaining things this way?

 

[wynn]

And you don't see how this might be a matter of the society that we live in rather than an inherent, objective purpose?

Why would matters of the society we live in be somehow separate from the inherent, objective purpose?

Is society not part of reality? Are humans not part of the Universe?

I certainly accept evolution as the most plausible explanation behind the fossil record and our arrival on this planet. But that's because of the evidence.

What is your job? Do you have any professional stakes in accepting the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Aqueous Id]

What do you gain by explaining things this way?

The question was

Actually may question was why do you think we're not. (designed).
Still waiting for an answer, from anyne.

To which I replied

Because we know we evolved, just as all life evolved, and we know the process involves random mutation, and natural selection, which is a stochastic process in itself. The mere fact of randomness and the arbitrary way that genotyes diverge and speciate, merely because resources are available, precludes any kind of external intervention, since the laws of nature account for mutation, divergence and selection for better alleles, and the eventual establishment of the new phenotype within its given niche.

What did I "expect to gain"? By answering it "this way"?

I am interested in hearing how ID-ists apply their world view to the actual ideas revealed to us about how evolution works. The question of randomness vs determinism is the underlying issue that remains in contention. Given the thread topic "Evolution is wack", Jan has an opportunity to weigh my answer against "wackiness", whatever that means.

Until randomness vs determinism is addressed, the conversation tends to never really tackle evolution.

 

[garbonzo]

The question was



To which I replied


What did I "expect to gain"? By answering it "this way"?

I am interested in hearing how ID-ists apply their world view to the actual ideas revealed to us about how evolution works. The question of randomness vs determinism is the underlying issue that remains in contention. Given the thread topic "Evolution is wack", Jan has an opportunity to weigh my answer against "wackiness", whatever that means.

Until randomness vs determinism is addressed, the conversation tends to never really tackle evolution.

Its hilarious. Its like WYNN saying why are you picking on me? Lol. What so you hope to gain?

Wynn still has not said what he/she thinks our purpose is! It is a simple question!

 

[Sarkus]

Why would matters of the society we live in be somehow separate from the inherent, objective purpose?

Is society not part of reality? Are humans not part of the Universe?

It is part of reality, sure. And we are part of the Universe.
But society is subjective... i.e. different societies might lead to a different sense of "purpose". And as such there would be no objective purpose for humanity as a whole.
To get to any objective purpose one must strip away any such subjective influences.
And I also would argue that one must separate "purpose" from merely "that which we do"... i.e. the purpose of the ocean is not to erode coastlines, but that is something it does.

What is your job? Do you have any professional stakes in accepting the Theory of Evolution?

I am not a professional scientist.
And no, I have no professional stakes in accepting it, nor are any needed for the line of work I am in: some of my colleagues are proponents of ID, some are Christian but accept evolution as the tool of God, and some are atheist etc.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

If human evolution is true, why do humans have freewill but chimps dont?* Why do humans have morals and conscience but they don’t?* Why do humans emphasize so much in meaning of life but animals can’t?* Why are humans profoundly distressed by death? Where is scientific answer to that?

These are the things science can't answer but bible can.

But you know what?* It’s your life and you can believe in whatever you want.* That’s whats great about being human, that we have freewill unlike animals with instinct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234 :facepalm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fhvmg9oiWU&feature=relmfu

 

[Aqueous Id]

Its hilarious. Its like WYNN saying why are you picking on me? Lol. What so you hope to gain?

wynn doesn't like to talk about science as far as I can tell. As soon as I went that route it was like all the burglar alarms went off. All of a sudden I'm being pursued by attack dogs.

Wynn still has not said what he/she thinks our purpose is! It is a simple question!

Mostly wynn comes across as a she, but once or twice I've concluded that wynn must be a rules-based inference engine with a speech module. Imagine you're having a jolly good time here on Sci posting away to your heart's content, and you lose track of time and next thing you know you'e nodding off slobbering on the keyboard. Ouila! wynn-AI awakes and takes over. And seamlessly too, that's what's so amazing. For all I know wynn is somebody's PhD project, studying our responses, gathering statistical features, classifying them, and storing them as sample sets. I've even had occasion to wonder what the acronym might represent: Wool & Yarn Neural Network, something like that.