Scientific Forums


Pages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Natural Selection is Recursive, NS is an effect not a cause
Knot of this world
Posted: Aug 25 2006, 10:47 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 2-March 06

Positive Feedback: 72.73%
Feedback Score: 5


QUOTE
How does a rock become more complex?


It is returned to its component parts as it is erroded and washed back into the sea.

smile.gif

k.


--------------------
My purpose is to Untie myself, and Unite where I can...
Top
Grumpy
Posted: Aug 25 2006, 10:52 PM


Curmudgeon of Lucidity
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 4329
Joined: 25-August 05

Positive Feedback: 75.44%
Feedback Score: 141


stevedoetsch

QUOTE
NS cannot produce genetic info therefore I focus on random mutation.


NS is simply the test that each random mutation undergoes. It is very simple, Does the organism survive long enough to reproduce?

QUOTE
Since claiming that genetic info occurs by accident is no explanation, evolution is left without impetus.


Mutations happen, we see it every day, so you are just wrong.

QUOTE
All things undergo evolution, so the very rocks should be increasing in complexity the same way as living things


That is the stupidest statement, bar none, I have ever read on any forum. Show me a rock that can reproduce itself. Without reproduction there is no NS thus no evolution.

QUOTE
If the mere passage thru time confers complexity then non-life should exhibit the same complexity as the living.


It's called descent with modification, tested by NS. Sometime it requires a long period of time, sometime not so long. Example: Nylon is a completely man made fabric, first seen in the 1940's. Yet, in waste ponds behind a Japanese nylon factory there was found a bacteria that can EAT nylon. This is an entirely new characteristic that EVOLVED since the 40's. That is just an irrefutable FACT.

QUOTE
Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life


Another stupid statement. Not all life is that complex, not all complex things are alive. Self-replication is the only thing needed for something to be considered alive.

QUOTE
The only random variation that can occur in the genetic code is the same kind of random variation we see in non-life.


Another incredibly stupid statement. It is evident you know nothing about this subject.

QUOTE
Imagine DNA and a stone in the stream of time and tell me why one is supposed to increase in complexity and the other not. No one can provide such an explanation so there is no reason to believe such events occur.


Let's see, one is inert matter one is not inert. The second statement just shows an abysmal ignorance of the evidence, probably a self imposed ignorance.

QUOTE
It is an observable fact that both the stone and the DNA degrade over time.


A lie, DNA repairs itself(sometimes imperfectly).

QUOTE
I present a rational and logical critique of the theory


No you do not, when it comes to this subject I have never seen such ignorance or more lies as I see in each of your ignorance riddled posts.

QUOTE
How many know of the numerous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolution?


And the lies and disinformation of AIG is what???

Grumpy cool.gif



--------------------
Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity. Kaeroll

Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

“Admittedly, people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.” Richard Dawkins.

"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it's end." Clarence Darrow

"Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism." Richard Dawkins
Top
abduljakul
Posted: Aug 26 2006, 12:06 AM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 22-August 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: -1


grumpy read this.


Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.


Top
abduljakul
Posted: Aug 26 2006, 12:16 AM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 22-August 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: -1


Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature indeed existed. This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land.

However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct seventy million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist paleontologist J.L.B. Smith said that "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished".41 In the years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.

Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 metres from the surface.

Top
PuckSR
Posted: Aug 26 2006, 08:10 PM


---------
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 15-May 06

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 37


QUOTE
2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.


This is incorrect.
Shallow-water areas(bays, lagoons, lakes) actually have a fairly suprising range of temperatures...and the temperature can fluctuate rather quickly(however not as quickly as land)....so many species of aquatic life have a rather wide temperature range in which they can live
Amphibians frequently travel on the land only when the conditions are suitable for their emergence out of the water. It is not at all odd to suggest that early creatures that ventured onto land only did so when they found the temperature suitable for their survival.

QUOTE
3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

At this point I am going to address a general failing of your entire post. You are assuming sustained survival on land. Early land-dwelling organisms did not spend extended periods of time out of the water. Adaptation was not instant.....
There exist to this day organisms that cannot exist for long periods of time outside of water, but these organisms are still capable of the occasional "dry walk".

QUOTE

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

Once again your suggestion is that one day a fish climbed out of the water and decided it was going to stay out of the water for the rest of it's natural life.
In reality NO ONE is suggesting this scenario. The existence of amphibians with varying ability to survive in dry climates is reason enough to think that amphibious life existed before continual existence on dry land.
Yes, you are absolutely correct though. Dry land survival is impossible without several modifications. You are proposing that these modifications could not have occured? You make your argument that they would have to "suddenly" appear. However, we see the obvious intermediate steps in current organisms. We also see the ineffeciency of several of these systems. Many organisms do not have the most efficient kidneys...simply functional kidneys.
QUOTE
5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

This is your worst argument yet. Several aquatic organisms are capable of "breathing" air...and I am not talking about lung fish....the main requirement is that they keep their gill systems moist....or that they absorb the gas into an inner chamber. This is a useful survival skill for shallow-water marine organisms who may find themselves in extremely shallow-water on occasion.

As i have said before...this is all very simple stuff. While you can make similiar arguments via the "irreducible complex" avenue(which I also find logically invalid)...your argument is supposing that these features would arise "instantly and without intermediate steps"....this is simply insane. No one is suggesting that these features arose instantly.

Please understand that your argument is flawed from the beginning...because you assume "instant" transformation. If anyone is claiming that these features arose instantly and magically...I will help you argue against them. You may need to go do some reading to see what is actually being claimed. This is simply a childish attempt at arguing against a valid scientific theory.

QUOTE
Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 metres from the surface.


This is entirely misleading. The coelacanth was an entire group of prehistoric fish. The ones found today are only a deep-water species of the original group. The fossil records of coelacanths are mostly from shallow-water fossils. They had very different features. You are correct that the currently living coelcanth is a deep-water fish. However, you are absolutely wrong in assuming that it is exactly the same species as those found in the fossil record. Even a creationist biologist who studied the fossils and the bones of the now-living fish would explain this to you if he was an honest man.

This post has been edited by PuckSR on Aug 26 2006, 08:19 PM


--------------------
Did you know that female hyenas have a pseudo-penis?
A hyenas clitoris is larger than a male hyena's penis.
Top
Mong H Tan, PhD
Posted: Aug 28 2006, 05:29 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49


Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Stevedoetsch: Thanks for your compliments and shopping for my book! I thought I always attached a self-disclosure as an author-philosopher of Modern Mind, at the end of all my posting herein and elsewhere. smile.gif

Anyway, your NS thread did catch my eye since you joined this dynamic Creation/Evolution forum; and at a time when I was just in the process of learning how to communicate and engage in meaningful dialogues worldwide, immediately after the publication of my book Gods, Genes, Conscience, online (January 2006).

From your writing herein, if I could psychoanalyze it as whom you are—a person who might have had a training and education in Western philosophy, literature, and the arts, with an interest in Science (?)—you probably would benefit a lot from reading my new book!

Briefly, and as I analyzed before: Since the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859), Darwinism has had been propagated, misused, and/or abused by freethinkers, religionists, atheists, etc alike; who might have had intended using Darwinism to justify their own social partisan goals—whereas my book Gods, Genes, Conscience is neural; and I sincerely hope that my readers will gain as much up-to-date knowledge as possible, including the working and understanding of our each own Life and Mind, after scrutinizing and delving into it!

However, in regard to your NS-Evolution thread at hand—while not attempting to sideline other informative posting-arguments herein—for your consideration and discussion, I would like as usual to focus, quote, and comment on your cogent essay above, point by point, as follows:
QUOTE
Ha ha ha! Mong you crafty devil! Promoting your own book! I didn’t realize you were the author until I looked up the book on amazon (and placed it in my shopping cart by the way) smile.gif

Thanks for critiquing my argument. I think we agree on the facts but have fundamentally different interpretations[1].

You insist that Darwin didn’t know about DNA so it’s unfair to critique his theory[2]. I’m glad we agree that DNA is not explained by NS, and it is certainly fair to say that Darwin is therefore wrong[3]. Am I not allowed to critique the flat earth theory because people at that time in history didn’t know the earth was spherical[4]? However, notice that I critique the Neo-Darwinian synthesis that random mutation and NS lead to new species[5]. I comment on each separately to improve clarity. NS cannot produce genetic info therefore I focus on random mutation[6]. Since claiming that genetic info occurs by accident is no explanation, evolution is left without impetus[7]. The evolution theory tells us if something randomly forms (mutation) that can lead to survival, then it will cause survival; that is always true and provides no scientific explanation[8].

I entirely agree that “NS, is a process; and is ubiquitous to all entities” and while for you this explains everything, for me this was the first revelation in my understanding that evolution is false[9]. All things undergo evolution, so the very rocks should be increasing in complexity the same way as living things[10]. Every rock, every stone, every non-living thing is granted the same prize as only the most fit of nature’s productions; they’re all granted nothing, but simply allowed to continue as they are[11]. If the mere passage thru time confers complexity then non-life should exhibit the same complexity as the living[12].

Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life, but even were a DVD player formed during the accidental collision of molecules the DVD player would not be alive[13]. Though living things exhibit complexity, all complex things are not alive, therefore complexity bequeaths not life[14]. The only random variation that can occur in the genetic code is the same kind of random variation we see in non-life[15]. Imagine DNA and a stone in the stream of time and tell me why one is supposed to increase in complexity and the other not[16]. No one can provide such an explanation so there is no reason to believe such events occur[17]. It is an observable fact that both the stone and the DNA degrade over time. It is a logical illusion that time produces complexity. Time necessarily appears the producer of that which is inexplicable to science[18].

Evolution via NS is simply a description of time (this is why they say “All things evolve”, because all things change) and time is not a cause, but the observation that things are caused. Thus to posit time as an explanation for anything is to observe that it is caused, but does not explain its cause[19]. That “things came to be this way simply because they are this way” is not an explanation for anything[20]. “Chance” is not a scientific explanation[21].

Dave Grossman’s irrelevant comments have only confirmed his theophobia as a block to objective scrutiny of the evolution theory. I present a rational and logical critique of the theory and he gives an anti-religious rant; indeed the theory has been historically tied to men frenzied at the very possibility of a creator as Dave demonstrates. Yet I mentioned neither religion, nor God. One would be right to ask the question whether such bigotry has blurred the presentation of evolution in the public square[22]. How many know of the numerous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolution?

Piltdown man; Nebraska man; Orce man; Archaeoraptor; Haekel’s embryos; etc[23].

It is obvious many of evolution’s proponents are less than objective[24].

CactusCritter does not deny that NS fails to explain evolution; he simply says he’s going to believe in evolution anyway because he asserts that evolution occurred. I have no argument with such dogma; one may believe what one wishes. My problem is that he concludes by insisting that others accept the same illogical explanation he accepts[25].

1] This may be due to our having difference in academic training and education; as an interdisciplinary and metacognitive reader-philosopher of Science and Religion, my hope is to be able to communicate and engage in dialogues with the general public who might have had originated from different educational background and degree worldwide.

2] No, anyone can critique Darwinism; but one must do it in honesty and scientifically within the appropriate historical epistemological context; I would characterize Charles Darwin (1809-82) as a great, diligent, scholarly humble naturalist-biologist—not a geneticist!—whose religious orthodoxy was crushed in himself, as a result of his hard taxonomic work and deduction of the Life species, a revolutionary worldview—the process of Evolution—that set off the accurate direction of thinking and understanding of our own human Life and Mind ever since the debut of The Origin of Species; a masterpiece that Darwin took over 20 years to agonize, theorize, and write; and only to publish reluctantly it under the heat of a same competitive idea—the consistent evolutionary observation, variation, and thesis—of a younger self-trained naturalist Alfred Wallace (1823-1913)!

The earth-shaking theory of Evolution as presented in The Origin of Species has had been comparable in scientific significance, to the Copernicus (1473-1543) revolutionary view of our solar system in Cosmology—both the revolutionary views in Science have had since been subjects of rejection by the orthodox religionists, proving the fact that Faiths can make their arrogant practitioners blind indeed!

3] No, Darwin was not wrong, as explained in 2] above; it is the pseudo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins, who has had wronged Darwinism, especially NS, by his mistranslating NS dogmatically or unscientifically into the DNA and psychical levels as Evolutionism, a Scientism that he propagated in his 1976 The Selfish Gene; and, as I just have had a chance of repudiating the book since April 2006—please see Re: Newly discovered gene holds clues to evolution of human brain capacity (PhysOrgEU; August 20).

4] Epistemologically, I would not critique the pre-Copernican flat earth theory; whereas the post-Copernican flat earth theory, that would be totally another matter, as explained in 2] above.

5] This statement defines the main thrust of The Selfish Gene perfectly; you may critique Evolutionism, a metaphysics of Evolution, to your heart’s content; but not dragging Darwinism into and with it, as the US creationists and ID neocreationists have had been doing evermore wrong-headedly since the 1990s. This is because Dawkins (in all respects, academic, scientific, spiritual, intellectual, etc) is no Darwin, as explained in 3] above.

6] This is true; that’s why I didn’t respond to your initial arguments against Darwinism or NS as a tautology—an intrinsic creationist argument that has had no scientific merits, and would be detrimental to our Epistemology in the 21st century!

7] By modern definition, Evolution must be understood within the context of Cosmology or the STEM matrices; as I explained before, Evolution is a random process, specifically depending on the 2 key factors or properties of an entity: the intrinsic chemical propensity, and the extrinsic or environmental chemical reactivity or opportunity (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life).

Similarly, the revolution of our Earth to the Sun, has had been the result of our planetary Evolution; Did our Earth’s revolution, gravity, have an impetus or purpose, during its terra formation or Evolution, and therefore, its subsequent Life formation or Biogenesis over 3 billion years ago? The answer is no; an impetus or purpose of Life is all human creations ((please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods; Chapter 6 The Meaning of Life; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).

8] Here is a scientific explanation and observation—specifically referring to a population of a species, and not an organism per se—changes in environment will cause mutation; mutation will enhance adaptability; adaptability will result in survival of the population; and thus Evolution in the species continues for as long as the system of our STEM matrices is sustained by the constancy of our Earth’s revolution to the Sun, as explained in 7] above.

9] This is a good conscientious self-introspection and criticism; that’s why I sensed that your arguments against NS and queries on Evolution, must have had originated from a person who might have had different academic training and education than mine.

10] This is a good observation, but with an invalid expectation; By Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Biology, the organic (Life) and inorganic (rock) things evolve or change differently: In general, Life evolves into complexity, because it is a STEM entity of active chemistry, plasticity, and opportunity; and it will evolve to adapt to evermore environmental complexity for survival; whereas rock evolves by degradation (for lack of intrinsic active chemistry) into its loosely bound (even if complex) elemental components; a braking-down process which by chance may get incorporated into Life organisms (including fungi, bacteria, etc) as foods or elemental supplements, directly and/or indirectly.

11] Microscopically, rocks as the STEM matrices, will never stay the same as they are, at any moment in time or space; this is because there are extrinsic chemical reactions going on within and on the rocks, primarily by its environmental factors, including wind, rain, fire, microorganisms, etc constantly eroding the rocks away.

12] This is a good pre-modern scientific philosophical argument, as explained in 10] and 11] above; therefore it is an invalid question, epistemologically.

13] This is an invalid argument for the inorganic (DVD player) Synthesis (human made) vs. organic Biogenesis (Life; or species by NS as defined by Darwin); please also see 10] above.

14] This is an invalid pre-Biology argument.

15] This is an invalid “computer vs. brain” argument; as explained in 10], 13] above, and also see Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18).

16] Please see 10], 11], 13], and 14] above.

17] This is an extensive and intensive epistemological question; so, please see Gods, Genes, Conscience.

18] Please see Gods, Genes, Conscience.

19] This is a typical metaphysical question; “time” or “spacetime” is only a metaphor, in reality, there is no such thing as time; it is only a representation of measurement or coordinate in the STEM matrices or in Life entities as “biological clock” defined by Biochemistry (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience). In Physics, we have “atomic clock” as defined by the decaying process of an Element of choice as a standard; this is because all elements degrade differently in their each unique spacetimes.

20] This is a metaphysical argument (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

21] This is true; as “Chance” is also a metaphor in spacetime, that can only be defined in our own imagination; or in random in Biochemistry, Biogenesis, Cosmology, etc (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

22] As I analyzed before, the ID neocreationism vs. Evolution, or Evolutionism vs. Religionism, has had been intensifying since the publication of the US creationist-lawyer Phillip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991), which is a repudiation, in response to the British pseudo-Darwinist-atheist Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976); furthermore, most well-specialized scientists have had not been at all prepared or trained for such a deep-rooted philosophical debate, including the creationist-archrival Dawkins—even though he has had proclaimed himself to be a Darwinian evolutionist! What a gloriously and utterly fashionable nonsense! Let our Epistemology be the judge.

So, epistemologically, and personally, as long as I’m not partisan to either side of Evolutionism vs. Religionism, I would not be bothered with or by the ignorant bigotry of either side of the quarrels—the fact that I’ve had been opposed to Dawkins’ Evolutionism, it is purely for scientific reasons: as my research shows that he and his groupies have had misinterpreted and abused Darwinism, so as to justify their “atheists without conscience” anti-Religionism politics! If Darwin could have had found out, he would have had turned over in his grave, in Westminster Abbey!

23] In any disciplines of human knowledge inquiry or Epistemology including Religionism and Scientism, there have had been shares of their opportunistic charlatans, fraudsters or false prophets; that’s why we as modern human beings must learn evermore critical and scientific thinkings at all times—specifically in Science, such frauds or pseudoscience or metaphysics eventually will be over run by the evermore scientific evidence and empiricism; upon which all of our civilization, consciousness, conscience, etc, are being built and grown worldwide; whereas in Religion, all religionists shall bear responsibilities for their followers’ fanaticism, religious fascism, and senseless homicidal martyrdoms, especially in the 21st century and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

24] This is true; Evolution is a multidisciplinary subject that cannot be defined mono-dimensionally, as in Dawkins’ Evolutionism, or in his selfish, mindless, emotionless, robo-genetic Determinism, to be exact, which has had also misguidedly given rise to his metaphysics of meme (or myth that I prefer to call!)—please see 3], 5], 22] above; and also Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18).

25] Well, as I’ve had been vehemently opposed to Evolutionism openly online: The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins, has had indeed spawned a scientistic groupie of ibots—intellectual robots—who has had since lost their own critical and scientific thinkings! (April 2, 2006; see also Re: Newly discovered gene holds clues to evolution of human brain capacity; PhysOrgEU; August 20); and, as explained in 3], 5], 22], and 24] above.

Hew! Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 8/28/6usct12:29p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.


--------------------
1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”
Top
CactusCritter
Posted: Aug 29 2006, 07:03 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 495
Joined: 8-January 05

Positive Feedback: 75%
Feedback Score: 5


stevedoetsch Posted: Aug 25 2006, 09:58 PM and included the following:

"CactusCritter does not deny that NS fails to explain evolution; he simply says he’s going to believe in evolution anyway because he asserts that evolution occurred. I have no argument with such dogma; one may believe what one wishes. My problem is that he concludes by insisting that others accept the same illogical explanation he accepts."

I reread what I have posted and no where did I find an indication that I agreed that NS failed to explain evolution.

The sections of the fossil column that I have had the opportunity to view very clearly showed that evolution occurred. I was raised in northerm Kentucky whose rocks contain Ordivician fossils for which the Cincinnati area is known throughout the world and, when my children were young, we visited exposures of Devonian fossils ranging from western Indiana to to Toledo, Ohio to Columbus, Ohio. The changes in fauna were quite striking.

The genius of Darwin was twofold. First, he was able to analyze data objectively despite his theistic upbringing. Secondly, he recognized that the process of Natural Selection would explain speciation by generally small, incremental changes. The fact is that science had not yet produced sufficient knowlege of how NS could come about in Darwin's time. I do not insist that others accept that explanation, just that there must be some scientific basis for explanations or conjectures.

Your claim that all things undergo evolution takes evolution far from the biological and botanical application which are relevant. Reproduction is essential for evolution and weathering process do not involve reproduction.

The fact some individuals whether jokers or folks who wanted a bit of fame have falsified fossils has nothing whatsoever to to with science in general or evolution in particular. In particular, the perpetrators were NOT proponents of evolution.
Top
stevedoetsch
Posted: Sep 5 2006, 09:56 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 17-May 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Mong H Tan, you are absolutely correct in your analysis of my intellectual influences, and it is because you offer a rational response to the irrational claim that genetic info occurs via “chance” that I think we have something to discuss. If a biochemical cause for genetic info exists as you posit then I will once again consider evolution a possible explanation for the origin of species. I assume you know of “Biochemical Predestination” (ISBN: 0070341265) which author attempted to show the biochemical necessity of life and who now claims he can find no biochemical cause for genetic info.

I appreciate abduljakul’s comments on evidence for evolution. However, he and his critics neglect to acknowledge the subordinate role of the evidence to the theory. The evidence for evolution is data interpreted thru the lens of the theory and is therefore supported by the theory. Some point to the data interpreted via evolution as fact because they cannot separate data from interpretation. Data does not speak for itself but is interpreted using a paradigm that shapes one’s perspective. In this case, the paradigm shapes the theory that supports the evidence. Those unaware of the paradigm by which they interpret make doctrinaire claims such as: “evolution happens everyday” (the very occurrence we are debating) Abduljakul, arguing the evidence with people who know only one interpretation is useless since they cannot distinguish between fact and interpretation. It is criticizing the paradigm and theory that will help others begin to interpret the data in a new way.

I accept that some believe in the spontaneous generation of genetic info. However, some think evolution a scientific explanation for genetic info when it is merely a description of the effects of that info. Evolution is a process descriptive theory which premise is the existence of genetic info; it does not describe how genetic info originates. The process described by evolution is: genetic info causes the traits that lead to the changes in populations that Darwin observed and labeled NS. NS does not cause genetic info; NS defines it. If one believes this process begins with the spontaneous appearance of genetic info, so be it; just don’t call that belief science.

Puck SR, here’s an example of a complex rock called "The David" by Michelangelo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_v...ichelangelo.jpg
Why does the random application of nature's laws not produce such a work? Certainly there is nothing lacking in nature' ability to carve stone via erosion? Then what more explanation is needed if we can identify a force capable of carving out stone? Obviously, more explanation is needed than identifying the raw material and forces out of which things are made; nature has never hewn the statue of a man from a mountain face though it posses the material and power to do just that. It is observable even to the child that the laws of nature alone produce nothing beyond a certain level of complexity; the question of life would never have been asked if people could see no difference between life and non-life. Life is not a mystery that evolutionary biology will one day unlock; evolutionists abandoned that search when they claimed “chance” as a cause. Rather, it’s an empirical reality that the laws of the universe alone produce only certain patterns of the kind we see in the movement of the waves, the clouds, erosion, and the crystalline structures of many minerals. The complexities that evolutionists claim chance “created” in the living should also be visible in the non-living since the same “cause” affects both. NS says nothing more than that some organisms survive, that is, some did not cease to be. Every stone survives in this sense and if not ceasing to exist is the recipe for design then non-life should exhibit complexity similar to life. Evolution cannot explain the design in life because it posits a ubiquitous “cause”; a process which all things undergo but magically adds design to life and eliminates design from non-life. If by its very nature time bequeaths design all things would exhibit the same design and the living would exhibit a subset of the design in the nonliving. As it is, life exhibits a design altogether unseen in the inanimate; a design for which we have no scientific explanation.

The claim that survival (NS) is the impetus for the design we see in life must, when analyzed and critiqued, reduce to the belief in the spontaneous generation of genetic information. If time alone produces information then evolution is the origin of species. However, if the design we see in life is found no where else then we know beyond a doubt that time is not the designer because all things change, but life exhibits a unique complexity.
Top
stevedoetsch
Posted: Sep 8 2006, 05:55 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 17-May 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


LOL. I see now my error in arguing that there is no mechanism for genetic design i.e. there is no explanation for the origin of species hence evolution fails to explain what it claims. Evolutionists don’t care because they’re going to believe in evolution anyway! While my critics here ignorantly deny my claim that evolution cannot explain the origin of species, the “talkorigins” website fully admits the lack of a mechanism for new genetic info and arrogantly proclaims evolution a “fact” by consensus. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Using the well known “evolution’s a theory and a fact” argument, evolutionists defeat with irrationality any reason based argument I or anyone can ever put forth. Those who profess the truth of a theory regardless of the evidence demonstrate their acceptance of a conclusion prior to the evidence: that is, they demonstrate that evolution is a belief. They can never be defeated in argument because they have already defeated themselves by accepting the illogical: that a theory is true regardless of the evidence. A theory is supported by the evidence, and if the evidence is in question, so is the theory. Since evidence is interpreted data, a theory is in question when either the data or its interpretation are in question. Those open minded enough to consider both sides can see that when the evidence of a theory is debated, it’s irrational to call that theory a fact.

Some compare evolution to gravity, but while gravity is an effect with an unknown cause, evolution claims to be the cause of a known effect. We can directly experience gravity, but we can only experience the effects of what some claim evolution caused. Hence gravity can be directly observed and evolution cannot (except by those whose bias renders them incapable of distinguishing data from interpretation-they can see anything they first believe is real). Evolution remains entirely unlike gravity because evolution cannot be directly experienced.

Ultimately, I write to those open to more than one interpretation of the data. I write to those honest enough to recognize that evolution is not a fact. Logic fails with those who make the circular claim that NS is a cause of genetic info, or the opposing illogical argument that “evolution is true, only its mechanism is debated.” The quote “Grumpy” uses at the end of his post is ironically apropos: “Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity.“ There can be no rational conclusion to a debate with those who claim that an effect is its own cause, that a theory is a fact regardless of the evidence, and that “chance” is a scientific explanation.

This post has been edited by stevedoetsch on Sep 8 2006, 06:07 PM
Top
PuckSR
Posted: Sep 9 2006, 03:21 AM


---------
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 15-May 06

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 37


QUOTE
Puck SR, here’s an example of a complex rock called "The David" by Michelangelo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_v...ichelangelo.jpg
Why does the random application of nature's laws not produce such a work?


Ah...and that within your question lies the answer.
Why?
Why should it?

In a mathematical sense, David is no more complex than the grand canyon, niagra falls, or Mt. Renier.
QUOTE
nature has never hewn the statue of a man from a mountain face though it posses the material and power to do just that

A simple and hopefully productive analogy.
In a randomly shuffled deck of cards, if you were to deal every card in order just as if it had just been opened...you would claim impossibility.
In terms of mathematical probability however, EVERY POSSIBLE ORDER has an equal probability. You only consider it "rare" because it closely resembles a particular order that you recognize.

The same can be said of Evolution cannot explain the design in life because it posits a ubiquitous “cause”; a process which all things undergo but magically adds design to life and eliminates design from non-life. If by its very nature time bequeaths design all things would exhibit the same design and the living would exhibit a subset of the design in the nonliving. As it is, life exhibits a design altogether unseen in the inanimate; a design for which we have no scientific explanation.David. You grant it a higher level of sophistication because it closely resembles the image of a man. It resembles the image of a man because Michelangelo was trying to make it look like a man. If natural erosion produced a "random" David statue....the improbability of such a structure would be several times greater than Michelangelo producing one because it was his goal.

No....Michelangelo's David is not more complex than an ordinary rock. Unless complexity is defined as "resembling another object". Some potato chips look like a person's face...others look like potato chips. Do we say that the "face" potato chips are more complex?

QUOTE
It is observable even to the child that the laws of nature alone produce nothing beyond a certain level of complexity

Hmmm...so...define complexity...
So far all you have done is point out that unguided systems do not produce guided results....suprise!!!
This does not vary the level of complexity.

Another point...is complexity defined by smoothness or roughness?
Is a jagged rock, with millions of facets more complex than David?
Hmm...perhaps smoothness is then the decider of complexity? Then wouldnt a river stone be more complex than David?

Your definition of complexity seems to be "resembles something i am familiar with"...which is not complexity. Perhaps a mathematically perfect object...but then a brass ball is more complex than the city of Rome.

Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.....

QUOTE
The complexities that evolutionists claim chance “created” in the living should also be visible in the non-living since the same “cause” affects both. NS says nothing more than that some organisms survive, that is, some did not cease to be. Every stone survives in this sense and if not ceasing to exist is the recipe for design then non-life should exhibit complexity similar to life

Well...this is wrong and flawed...
First, natural selection suggests more than "some things live". Natural selection is applicable to a scenario where all things are changing. i.e. living, dying, mutating.
You can emulate natural selection on a computer, but it does require that the natural selection "filter" is being applied to varying population.

Now, the flaw....
I've already explained that complexity is a difficult term to define, since you cannot tell me what is more complex....a perfectly round rock or a perfectly square rock...and explain your "complexity".
Is a royal flush more complex than an Ace high?

non-living things are subject to natural selection on occasion, but only when they alter themselves slightly. An example...rivers. Rivers all run. Rivers have many twists and turns...but they all run until they end. Why? Because if a river accidentally diverted course up-hill...it would all run back down again....
So did SOMETHING carefully design the rivers...or did they wind up that way because all other alternatives failed?

QUOTE
Evolution cannot explain the design in life because it posits a ubiquitous “cause”; a process which all things undergo but magically adds design to life and eliminates design from non-life. If by its very nature time bequeaths design all things would exhibit the same design and the living would exhibit a subset of the design in the nonliving. As it is, life exhibits a design altogether unseen in the inanimate; a design for which we have no scientific explanation.

Design in life?
Of course they can....
There is design in the rivers too...all rivers run. When man tries to imitate this feat(aquaducts) it required a mathematically complex and advanced culture like the Romans to achieve it at any considerable distances.

But we have watched rivers develop, grow, and change....
No design.....
Biological Evolution is an incredibly simple concept...it is almost so simple that you try to ignore it as "recursive".
Basic math is also simple and obvious...but some mathematicians dedicate their lives to proving the very foundations of simple mathematics.
The same can be said for physics.

When you consider the basic concepts:
All organisms change...mutate...alter slightly
An organism that has an advantage is more likely to die out, and one that has an advantage is more likely to survive.
It is an obviously simple conclusion to claim that organisms evolve, rather than instant creation.

Take the river analog.
All rivers change....bend....erode
A river that changes in a way that is compatible with "survival" will survive, while a river that changes in a way that violates the basic rules of river hydrodynamics will have to either change or discontinue
It is an obviously simple conclusion that rivers 'evolve', rather than instant creation.


--------------------
Did you know that female hyenas have a pseudo-penis?
A hyenas clitoris is larger than a male hyena's penis.
Top
rpenner
Posted: Sep 9 2006, 04:34 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5815
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


One of the main claims presented is than Natural Selection (part of the mechanism proposed by neo-Darwinism) is a logical tautology, which is therefore devoid of content.

This is similar to the claim that "Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory." as tautologies are not disprovable from within a mathematical framework. But stevedoetsch's argument is not a formal mathematical proof as at http://metamath.org/, and in science the proof is in the empirical observation, not the puffery of word games.

Specifically, Evolution (the big picture) is falsifiable so nit-picking at a straw-man model of evolution is not persuasive.
QUOTE
  1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
    • a static fossil record;
    • true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
    • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
    • observations of organisms being created.

  2. This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.


Also, as logical tautologies are truly devoid of explanatory power, the hollowness of stevedoetsch's argument becomes apparent when you examine the predictive power of evolution:
QUOTE
  1. The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.
  2. The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.
  3. Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:
    • Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
    • Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
    • Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
    • Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
    • Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
    • Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
    • Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

    With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.
  4. If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.
QUOTE
  1. "Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994).
  2. The phrase cannot be a tautology if it is not trivially true. Yet there have been theories proposing that the fittest individuals perish:
    • Alpheus Hyatt proposed that lineages, like individuals, inevitably go through stages of youth, maturity, old age, and death. Towards the end of this cycle, the fittest individuals are more likely to perish than others (Hyatt 1866; Lefalophodon n.d.).
    • The theory of orthogenesis says that certain trends, once started, kept progressing even though they become detrimental and lead to extinction. For example, it was held that Irish elks, which had enormous antlers, died out because the size increase became too much to support.
    • The "fittest" individuals could be considered those that are ideally suited to a particular environment. Such ideal adaptation, however, comes at the cost of being more poorly adapted to other environments. If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive.

  3. The fittest, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits. For example, wild dogs selectively prey on impalas which are weaker according to bone marrow index (Pole et al. 2003). With that definition, survival of the fittest is not a tautology. Similarly, survival can be defined not in terms of the individual's life span, but in terms of leaving a relatively large contribution to the next generation. Defined thus, survival of the fittest becomes more or less what Darwin said, and is not a tautology.

See also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html and http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tautology.html

But I know that stevedoetsch is getting his information from unreliable sources if he thinks science has been compromised by Piltdown man (where scientists proved the hoax immediately after a test had been devised to test their suspicious of fraud) and that Orce man plays a major role in evolution, etc. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
But I like the page on the transitional fossils between ape and man which seems to be central point for creationists. I mean, who cares about the evolution of spots on salamanders, if creationism is true then there must be no transitional ape-men, right?

The best think stevedoetsch ever added to this thread was "See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" since it helps clear up the ambiguity in the many meanings of the term Evolution. (See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html for more.)

My favorit document on this site is also the longest: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent -- on a science board (as opposed to a philosophy board) what more needs to be said?



--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
Mong H Tan, PhD
Posted: Sep 10 2006, 07:20 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49


Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Stevedoetsch: Thanks for your kind words above (September 5); and that reminded me of my reading of an account on a “battle of wits” interview that Richard Dawkins accorded in the early 1990s, in which he was totally stunted in silence, for minutes, in front of a rolling camera; as he was unable to answer or philosophize the origin of the genetic information (Gi) question, that he was quested by an alleged “creationist disguised as a Science reporter.”

I first recalled this Dawkins vs. creationists interview here Re: Newly discovered gene holds clues to evolution of human brain capacity (PhysOrgEU; August 20), as I still can’t locate the initial source of such a report—probably in the early (now out of print) issues of Skeptic magazine, or the like—however Readers, please feel free to help me identify the source, if you had had also read that report, or seen a film clip of such Dawkins interview with the alleged creationists, before. Thank you.

Epistemologically, the Gi question is very fundamental, especially in these days of our intensive-extensive search for Life in extraterrestrial existence, scientifically and astro-biologically. The fact that Dawkins couldn’t answer the Gi question—even nowadays—revealed volumes about his scholarship and ethological training, that he was indeed not well grounded in Genetics and Biochemistry. That’s why the main thrust of The Selfish Gene (1976) was a metaphysics at best, in which Dawkins has had misread and mistranslated the Natural Selection (NS) of Darwinism into his selfish genetic Determinism—or Evolutionism: a Scientism that he has had likened the genes as a stack of cards which would be shuffled, selective, and replicate at will, thus he dubbed The Selfish Gene (SG)—and further mistranslated genes (by means of wordplay) into memes (or units as defined by SG of our emotionless, mindless cultural traits including Religions, etc): a theory of memetics or Consciousness, that he has had determinedly been trying to build on his now a stack of SG or “house of cards” metaphysical Evolutionism—please also see Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18).

Recently, I was further alarmed by the fact that Dawkins has had used this “house of cards” theory in an attempt to uproot and/or unseat the ailing “house of faiths” in The Root of all Evil?, in the British TV broadcast (in 2 parts), proving the fact Dawkins has had indeed become an aggressive “atheist without conscience”—for his disrespect for the Conscience of Religions—and revealed himself as the Oxford’s “Emperor in Darwinism who has no clothes”—for his persistently mistranslating Darwinism into Evolutionism; and now into anti-Religionism—in a way he thought he might be championing the Conscience of Science where Religions have failed into the 21st century?!

Chance and Evolution of the Gi or “Chemical Intelligence” on Earth: While returning to our discussion at hand, by “chance” I would mean that things are and have been happening all along with the history of our unique planet Earth since its Evolution over 4 billion years ago. Conceptually, and Darwinism (NS) and Evolutionism (neo-Darwinism or SG) notwithstanding, the Gi question must be understood, perceived, and theorized within the context of modern Geochemistry, Cosmology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Genetics, etc—an interdisciplinary Science and metacognitive Philosophy or Epistemology that most well-trained, specialized scientists or philosophers including neo-Darwinists, Dawkins, lack since the 1970s.

As such, especially by Geochemistry, Biochemistry, and Cosmology, the Evolution of the Gi on Earth, had had been straddled between the pre-biotic, inorganic, organic, and biotic terra formation and the Evolution of Biogenesis over 3 billion years ago, particularly at a time when all the active, interactive, reactive, and creative geo-chemicals, elements, compounds, molecules, macromolecules, etc, had had accrued, coalesced prevailingly in the then fertile, primordial seas of Life, by the virtues of the 2 key properties or “chemical intelligence” inherent in each of these geo-biochemical entities: the intrinsic chemical propensity and the extrinsic chemical reactivity or opportunity (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life).

By chance and opportunity, during the planetary atmospheric formation, by geo-chemical interactions, permutations, etc, the macromolecules containing the Gi, such as, the DNA, RNA, proteins, etc, began to accrue, form, reform, and evolve rapidly and competitively in the then primordial soups of Life. Because of their inherent chemical properties, intelligence, and competitive permutations, the Gi was eventually coded within the macromolecules of DNA, as well as RNA—an intermediary decoder of amino acids that would become the building units of a protein, enzymes, etc; all materials essential to the Evolution and survival of a cell, eventually organisms, etc.

Furthermore, and specifically, by electro-hydrochemistry, permutations, etc, these cells or eukaryotes containing the Gi in their nuclei, had had assembled; and their DNA further protected, encased by a layer of membrane: which by structure, permeable only to water, electrolytes, nutrients, essentials for the cellular survival, in the then evermore competitive seas of Life—evolving and multiplying increasingly thereof and thereon in Life complexity and diversity on Earth (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life).

As such, biochemically, the Gi did establish the origin of species—as you argued above—over 3 billion years ago on Earth. However, I would not weigh too heavily on the 1969 textbook Biochemical Predestination, as it is now long outdated and was written by Dean Kenyon; who is not a geneticist or biochemist; but a physicist-biophysicist by training, turned creationist, and now ID neocreationist! While very personal, I would recommend you scrutinize the renowned US medical geneticist-Christian, Francis Collins bestseller The Language of God (2006), on how he has had reconciled his faith and Evolution.

Darwinism (NS) vs. Evolutionism (SG); Chance vs. Reality; Design vs. Genetics: As we discussed before, Evolution is a multidisciplinary and epistemological subject, that has been in hot debates since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). Darwinism as derived from his hard taxonomy of species only represents the tip of this Evolution iceberg, so to speak. Your question of the Gi as the origin of species is the physicochemical basis of Life; and therefore, your quest is at the very base of this Evolution iceberg—a query to the beginning of Biogenesis or Evolution of Life on Earth!—a deep epistemological as well as spiritual question, that even Dawkins has had failed to imagine or explore at this Evolution base; but he only resorted to misreading and mistranslating Darwinism (NS) into Evolutionism (SG), as propagated in The Selfish Gene (1976), the book that I have had analyzed above, and elsewhere, as a genetic Determinism; and as a “house of cards” theory of memetics—all Scientism that has had now turned into anti-Religionism of the “atheists without conscience” politics!

Today, we (as epistemologically educated scientists, philosophers, intellectuals alike) would not claim that everything happens by Chance; this is because, and as far as we know and appreciate, that all things on Earth are now interconnected to each other, directly and/or indirectly. In Reality, Life as a Unity has had evolved to beget Life—by reproduction or replication only today—and all organisms (dead or alive) would recycle in and by our network of vital food chains, and eventually be reincorporated into the Great Cycle of Elements on Earth, or dust to dust, so to speak, religiously. The conditions for the spontaneous Biogenesis eons ago had long passed, especially for the Chance and Evolution of any new, “naïve or virgin” Gi to be feasible or like those Gi of what had had occurred over 3 billion years ago, as we discussed above, and more in my 2006 book Gods, Genes, Conscience.

Furthermore, Evolution as a process does not cause Design or Intelligence in itself; whereas Design and Intelligence are actually caused by the chemical reactivity, selectivity, and specificity of Life elemental entities themselves: particularly whose intrinsic chemical propensities, when interacting with propensities of other biochemical entities, would chemically and opportunistically sort and form their each unique configurations that would appear to have had been designed—in and by anyone’s eye, if one has had not fully comprehended these 2 intrinsic and extrinsic forces, that are at work within the process of Evolution of any STEM matrices (of space, time, energy, and matter entities) in the Universe above and beyond, as well as on Earth (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life; and Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life)—an observation in the 19th century that Darwin described as speciation by NS (a misnomer now that we have discussed before); whereas Dawkins has had further dogmatically translated NS to the genetic level as SG in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene!

Quantum mechanically, and specifically by Electrochemistry, and by the dynamic chemical propensities for binary configuration and bilateral symmetry, a Hydrogen atom, when appropriately bonded with 2 Oxygen atoms, would always give rise to water, ice, snowflake, or vapor, depending on their each immediate surrounding atmospheric conditions, such as, the temperatures in our Earth’s Biosphere. Because of this Evolution of chemical forces and dynamics, even in the inorganic formation of snow, no 2 snowflakes would be created identically, within the context of the STEM matrix. Whereas in Life organisms, the appearance (or phenotype) of each organism, would be caused and influenced by the surrounding and interacting chemicals, nutrients, etc, which are present at the time of their each unique genetic expression (or genotype)—for more specific examples, including the Evolution of human beings, please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life; and Chapter 4 The Human Life, Mind, Dreams, Intelligence, and Conscience.

Thus, the spontaneous generation of Gi—as that you queried above; and one that occurred over 3 billion years ago on Earth; and now contained in the genotype of each unique Life organism—had had given rise to the phenotype of that specific organism, as expressed in the unique pattern of its exterior characteristics, which would appear to have been designed, by any uncritical and/or unscientific observers, especially the ID neocreationists of today since the 1990s. Furthermore, because of its intrinsic and extrinsic biochemistry, as you’ve had quested above, Life can and will exhibit a wide range of complexity and diversity; for as long as our dynamic Biosphere continues to persist on Earth, and as long as our dynamic Solar System permits, within our constantly swirling Milky Way Galaxy above and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2.1 The Universe, Galaxies, the Sun, Moon, and Earth; and Chapter 3.6 The Diversity of Life).

Specifically, if any Intelligent Designer were to have had involved in our genotype Evolution and phenotype expression, we human beings—or organisms of any species—would all have had been born identical: like any series of the Fords, or Toyotas, or robots, rolling out of their each factory assembly lines, with all component serial parts designed, constructed, molded, cast, assembled; all devoid of any molecular variation or autonomous speciation inherent in Life Genetics and Biochemistry.

And above all, if ID were indeed involved in Nature, Darwin would not have had spent over 20 years to analyze, agonize, and theorize his then vast taxonomic collections, observations, and variations of organisms in Nature, that he had had described in The Origin of Species!

Or, even more intuitively and creatively, and by our own human nature: especially in Religions, literature, and the arts, we would not have had heard of any creation narratives, fairy tales, stories, imageries, etc, such as, the cave paintings of Lascaux (France); the Epic of Gilgamesh; the Torah; Bhagavad Gita (Hindu); Dao De Jing (Daoism); Iliad and Odyssey; the Bible; the Koran; etc—constituting all intuitions, imaginations, creations, dreams, memories, visions (real and imagined) of our electrochemically dynamic Mind, or psyche, in and throughout our history; especially as a result of the Evolution of our humankind on this unique planet Earth, since over 50 thousand years ago, at a time when our ancestors had had just begun to artistically (emotionally) acquire, invent, use, misuse, and/or abuse varied survival symbolisms, mysticisms, spiritualisms, shamanisms, religionisms, etc of our own creations; for our own survival and survivorship in the then still incomprehensible worlds, both the physical and the psychical (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods; Chapter 6 The Meaning of Life; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind)!

[Post Script: Your September 8 post above sounds like you have had been taking up a creationist position all along: which is to deny Evolution as a theory and a fact! smile.gif

[After scrutinizing my response to your September 5 post above, I hope you will begin to see that all the facts of Evolution are laying around us, quantum mechanically written in the Genetics and Biochemistry of all Life species on Earth; showing that Evolution as a theory, has had been too elaborated and proven beyond any doubt, by our modern interdisciplinary Science and metacognitive Epistemology, which has now been way beyond Darwin’s original imagination and vision in the 19th century; at which time he was only be able to work and theorize on Life specimens that he had had collected at and from the tip of the Evolution iceberg, so to speak; and as I analyzed, analogized, and emphasized what a magnificence-significance of the Evolution theory, that it is, and has been above, ever since the publication of Darwin’s opus magnum The Origin of Species!

[So, beware of the iceberg (Evolution), it would sink more Titanics, such as, pseudoscience, superstitions, metaphysics, creationism, ID neocreationism, and the likes. What Darwin saw and analyzed, was only at and by the tip of this iceberg; that’s why he was a Titan in our modern Life Science (or Natural Philosophy); and not became a Titanic himself later, as Alfred Wallace did, at the turn of the 20th century!

[If you’re truly interested in modern Epistemology, why did you keep banging your head on this tip (NS) of the Evolution iceberg? Pursuing philosophy in an irrational manner, as in a clear self-denial of Evolution as a theory and a fact nowadays, is to reveal oneself in one’s own counter intellectual and spiritual propensity for Creationism; and that would be detrimental to general Epistemology indeed.

[Nonetheless, good luck to your Epistemology, which should also include the discussions that our dynamic Readers herein have had in another relevant thread that I started earlier Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (PhysOrgEU; May 5). Thank you for your consideration and meaningful discussion herein, and/or therein!]

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 9/10/6usct2:19p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.



--------------------
1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”
Top
PuckSR
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 09:32 PM


---------
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 15-May 06

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 37


QUOTE
The claim that survival (NS) is the impetus for the design we see in life must, when analyzed and critiqued, reduce to the belief in the spontaneous generation of genetic information. If time alone produces information then evolution is the origin of species. However, if the design we see in life is found no where else then we know beyond a doubt that time is not the designer because all things change, but life exhibits a unique complexity.


Here is a thought experiment....
Should something that is designed be more complex or less complex?
I invite you to take out a sheet of paper....
I want you to write down the following number
24234435345345745347583475874523423545
Now...I want you to create a random number generator...and let it run for awhile.
Give it a 10% tolerance...and tell it to stop when it gets a number that is within 10% of that number.

You will notice two things
1. You arrived at the number with far fewer steps
2. Your number is close to perfect....I doubt the RNG got it exactly...

What is the point?
A "designed" or intelligently influenced system has the hallmark of simplicity.
If God(or anyone else) had wanted a dog...he would have designed a "perfect" dog...without error. However...dogs are color-blind unlike a lot of other animals. They lack thumbs and fingers(which could definately help their human masters) and they are exceedingly dumb by comparison.

Every time we look at natural systems we see complex and amazing detail...we also see errors that a designer would have easily corrected.
Why does the nerve running to the larnyx on giraffes travel down so low...only to come back up?

Some of the errors are simple....others are mind-bogglingly dumb.

Either the "designer" was a lazy ***...who couldnt be bothered to clean up his design or modern biological organisms are the result of a haphazard trial/failure scenario.
Honestly...I like to think of God as a smart guy...so i cannot really buy into this whole "lazy ***" God scenario.

Also...dont start talking about "information theory". Unless you have an advanced degree in mathematics or philosophy. Your entire error stems mostly from your misdefinition of the term information.


--------------------
Did you know that female hyenas have a pseudo-penis?
A hyenas clitoris is larger than a male hyena's penis.
Top
womankine
Posted: Sep 12 2006, 10:35 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-September 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Hi,
I have been involved in a running argument in a Religion forum with a conservative Christian who is very into Intelligent Design. He also is advocating that science curriculum in schools be replaced with teaching a "few important experiments". I'm assuming that one of them is the double-slit theory, which is apparently a big "proof" among Christians that, because it is non-repeatable, means that God is causing the different outcomes. Or something. To be honest, this loses me and I can only argue from the perspective that he ought not be taking experiments out of the body of scientific thought.
If anyone would like to take my place in the debate, I would appreciate it. My degrees are in art and not science.
This is the link:
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2...6.html#comments

The guy's user name is JustThinking. This is his last post, which I do not understand at all. Incidentally, the reference to "emotional" is a reference to me because I told him that taking his double-slit theory outside the body of science was like my making a baking soda and vinegar volcano without having a context of experiment or knowledge. It becomes little more than a magic trick.

From JustThinking in response to ID bashing:
"Logical thinking is also something that should be carefully taught starting at a young age.

For example, science deals with the repeatable. But there is no a priori reason to believe that all things will be repeatable. That would not follow logically, and scientists do not make such assumptions.

Scientists cannot study the non-repeatable because it cannot be predicted. However, just because it could not be studied does not mean that it does not exist. That would be illogical to assume.

Logical thought allows for the non-repeatable. Inquisitive and logical thinkers might even be interested in the consequences of the existence of the non-repeatable. Any scientists who refuse to admit the possibility of the non-repeatable is not logical, which means they have become emotional."




Top
PuckSR
Posted: Sep 13 2006, 12:26 AM


---------
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 15-May 06

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 37


hope that helped a lil


--------------------
Did you know that female hyenas have a pseudo-penis?
A hyenas clitoris is larger than a male hyena's penis.
Top

Topic Options Pages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4 

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use