Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think he was referring to creationism as 'unscientific ratbag ideas'!!
yes, but Toaman was referring to the prevalent scientific point of view with respect to creationists, he also stated of the very same community, 'obsession with obviously unscientific ratbag ideas', beautifully phrased i thought!
He's an evolutionist.
Originally posted by PenguinIt was my understanding that if survival of the fittest was the aim of Evolution then the humans who have dominated almost every other being on the planet( except of course some deadly viruses/germs etc.) and have proliferated on this planet almost to its capacity limit to feed were the most evolved beings,let alone their undoubted Intelligence being far above the level of other beings. Since their brain alone being able to far more than compensatory for their bodily weakness,are they not the most evolved beings ?
[b]Whatever RJHinds might have meant, you will agree that Man is the most highly evolved intelligent being.
I would agree that we are the most intelligent being on the planet, but the most "highly evolved"? What does that even mean?
<edit>Just seen that TWhitehead has already responded. Please ignore as the conversation has moved on.
--- Penguin.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes I know for he in his opening statement unequivocally asserts his trust in evolution, but if you look at the context of his statement he is referring to scientists who should meet with philosophers and those of a religious disposition to, and I quote,
I think he was referring to creationism as 'unscientific ratbag ideas'!!
He's an evolutionist.
Let respectable science meet with respectable philosophical and religious viewpoints instead of the obsession with obviously unscientific ratbag ideas.
Is it not brilliant! I think so.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoEvolution has no aims.
It was my understanding that if survival of the fittest was the aim of Evolution...
then the humans who have dominated almost every other being on the planet
They haven't.
( except of course some deadly viruses/germs etc.)
There are a surprisingly large amount of those. I believe there are more bacteria in a typical human body than there are human cells.
and have proliferated on this planet almost to its capacity limit to feed
If proliferation is a score point, then many other species have far exceeded us.
were the most evolved beings,let alone their undoubted Intelligence being far above the level of other beings. Since their brain alone being able to far more than compensatory for their bodily weakness,are they not the most evolved beings ?
That all depends on your definition of 'evolved'. But I think it would be hard to craft a definition that made us the clear winner.
Once could look at:
1. Greatest number of genes.
2. Greatest complexity of organism.
3. Greatest success (in various measures, eg population, global coverage)
4. Greatest change over time (not sure how to measure that).
I think we would do badly on all of the above.
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoFor starters, evolution doesn't have an aim, it is just a process which doesn't have any foresight. This process being the natural filtering out of properties that do not survive very well in the current environment. You could say that evolution is streamlining of life on this planet. Sometimes life forms can appear to go "backwards" in evolution (often deceptively called devolution), but in reality, certain characteristics are being streamlined out. For example, animals that live in caves losing their eyes because they do not need to see. In this case, it is an advantage to the animal to not be able to see, because energy resources have been directed elsewhere.
It was my understanding that if survival of the fittest was the aim of Evolution then the humans who have dominated almost every other being on the planet( except of course some deadly viruses/germs etc.) and have proliferated on this planet almost to its capacity limit to feed were the most evolved beings,let alone their undoubted Intelligence being far ...[text shortened]... e to far more than compensatory for their bodily weakness,are they not the most evolved beings ?
All life on this planet therefore has the net result of having characteristics which "best" fit in the current environment. So there isn't really a "most evolved being".
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillDo you understand and agree with what is said in that video? If so, why not start a thread on it, (its a rather different topic from this thread) and I would be happy to point out your errors.
[b]Mutation is a destroyer:
http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillLol, the University of Edinborough, you think they might have at least spelt it correctly, University of Edinburgh, apart from that, presentation was awesome, despite the chic talking way too fast.
[b]Mutation is a destroyer:
http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadRichard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" was a great read, one of his best in my opinion.
Let us first ask: if you threw out the scrabble letters and they all just happened to fall on the ground instead of flying off in random directions into space, then what is the probability of that? How come they all end up in a near uniform plane?
Once we accept that a force is capable of resulting in organization out of disorder, we must also accept th ...[text shortened]... ence - including diamonds. What is the probability of getting 10 million carbon atoms in a row?
He explains soundly how over immense periods of time, difficult for us to concieve, how mutation upon mutation and adaptation could emerge such things as the eye, with all the twists and turns of evolution evident within it.
He gives a wonderful simile of how a line of Shakespeare could emerge from chance throwings of such tiles, IF succesful positionings of letters remained in place when discovered. The positionings were equivalent to succesful adaptations for furtherance.
He gave a simple Basic program to illustrate, which I at the time copied and repeated.
Sure enough, that seemingly improbable line emerged, out of all those chance reiterations. The idea that at one throw such a line emerges is ludicrous.
He was the one who finally nailed it for me, the theory of evolution.
It didn't presuppose an a priori design either. But, as with quantum physics, the more we delve and the further back we go the story becomes much more difficult.
How highly complex biological molecules emerged together, complementing each other in processes that required a holisitic "chance" coming together to me has to require some sort of holistic awareness underlying it and is the best explanation.
This postulation needs to be seriously investigated to the extent we can. There are consciousness studies emerging more and more.
Information is on the whole not available, as you say, but why is that?
We need more information, we need more serious investigation of such a possiblity, along with the other sometimes fantastic reductionist postulations that are called respectable science.
None of us can talk about specific probabilities either, as you point out. You seem to be supporting the point being made about the immense unknown improbabilities involved. A good point about randomness and order in physics.
The formation of a diamond is somewhat easier to explain than a functioning living cell with its interacting molecules etc, and I expect the chance and order combinations are different to an exponential degree, even if one cannot be accurate about the probabilities.
Without investigation of postulations. saying we have no information is empty. Of course we don't have much information, because of a resistance in science generally to pursue such viable postulation because of its over-reactive wariness of anything that sounds remotely religious. Understandable perhaps, but does not advance things very much.
Originally posted by TaomanWould you care to explain why it becomes more difficult? You already accept that it is perfectly possible for highly complex things like eyes to arise from far less complex things (like bacteria) through the process of evolution. So an argument of 'I cant understand how a natural process could possibly have lead to such complexity' cannot hold water for you.
It didn't presuppose an a priori design either. But, as with quantum physics, the more we delve and the further back we go the story becomes much more difficult.
How highly complex biological molecules emerged together, complementing each other in processes that required a holisitic "chance" coming together to me has to require some sort of holistic awareness underlying it and is the best explanation.
Why the requirement all of a sudden? Why do you even mention the "chance"? You even put it in quotes because you know it to be a strawman.
This postulation needs to be seriously investigated to the extent we can.
So far, I see no reason to do so whatsoever.
There are consciousness studies emerging more and more.
What are 'consciousness studies'?
Information is on the whole not available, as you say, but why is that?
Isn't it obvious? It happened billions of years ago and as far as we know, only happened once. It may have happened many times in many places but we have no knowledge of this.
We need more information, we need more serious investigation of such a possiblity, along with the other sometimes fantastic reductionist postulations that are called respectable science.
I see no reason why your postulation should be given any credibility at all. So far the only real reason you have for supporting it are religious ones. The other reasons you give are apparently concocted to support your religious beliefs, not the other way around.
The formation of a diamond is somewhat easier to explain than a functioning living cell with its interacting molecules etc, and I expect the chance and order combinations are different to an exponential degree, even if one cannot be accurate about the probabilities.
But you do accept that if looked at from a pure 'chance' point of view, diamonds would not be so common? Do you get the point I am making? A diamond has billions of molecules all lined up in a lovely matrix. Now if we just threw atoms at random onto the earth, then what is the probability of getting 1 billion carbon atoms in a row? If you understand my point, then you will realize that raw probability is irrelevant regardless of whether or not it is 'different to an exponential degree'. The argument itself is flawed so the calculation is irrelevant.
Without investigation of postulations. saying we have no information is empty. Of course we don't have much information, because of a resistance in science generally to pursue such viable postulation because of its over-reactive wariness of anything that sounds remotely religious.
Thats nonsense and I am sure you know it. Throughout history most scientists have been religious. That may be changing, but there is still a very high number of religious scientists. Many of them have struggled very hard to find evidence for their religion.
Scientists generally do not investigate a hypothesis if there is no reason to even consider it. I do not see space missions to the far side of Jupiter to see if there are flying toasters there. There may be some and it would be quite difficult to prove that there aren't.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks for raising the Mandelbrot Set, tw. And sorry, but I do see the Mandelbrot set as another indication of an underlying holistic awareness and holistic formation of order out of sheer chaos. It is a perfect illustration. In fact the more one delves into things mathematical (I am but a babe), there are surprising seemingly chance coincidences that also appear to fit into such a postulation. It isan inteeligent universe and some mathematitians have an almost religious/mystical attitude to their field.
Do you feel this way about all complexity?
Have you, for example, seen the MandelBro set? Do you feel that its sheer complexity also requires 'some sort of holistic awareness'? If not, then why the exception? If so, then why not stick with that instead of strawmen regarding the origin of life?
There are at least 40 mathematical/scientific constants that have emerged that are remarkable in the manner they apparently fit together and absolutely necessarily so for life to emerge and any diversion from those constants would prohibit the mergence of life, and in many of those constants there is no reason they couldn't have been different.
One scientist stated it was so unlikely that it appeared "to be a put up job"!
Originally posted by twhiteheadIts late here and I must come back later.
Would you care to explain why it becomes more difficult? You already accept that it is perfectly possible for highly complex things like eyes to arise from far less complex things (like bacteria) through the process of evolution. So an argument of 'I cant understand how a natural process could possibly have lead to such complexity' cannot hold water for y ...[text shortened]... re. There may be some and it would be quite difficult to prove that there aren't.
Cheers tw.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPermit me to come back at a later time. But I request your comments on my earlier rejoinder to you.
Evolution has no aims.
[b]then the humans who have dominated almost every other being on the planet
They haven't.
( except of course some deadly viruses/germs etc.)
There are a surprisingly large amount of those. I believe there are more bacteria in a typical human body than there are human cells.
and have proliferated on this p ...[text shortened]... nge over time (not sure how to measure that).
I think we would do badly on all of the above.
Originally posted by lauseyIs evolution a process dealing with filtering of biological properties only such as organ structure,organ materials, development of senses and other abilities / skills connected with the use of organs in the living being etc. or is it also concerned with brain processes such as thinking,emotional development etc.
For starters, evolution doesn't have an aim, it is just a process which doesn't have any foresight. This process being the natural filtering out of properties that do not survive very well in the current environment. You could say that evolution is streamlining of life on this planet. Sometimes life forms can appear to go "backwards" in evolution (often decep ...[text shortened]... ch "best" fit in the current environment. So there isn't really a "most evolved being".
If it is also concerned with thinking and emotions, what streamlining/filtering ,if any, has taken place to give humans the highest thinking powers and the highest range of emotions among all living beings ?