Originally posted by spruce112358This is, by far, the best response to the query by anyone to date.
But there you miss the fundamental genius of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. They realized that what was going on in the barnyards of men was ALSO happening in nature. The same process that gave rise to Holstein cows -- with the forces of nature substituted for the forces of man -- gave rise to birds of paradise and Galapagos finches.
Man applies ...[text shortened]...
Apply a force -- no matter which, no matter the goal or lack thereof -- and selection results.
Apply a force -- no matter which, no matter the goal or lack thereof -- and selection results.
There is a problem with the terminology, in that 'selection' isn't occurring: success is occurring. And, in the final analysis, it ends up with the same problem. Nature doesn't apply a force; agents do. Nature has no memory of success or failure; agents do.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandLet's not waste time covering ground you know has already been covered and agreed with. Simply answer the question that has been asked. It really should be easy enough.
Let me try....
Let us take an example; your own family. Look back in your own family until you find a brother or sister of your parents/grandparents etc thata did not have children.
ok? found one?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHit should be...
Let's not waste time covering ground you know has already been covered and agreed with. Simply answer the question that has been asked. It really should be easy enough.
now ask yourself why that person did not have children?
was it a force or a process? you decide...
Originally posted by jaywillI'm more than happy to 'open my mind' to an intelligence involved in life, if you can show me: 1. the need to do so, and 2. any credible evidence for this.
[b]===================================
Fair enough.You want a second opinion, but what is it? What is your second opinion?
Don't give us ID,since it isn't a valid scientific alternative. So what is? What's your alternative?
We can go around and around in circles all day and all night. In the end your mind isn't going to be changed, nor will ours. You ...[text shortened]...
Maybe there's a form of life higher than anything we know. Look around for it.
By the first point - the need to have intelligence - I mean something more than just your 'I can't believe it's not butter' assertion. Scientific models typically operate on a 'simplest-one-is-better' principle. Introducing a supernatural element to any explanation is certainly NOT simpler.
As for punctuated equilibrium, I think you might have a mistaken notion of how this idea works. It's not some radical revision of Darwin's original model. The idea of rapid changes in species is a relative thing. We're not talking about changes over days or weeks or even years. We're talking about changes that might occur over hundreds or thousands of years rather than millions.
Either way, it's still a very long time.
By the way, what do you think are the less reasonable parts of Darwin's model?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/i]The error begins with mislabeling and continues onto wild conjecture. First, the mislabel. NS--- accurately described--- is nothing more than the fight for life. Every living organism is programmed to fight for its survival: the grass stalk kicks through the dirt into the open air and the fetus fights its way through the canal of birth. Such thriving is part of life, not a result of outside force. Environment is incapable of selecting anything: it just is. Nature doesn't need anything; doesn't require one species over another; is not dependent upon either the success or failure of any organism; faces neither profit or loss as a result of the status of its dependents.
[b]Environment knows nothing about anything... nor it needs to know. There is no intention or purpose.
You may want to speak to ammanion about your take on NS. The post to which you are responding was my response to his post, specifically the following:
[i]"Natural selection happens to life, not inside it. To argue that life must be programmed to explanation for its 'work' on transforming non-living organisms into living organisms.[/b]
To describe NS as nature's selection is to ascribe to an inanimate object (nature) properties of an agent. Certainly environment has an impact on living organisms, but it cannot be said to guide where it knows not, cannot be said to select where it thinks not.
Agreed 100%...
Natural selection is nothing more then the sum of processes and interaction that take place between life and environment.
The wild conjecture is, as jaywill pointed out, how NS got its first leg up, so to speak. If NS is as has been described, it 'works' on living organisms. In light of that assumption, there can be no plausible explanation for its 'work' on transforming non-living organisms into living organisms.
Natural selection doesn't have to work only on living organisms. But it depends on the concept "living organism".
Imagine a big soup of elements. They can spontaneously form connections between them. If one connection is stronger then the other, the most likely outcome it that one will "survive". The same thing if a series of molecules had the ability to self-replicate. You can call "natural selection" the "set of circumstances that allow something to thrive".
2 edits
Originally posted by serigadoI struggle to see that.
Natural selection is not a force nor a process. (But the word process here needs a little clearing).
It's simply the set of circumstances that end in the survival or not of a given organism.
Maybe the word "process" can be used, but I prefer "mechanism".
What I see is that from generation one to generation two, there are changes in the gene pool. Natural selection is the recognition that there have been changes, and these changes are caused by natural means. Note that natural is used here to indicate 'howsoever', ie by any natural means, including 'dabbling' by mankind.
(It only just struck me that the implication is that all these changes are 'natural' eg not 'supernatural', which is why perhaps some do not like the term.)
However I see natural selection as being the result of the process of gene pool change.
[edit] it also strikes me as particularly obtuse to try to move the debate to include abiogenesis; I can only compare it to extending a debate on how to cook rice to make where the plant type originated key to the process.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandBy calling it the result, you are taking away from its original ascribed duties. Darwin and Wallace describe it as the guiding force.
I struggle to see that.
What I see is that from generation one to generation two, there are changes in the gene pool. Natural selection is the recognition that there have been changes, and these changes are caused by natural means. Note that natural is used here to indicate 'howsoever', ie by any natural means, including 'dabbling' by mankind.
...[text shortened]... a debate on how to cook rice to make where the plant type originated key to the process.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere you go, changing the requirements again. You stated by asking what Natural Selection is. Now you claim not only to know what it is, but to have theories about it, and want people to challenge your theories. Make up your mind then state your problem again clearly.
My understanding of NS is only being questioned by those who have--- thus far-- been unable to accurate describe what it is. There has not been even one challenge to my grasp of how NS works in theory or in the 'real world.'
I notice you have been avoiding my posts.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThat is the point behind the thread in the first place! IF it is still held to be the guiding force, in light of the distinctions between force and process, there exists a huge unbridgeable gap between definitions and reality.
If you understand what it is, the rest is semantics.
You do understand what it is, don't you?
Originally posted by twhiteheadState my problem clearly? Are you serious? It isn't my problem: the propenents of NS have the problem. Those who insist the NS is the guiding force for life are somehow completely unable to accurately describe what it is. Not what it does, what it is. There is no consensus among your group whatsoever. Some of you say it's a force, some of you say it's a process.
There you go, changing the requirements again. You stated by asking what Natural Selection is. Now you claim not only to know what it is, but to have theories about it, and want people to challenge your theories. Make up your mind then state your problem again clearly.
I notice you have been avoiding my posts.
What a load of crap! How ridiculously absurd for the vocal believers to declare how cut-and-dried the whole issue is, how clear and evident is the support for it, and yet not one of you has been able to describe what it is. Avoiding your posts? Try answering the first one, will you?
3 edits
Originally posted by amannion===========================
Fair enough.You want a second opinion, but what is it? What is your second opinion?
Don't give us ID,since it isn't a valid scientific alternative. So what is? What's your alternative?
We can go around and around in circles all day and all night. In the end your mind isn't going to be changed, nor will ours. You will refuse the existing accepted model. We ...[text shortened]... 't.
But any rejection of an accepted model requires an alternative.
So, I'm all ears ...
Don't give us ID,since it isn't a valid scientific alternative.
=============================
Would you also say that archeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigation and SETI are not scientific disciplines?
I think if you discount ID as science you discount Darwinism as science as well. Both are trying to determine what happened in the past. One explores natural causes. The other explores intelligent causes. ID-ers don't demand that you not explore unintelligent natural causes. Keep looking!
They consider another approach.
The one arguing in a circle is you hard line Darwinists who want to define science so as to exclude intelligent causes. You want a definition of science which assures that intelligent causes are not possible.
Archeology and cryptology for example are valid forensic sciences that look to detect intelligent causes. SETI also is searching for intelligent origins of messages from outer space.
ID is also science seeking to detect intelligent causes in biology. It does not forbide that anyone stop, cease, or discontinue to search for non-intelligent causes. It is you hard line evos who want to forbide that detection for intelligent causes be considered by trying to jury rig your definition of science to keep intelligent causes out.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillID makes a claim about what is impossible and fails to prove it or provide any evidence whatsoever. Despite this, ID'ers continue to make these claims about the impossibility of abiogenesis.
[b]===========================
Don't give us ID,since it isn't a valid scientific alternative.
=============================
Would you also say that archeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigation and SETI are not scientific disciplines?
I think if you discount ID as science you discount Darwinism as science as e considered by trying to jury rig your definition of science to keep intelligent causes out.[/b]
ID is simply the fallacy of personal incredulity in a fancy constume. By it's nature it's illogical.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoung==================================
ID makes a claim about what is impossible and fails to prove it or provide any evidence whatsoever. Despite this, ID'ers continue to make these claims about the impossibility of abiogenesis.
ID is simply the fallacy of personal incredulity in a fancy constume. By it's nature it's illogical.
ID makes a claim about what is impossible and fails to prove it or provide any evidence whatsoever. Despite this, ID'ers continue to make these claims about the impossibility of abiogenesis.
========================================
Carl Sagan the astronomer was instrumental in getting the SETI search for intelligent life in outer space. When asked what would be likely evidence for an intelligent source for a signal from space he had typical criteria. Sagan believes that a sequenced string of prime numbers received as a message would be proof of an intelligently designed message.
Sagan wrote about the human brain:
The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons- about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small place ... The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuity of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans."
Actually Sagan probably underestimates the brain's information storage capacity. But leave that for now.
Surely Carl Sagan then should recognize that the human brain with the info storage capacity of 20 million volumes is more specified and complex than a string of prime numbers.
So explain why Sagan accepts that intelligence is evidenced by a simpler message of a string of prime numbers but no intelligence is evidenced in a message requiring to be 20 million books long?
"No evidence whatsoever" you say?
The evidence of a sequence of prime numbers is evidence for intelligent design. But a message storage system more sophisticated than anything humans have ever created is not evidence for intelligent design.
What is the Darwinist alternative to this impressive evidence of intelligent desigh ? The great trinity of evolution -
Natural Selection +
Time +
Chance
But Natural Selection + Time + Chance would not account for a message of a string of prime numbers from outer space. Oh no. That would surely be evidence of Intelligence.