Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell I suspect that you can't truly know that a conciousness is 'perfect' but you can detect where one is flawed and there are numerous examples of flaws in our own conciousness (see Dennet: Conciousness Explained for some of them).
How would one recognise a perfect consciousness?
--- penguin
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution intrigues me; if evolution has been shown occur over smaller periods of time, why shouldn’t have evolution have consistently occurred throughout all of our natural history?
A question for believers in God:
Why would a God intervene throughout history in performing acts of creation when the mechanism of evolution exists?
True, evolution is counterintuitive for a few reasons. The various species on Earth look like they were created. For instance, the human has a brain, skin, and notably, consciousness, which no other life form possesses. Additionally, the closest living relation to the human is the chimpanzee, whose DNA is ~98.4% identical to humans. Scientists estimate that humans and chimpanzees both have roughly 30,000 genes; “since 1.5 percent of 30,000 is 450, we have 450 different, uniquely human genes [according to the text; regardless, many genes identical/many slightly different/a few utterly different].”1 I would have thought that there would have been a living species with a closer DNA match-up with humans.
The occurrence of evolution of complex structures and systems now seem extremely credible after additional research and readings. Essential transitional forms have been found in recent years.
I do not fully understand the evolution of human consciousness, or how altruism is possible through evolution as altruism does not provide evolutionary advantage – quite the contrary, I would think. True, it is difficult to determine what is advantageous from a evolutionary perspective; one may debate that ignorance (perhaps the opposite of consciousness) is an evolutionary advantage, since it leads to a self-serving bias, which allows us to live in comfort, safe from the bitter truths (but also the wonderful truths) of the world. Still, the evidence for evolution is more than sufficient to feel absolutely sure about the basic tenets of evolution.
I do not see evolution as inconsistent with a belief in God or with any of the major organized religions. In the Bible, Genesis appears to exhibit poetic license, but I do not have expertise regarding interpretation of Scripture. There are fundamental principles that the major religions hold to, and it is those principles worth defending.
"Evolution is God's way of giving upgrades." -Francis S. Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project
(His book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” is a good read.)
The implication of evolution that deserves concern is that aspects of evolution are misunderstood, evidenced by the citation of the Miller experiment, Haeckel’s embryos (comparative embryology?!), and the archaeopteryx bird-reptile link as supporting evidence of evolution in published works as they are not reliable sources of evidence. Additionally the concept of punctuated equilibrium is inconsistent to the theory of evolution, and really very silly to me. From Campbell Biology 6th edition textbook, punctuated equilibrium is “derived from the idea of long periods of stasis (equilibrium) punctuated by episodes of speciation.” Evolution occurs on the genetic level of the individual, and would logically occur as a “steady, continuous process.”2
The misconception exists that people have a choice between believing in God or in accepting evolution. This may lead to an unnecessary war by proponents of faith and science although there is hope that we may learn from history. When the mechanism for the origin of life is found, conflict will emerge between proponents of science and faith again. Science cannot disprove God (as even Richard Dawkins would tell you) as science may only explain the natural world. However, I cannot believe that the universe could have self-propagated itself into existence without some sort of divine intervention. I do not think our existence is due to some cosmic accident; of course, if that is the case, we are exceptionally lucky as our existence would defy all odds.
1 http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html
2 http://depts.washington.edu/genetics/courses/genet453/2001/summaries/summary-feb23.html
Originally posted by YugaMany creationists seem to think there is some level of "complexity" which evolution cannot bridge. Unfortunately they are unwilling to try to make this claim in a mathematically rigorous way. By contrast the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes a related sort of claim and is mathematically rigorous.
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution intrigues me; if evolution has been shown occur over smaller periods of time, why shouldn’t have evolution have consistently occurred throughout all of our natural history?
A question for believers in God:
Why would a God intervene throughout history in performing acts of creation when the mechanis ml
2 http://depts.washington.edu/genetics/courses/genet453/2001/summaries/summary-feb23.html
Anyway, this level of "complexity" is what we evolutionists believe is the amount of change organisms experience over "evolutionary time", which we as a species have not been around long enough to measure. The objection is basically the logical fallacy of Personal Incredulity.
The various species on Earth look like they were created
Not to me.
I would have thought that there would have been a living species with a closer DNA match-up with humans.
Species with greater similarity to modern humans were too much in competition with us. Evolutionary theory predicts that they would be wiped out.
altruism does not provide evolutionary advantage – quite the contrary, I would think
Untrue.
http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
the Miller experiment, Haeckel’s embryos (comparative embryology?!), and the archaeopteryx bird-reptile link as supporting evidence of evolution in published works as they are not reliable sources of evidence.
They aren't?
if that is the case, we are exceptionally lucky as our existence would defy all odds.
How do you know? I'd like to see a statistical analysis of this. I've seen some, but they were very poorly done and invalid due to faulty assumptions.
Originally posted by stockenSorry, that was poorly worded. 🙂 No species has a cerebral cortex that is as well-developed as ours, a level of consciousness that matches ours, or a skin that remotely looks like ours. Most species have these to some degree; I guess one could substitute outer membrane for skin?
Erm?.. No other form of life possess a brain, skin or consciousness? I beg to
differ, sir.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMany creationists seem to think there is some level of "complexity" which evolution cannot bridge. Unfortunately they are unwilling to try to make this claim in a mathematically rigorous way. By contrast the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes a related sort of claim and is mathematically rigorous.
What you say is unfortunately true, not unfortunate because of the skepticism, but because some people, referred to as ‘creationists’ are mistaken when claiming that evolution is false. “Creationism in current usage is the belief in a literal interpretation of specific religious works referring to God creating the universe.” – wikipedia Consequently, by the current definition I would be both a creationist and an evolutionist. (I would probably be a creationist on a more limited degree than most!? I certainly don’t take Genesis completely literally!)
“The various species on Earth look like they were created.” - Yuga
[I do not think humans look like chimpanzees. I should have written that I do not think humans have a physical likeness that resembles that of the chimpanzee. Perhaps if one went crazy with the Photoshop. 🙂 After seeing more of the scientific evidence, yes, I am quite convinced that evolution is sound.]
Species with greater similarity [i.e. a closer genetic match-up] to modern humans were too much in competition with us. Evolutionary theory predicts that they would be wiped out. Yes.
“I would think that “altruism does not provide evolutionary advantage.” -Yuga
Ok, tit for tat. What a funny name! Altruism has some inherent defects; for example, sacrificing one’s life for a noble cause will not allow one to propagate offspring in the future. However, “tit for tat” implies that altruism, despite having some inherent defects, will likely correspond with traits which may have evolutionary advantage. When one adds up the score (comparing “tits with tats”?), people who are more altruistic may have an evolutionary advantage, perhaps not because they are altruistic, but because that they are more likely to have qualities (perhaps forgiveness) that increases chances of propagation of the species.
Thank you for the articles. 🙂
“The Miller experiment, Haeckel’s embryos (comparative embryology?!), the archaeopteryx bird-reptile link, [and punctuated equilibrium] as supporting evidence of evolution in published works as they are not reliable sources of evidence.” - Yuga
Regarding Haeckel’s embryos, simply because embryos look alike does not make it [evolution!] so. Additionally, the embryos are not as physically similar as they are portrayed in textbooks.
Regarding the Miller experiment (sixth post down):
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=40560&page=193
The text never tells the full story, only what one needs to know. 🙂
Regarding the archaeopteryx bird-reptile link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#features
Therefore, the conclusion: modern birds did not evolve from archaeopteryx; however, “modern birds are descended from reptile-like ancestors similar to Archaeopteryx.”
I wouldn’t consider the direct DNA correlation of humans with similar primate species evidence of evolution. However, the consistent accumulation of ‘dissimilarities’ on’ junk DNA’ over time is consistent with Darwinian evolution (and of course inconsistent with punctuated equilibrium).
“We are exceptionally lucky as our existence [could] defy all odds?!” -Yuga
How do you know? I'd like to see a statistical analysis of this. I've seen some, but they were very poorly done and invalid due to faulty assumptions.
We would have to know the conditions necessary to reach the point when homo sapiens came into being. We could have to consider the fine-tuning of the universe, the slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter when the universe came into being, the conditions necessary for life, and then for humankind to exist. It is not a question of how the universe came into being; we may come to accurately come to understand ‘how’, but ‘how likely’. What are the chances that human beings could have come to exist in this universe? Or indeed, what are the chances that life could have come into existence from non-life? But these things happened. And absolutely do not think that this could have been a lucky chance; sure, science can explain the ‘how’ but not necessarily the ‘how likely’.
Originally posted by YugaYou too cannot explain (or calculate) the ‘how likely’ so what does it have to do with evolution having taken place? It is a fallacy to claim that because a thrown dice landed on a specific number (say 3) then the probability of it landing on 3 is 1/6 which is far less than random chance would suggest indicating an intelligent agent.
We would have to know the conditions necessary to reach the point when homo sapiens came into being. We could have to consider the fine-tuning of the universe, the slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter when the universe came into being, the conditions necessary for life, and then for humankind to exist. It is not a question of how the universe came int ...[text shortened]... e been a lucky chance; sure, science can explain the ‘how’ but not necessarily the ‘how likely’.
The only way that you can claim that the particular outcome of the universe is not 'likely' is to show that it is somehow unique or special amongst all the other possible outcomes.
Originally posted by no1marauderno! its obvious that God "selects" that species into existence.
Let me ask you a question: when a new species appears (something that has been observed) what would satisfy you that it had evolved from some other species? Or do you believe that they simply pop into existence out of nothing?
oh yea, the word selection is used in short for natural selection (you probably should know this). natural selection is the process in which the environment decides who will live and who will die. The ones that live pass on their more evolved genes. over time, the evolved genes become the norm and the plants or animals without those genes will eventually die off. this theory is so simple........
Originally posted by StocktonApparently, you have made no public forum posts.
no! its obvious that God "selects" that species into existence.
oh yea, the word selection is used in short for natural selection (you probably should know this). natural selection is the process in which the environment decides who will live and who will die. The ones that live pass on their more evolved genes. over time, the evolved genes become ...[text shortened]... ants or animals without those genes will eventually die off. this theory is so simple........
?
😕~
Originally posted by amannionAll features are evolved features even if they are secondary results of something else. Saying 'evolved' does not mean 'directly selected for' or even 'beneficial'. However I would think that consciousness is both selected for and beneficial. I also think that consciousness is not easy to define and it is a grey area as in some animals exhibit some aspects of consciousness and not others.
I wonder if anyone has anything interesting to say about the evolution of specific features such as consciousness and intelligence. I'm guessing consciousness is probably a secondary result of the development of some parts of our brain and not in itself a feature that has evolved.
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy might it be beneficial?
All features are evolved features even if they are secondary results of something else. Saying 'evolved' does not mean 'directly selected for' or even 'beneficial'. However I would think that consciousness is both selected for and beneficial. I also think that consciousness is not easy to define and it is a grey area as in some animals exhibit some aspects of consciousness and not others.
And if it is, why do you think other species show less well developed versions of it - to the point of some seeming to show none?
Originally posted by amannionIt should be obvious that it is beneficial, or at least many aspects of it.
Why might it be beneficial?
For example one aspect - Memory is quite obviously beneficial as it allows greater adaptation to the environment.
And if it is, why do you think other species show less well developed versions of it - to the point of some seeming to show none?
Because they are less-evolved in that direction. Greater brain development also comes at a price so it is not all good.
I'd be interested in sexual reproduction, no not like that but in the way it evolved! I've heard lots of creationist arguments about the eye & various other organs being too complex or only useful in their current form, all of which is clearly rubbish and explained many times in this thread.
However sexual reproduction requires 2 separate & different cells - a sperm & an egg, which combine their genetic material. It's not immediately clear to me how this system can have evolved from, presumably, a single cell just multiplying.
Clearly, the organism would not have split into male & female until long after the separate egg & sperm evolved. Fertilisation would have happened within the individual initially but how did it first come about? How it taking 1/2 the genetic material from one of my own cells and 1/2 form another beneficial? Surely the material is the same?
I'm rambling.
--- Penguin