Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Science has left me no option

Posted by   + Show Post

I have to fall on the side of intelligent design.  Unless you can give me a plausible argument, not to.  So far science has not.

This is not my "coming out" as a Jesus or Mohammad freak.

Minnow Slayer

by on Jun. 23, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Replies (621-630):
12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 8:37 AM



Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting Carpy:

Basically, what I am asking is why did some develop all the way up the chain to humans and even chimps, yet some things have remained static and never went beyond the amoeba stage?

There's an ancient idea that everything in the world can be organised on a single dimension, the scala naturae:


It was a religious extention of an idea that started with Aristotle, and fitted an age where kings were thought superior to nobles who were superior to slaves, and where even angels had their hierarchies with Seraphim being superior to Cherubim.

When you say "all the way up the chain", this is the great chain of being you are referring to, where a lion is superior to a horse, a horse is superior to a robin, a robin is superior to a goldfish and a goldfish is superior to an earthworm.

It is also nonsense.

Did you know that many fish and insects have the same size of genome as humans do?  Some amphibians have a genome ten times our size, and some flowering plants have a genome a hundred times our size?


Humans are not 'higher', 'more complex' or 'more evolved' than other mammals.

Clairwil can you point out the flaws in the following?  You don't need to explain in detail.  I'm just interested in if and where the following is using flawed or outdated science as I'm not sure how old this piece is.  


[1] I don’t know exactly how it happened, but one day I realized that you can 'derive' our universe from God (from an existence/characteristics standpoint), but not vice versa. You can 'start with' God and produce the rest of created reality by making sub-sets of His character/nature/whatever…but you cannot go in the other direction… 
  
 

[2] If I start with God and remove some of the omni-attributes, I can get angels…If I take angels and remove some of their 'freedom' from material-relations (i.e., they can appear and disappear, implying some relative freedom from optics--or at least freedom from perception by sentient creatures such as humans and animals) I can get humans…if I remove the more transcendental functions of humans (e.g., ethics, language, vastly symbolic existence, massively recursive consciousness, total community dependence) I can get the animals…if I remove various levels of mobility and adaptive behavior from the animals, I can get plant life…if I remove the capability of identity-preserving regeneration (i.e., life), I get rocks and such. 
  
 

[3] Another way of looking at this might be 'levels of freedom'. God would have absolute and unconditional freedom--in all areas and directions. The angelic beings would not be free to create from nothing (presumably) but be free to not have to terminate a material relation (e.g., be one endpoint in a gravitational attraction with the Moon)…the human would not have this latter freedom, but still live in complex organizations (as apparently the angels do) and live lives totally permeated by symbols, transcendentals, creativity (for good or ill), and contact with the spiritual aspects of existence…animals would have the capacity for group organization/life, emotional lives, play, functional communication, but loose the radical freedom of choice that comes with massively recursive self-consciousness and symbolic existence… 
  
 

[4] a note on this last point: we do know that animals are clearly sentient, and that they do have internal 'maps' of their histories and selves…and, in the research at the edge of animal communication, we know that a couple of the higher species can be taught reasonable language skills…the more public and impressive of these projects have simians that can express emotions such as sadness or jealousy, make up jokes, and put together novel word combinations to express ideas new to them…they can map existing vocabulary to get 'close enough' analogues to what they are confronted with…these specialized training programs cost gazillions of dollars, require immense amounts of specialized planning and work, and in some cases, expensive equipment…human children who could not survive even a week in the wild learn this "automatically"---the difference is staggering and systemic… 
  
 

[5] The human's freedom of choice (as higher than that of the animals), can be found in (at least) three elements: (1) the power of oppositional thought; (2) massively recursive self-consciousness; and (3) the power of symbol processing. 
  
 

[6] Oppositional thought is that ability to consider a course of action, a possible decision, a value, or simply another thought and 'negate it'…(I have discussed aspects of this more fully in the Linguistic Wall)…I literally, as a human, can feel a compulsion, an 'instinct', a 'drive', a pattern of behavior learned from my parents or peers, a virtue demanded by my religion, or a duty demanded by my community, and say "NO!"…just "NO"!…for no reason, or any reason, or some reasons…if I can think it (at any level of conceptualization), I can reject it and run the other way…If I don’t want to fly south for the winter, I don’t have to… 
  
 

[7] By massively recursive self-consciousness, I am referring to that strange ability I have (and share with others, of course) to be aware that I am aware that I am being aware that I am aware…and so on until I pass out and lose awareness…grin…This vastly transcends simple self-maps of higher primates and the 'appearance' maps of other animals, and the internal physiological maps of babies (i.e., how they can mimic with their facial expressions what they see an adult do). I can literally watch how I respond internally to other internal 'thoughts'…and "they" seem to "watch back"…when you couple this with the capability of oppositional thought, you get a freedom-generator of extreme power… 
  
 

[8] By symbol processing, I am referring to that ability to abstract some 'concept' or 'image' or 'aspect' of something and then play with that abstraction…generating transformations of it…evaluating those…recreating them…morphing them. I can construct a notice of 'justice' and then probe that for implications…I can "see myself" and tweak that, visualizing an alternative me…and I can do the same for my history, my present mental states, and even my value sets…I can soar with the angels and touch the edges of the Forms… 
  
 

[9] but to return to the hierarchy of freedom…the animals have varying levels of freedom over plants (e.g., social organization/life, locomotion), and plants have a freedom over matter, in that life forms have a freedom over entropy (via regeneration--they are subject to decay, but 'outrun it' by renewal processes that preserve core-identity over time). I am personally convinced that the 'spiritual dimension' is present in all life, although I will have to explore this further…the fact that a single-celled paramecium (without the benefit of a single brain cell,obviously!) can 'learn' where an edge is, and avoid it in subsequent movements, suggests to me that the spiritual "dimension" which seems to be related to higher levels of organization, freedom, patterns, and goal-oriented behavior, made be the single defining characteristic of life… 
  
 

[10] the hierarchy is one-directional: you can get simpler forms out of more complex, but not vice versa…I can produce individuals out of societies, but not the other way around…I can only make a society out of an agglutination of individuals if the individuals are already 'socialized'--and, in the case of humans, who unlike the animals do not have the ability to survive from birth for many years and are dependent upon the community to feed/nurture them, we carry this already in our developed souls… 
  
 

[11] this hierarchy is the basic reason why reductionism cannot work…the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts…if the parts do not already somehow 'carry' the whole (or enough of a template for it), then you cannot construct a whole from the parts--you only get a group of interacting parts… 
  
 

[12] non-linear systems (often thought to support the notion of "complexity from simplicity") are no exception to this…super-cooling a random mixture of atoms of iron, silicon, neon, and helium wouldn’t produce non-linear systemseffects…you have to super-cool a very, very specific mix…and the interactions between the particles are what constitutes the non-linear effect--not necessarily the elements themselves. 
  
 

[13] in addition to this, of course, is the rather obvious fact that elements exist in a massive context of physical "laws" and initial conditions that produce the individual behaviors to begin with…this is why the phrase "a self-organizing nothing" is so absurd…

12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 8:50 AM

On the human evolution from chimps, what would need to happen for humans to evolve into a different species?  

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 8:59 AM
1 mom liked this
Quoting 12hellokitty:

Clairwil can you point out the flaws in the following?  You don't need to explain in detail.  I'm just interested in if and where the following is using flawed or outdated science as I'm not sure how old this piece is. 

http://christianthinktank.com/bnb001026.html

The author, Glenn M. Miller, has a degree in computers and works as a manager in a computing industry company.  He does Christian evangelism as a hobby, in his spare time, but isn't a trained theologian or biologist.

It seems a little off topic for this thread, but if you want to start a new thread for it, I'll happily point out the various flaws in his reasoning.

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM
Quoting 12hellokitty:

On the human evolution from chimps, what would need to happen for humans to evolve into a different species?  

Re-read reply 620, from lancet.


lancet98
by Silver Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 9:12 AM
1 mom liked this


That depends on whether you are using the social, or the scientific definition, of species.

A 'species', at the very simplest level, is a group of living things that cannot breed with another group and produce living offspring.

That is, a species is different enough, genetically, from another group that those two groups cannot breed with each other and produce living offspring.

This 'differentness' exists on a gradual continuum.

WITHIN a species are varieties, races, etc, that can breed and produce viable offspring.   These varieties, races, etc, have only very superficial differences such as coloring.   They are 'similar enough' genetically to produce viable and even fertile, offspring.

Isolation can come about through many means.   For example, one part of a species can migrate when food sources dwindle, and be genetically isolated from the other for a long period of time.

Sometimes isolation exists even when two groups live side by side.   For example, one type of grazing animal eats the young shoots and sprouts, and another eats the more mature plants.   One type eats broad leaf plants and another eats narrow leaf plants.  They exist side by side, but in different 'environments', in that sense.   An example is the African grassland where animals gradually became more and more 'specialized' - their teeth and leg length and neck length all changed over time and finally, t some point, they were a different 'species'.   Just like in an office where engineers, salesmen and designers all do different work, but work together.

As an example, horses and donkeys are rather different, but not so different genetically, that they cannot interbreed and produce offspring, but the genetic chips usually fall in such a way that the offspring is sterile.    

In a few million years, donkeys and horses may be 'different enough' that they cannot interbreed and produce living offspring.

Various species of great apes and humans are 'different enough' genetically, that they cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring, we shall assume.    

Quoting 12hellokitty:

On the human evolution from chimps, what would need to happen for humans to evolve into a different species?  



12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 9:20 AM


So why have no other species evolved beyond their own survival in a way comparable to humans?  

Quoting lancet98:


That depends on whether you are using the social, or the scientific definition, of species.

A 'species', at the very simplest level, is a group of living things that cannot breed with another group and produce living offspring.

That is, a species is different enough, genetically, from another group that those two groups cannot breed with each other and produce living offspring.

This 'differentness' exists on a gradual continuum.

WITHIN a species are varieties, races, etc, that can breed and produce viable offspring.   These varieties, races, etc, have only very superficial differences such as coloring.   They are 'similar enough' genetically to produce viable and even fertile, offspring.

Isolation can come about through many means.   For example, one part of a species can migrate when food sources dwindle, and be genetically isolated from the other for a long period of time.

Sometimes isolation exists even when two groups live side by side.   For example, one type of grazing animal eats the young shoots and sprouts, and another eats the more mature plants.   One type eats broad leaf plants and another eats narrow leaf plants.  They exist side by side, but in different 'environments', in that sense.   An example is the African grassland where animals gradually became more and more 'specialized' - their teeth and leg length and neck length all changed over time and finally, t some point, they were a different 'species'.   Just like in an office where engineers, salesmen and designers all do different work, but work together.

As an example, horses and donkeys are rather different, but not so different genetically, that they cannot interbreed and produce offspring, but the genetic chips usually fall in such a way that the offspring is sterile.    

In a few million years, donkeys and horses may be 'different enough' that they cannot interbreed and produce living offspring.

Various species of great apes and humans are 'different enough' genetically, that they cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring, we shall assume.    

Quoting 12hellokitty:

On the human evolution from chimps, what would need to happen for humans to evolve into a different species?  





lancet98
by Silver Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM
1 mom liked this


What do you mean by 'beyond their own survival'?

That makes no sense.

Humans have not 'evolved beyond their own survival'.   In fact, they are doing the exact opposite of that - the're destroying their own environment, and without that environment, they can't survive.   That to me, does not indicate 'evolving past their own survival'.

Quite the contrary.   To me it means they have not evolved sufficient self control to use their brain power to plan more carefully and regulate themselves more effectively.

To me, destroying the environment that enables one to live is extremely - UNintelligent and to use the word in the popular way, 'un-evolved'..

Do you mean why do humans have a spiritual life and no other animals do?

How do you know they don't?

Do you mean that they have art, jewelry, stuff like that?

I think humans have all those things because they have an ability to think in more abstract ways than other animals.  

But we're barely familiar with how other animals think, so it's hard to insist they don't think abstractly as well.

Quoting 12hellokitty:


So why have no other species evolved beyond their own survival in a way comparable to humans?  

Quoting lancet98:


That depends on whether you are using the social, or the scientific definition, of species.


Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM
2 moms liked this
Quoting 12hellokitty:

So why have no other species evolved beyond their own survival in a way comparable to humans?  

Why are there no other species driving cars, writing Bach sonatas and trying to prove Fermat's theorem?

Humans have only been doing these things for a few thousand years, since cities and writing freed individual humans from knowing only what they could learn from the 30 or so other people in their own tribe.

A few hundred thousand years ago, and we were all huddled in a small geographical area in Africa.

A few million years ago we were not human - we were the common ancestor of humans and some of the other species still alive today.

The Earth has been around billions of years.   It would be one heck of a coincidence if another species just happened to reach the technology take off point at the same time as we did.   One species was bound to get there first.

And the first species to get there, gains the ability to lock in their advantage.   To wipe out any competitors they want to wipe out.   Are you aware of what humanity has done to the number of non-human primates over the last 200 years?

lancet98
by Silver Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 12:15 PM

 We ate them.


Quoting Clairwil:

   Are you aware of what humanity has done to the number of non-human primates over the last 200 years?


 

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 4:36 PM
Quoting lancet98:
Quoting Clairwil:

   Are you aware of what humanity has done to the number of non-human primates over the last 200 years?

We ate them.

Um, yes.  Though I was thinking rather of what we did to the numbers, rather than to the individuals.

For more info, two newspaper articles:

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)