Macroevolution, an unexplainable process

Author: IlDiavolo

Posts

Total: 210
#121
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@IlDiavolo
In away your not totally wrong.  Darwin didn't know about genes or mutation and got the mechanism of how traits are passed on in modified form completely wrong.  Darwins idea of natural selection was combined with genetic ideas such as mutation only much later  - in the early-mid 20th century - and later yet still more complication was discovered in terms of epigenetics and horizontal gene flow.

What hasn't changed is the role of natural selection to drive adaptation and the mechanical, 'non-intelligent' nature of the drivers of evolution. 




#122
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser

I just watched that exact episode two nights ago on Hulu and now you just happen to be tagging me with that link...

You spying on me bro?


#123
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm not arguing which one has more information. 

I know you aren't, it's just a question I am asking due to the fact that your claims rely on interpreting certain words such as "information" in certain very specific ways.
#124
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Outplayz
Sure, I made the implicit assumption that there are things that do not require a conscious mind to create. If it turns out that the universe requires a conscious mind to create, then my assumption would be wrong. If I had spoken more precisely, I would have said there are things that appear not to require a conscious mind.

You have actually touched on a source of irony in creationist arguments. In their view, everything is created, and requires a conscious mind. But at the same time they argue that information is somehow special because it has characteristics that are only produced by a conscious mind. But if everything is created, then there is nothing special about information.

The same goes for their design argument against evolution. If everything in the universe is designed, then when they argue that life appears designed because it has certain characteristics, there is no non-designed thing they can point to in contrast.
#125
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
In this sense, tree rings and wrinkles are just data, figures that are there to be used freely. Information is when a higher mind take this "raw information" and process it to use it for particular purposes. So seemingly, you need a conscious mind to create information..
You still haven't provided a definition of information. If you include a higher mind as a necessary part of the definition, however, then one can simply argue that, using your definition, DNA is not information.

Topic's author
#126
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stronn
Why? Because you don't want to admit a higher mind set up the DNA? A higher mind can be an allien. 
#127
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of evidence. There is no evidence that a higher mind is behind DNA.
#128
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stronn
Oh, okay. Great. I respect that view that there are things that don't need a conscious mind, but really who know right. I'm a weird hybrid of agnostic and spiritual. The reason is that everything our science is speculating on i can also connect it to spiritual conclusions. Bc there is one, or i should say a couple since it falls under monistic type beliefs, that has implications that can answer what, in my opinion, science can from a "supernatural" perspective. I don't like calling it that bc it's natural if it's real but for lack of a better word. 

Now, i've examined a lot of these and i think it can be concluded to something like an infinite consciousness. This is unlike the religious god view that it creates outside of creation. In an infinite mind type hypothesis (i just call source) everything just is happening. It's like making your mind incorporeal and infinite. Everything you know is just real. But it's not good to anthropomorphize it like that bc we can't imagine what it can as finite beings. If this source has always been, and is infinite... well, the implications of what it is would be wild. I've really gone done this rabbit whole so i understand to a certain level, but some parts are still hard to realize bc they can be one or another thing. But as a platform, its implications allow for something like this reality.  

I call it source bc i don't think, unlike the gods of religions, this source is a who... it's just a source consciousness. The who within this source would be us... we are the individuals within this platform. But it's not necessary to go down that rabbit hole. Point is, this platform i have found can answer a lot of questions, even some paradoxes facing us in science. That's why i am always interested in hearing what skeptics have to say against a "consciousness behind this world/realty" bc i haven't heard anything convincing enough to change my suspicion that it really could be true.   

Topic's author
#129
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stronn
There is no evidence that a mindless process is behind DNA either.
#130
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
A mindless process suffices to explain DNA, therefore Occam's Razor dictates that we do not need to postulate a higher mind.

#131
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Outplayz
Could be. One thing is for certain: there is a lot we don't yet know about reality and the universe.

Most skeptics would agree that there are lots of wild ideas that could be true. They just think that one ought to assume most of them are not true without solid evidence.

#132
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stronn
Most skeptics would agree that there are lots of wild ideas that could be true. They just think that one ought to assume most of them are not true without solid evidence.
I don't know if i am listening to the wrong ones, but most of them posit that they are 99.99% sure there is nothing having to do with an afterlife. I just don't understand that confidence if one looked at things from a higher perspective without preconceptions. I understand that science is doing great at figuring out this world... but that is mainly what it is designed for... figuring out this reality. Not very good for multiple dimensions and higher intelligence's, etc. 

In regards to evidence, i would say there is evidence to at least suspect "spirituality." I'm using that term loosely. There are millions of people that have experienced it, and certain people that have a high intelligence in understanding it (i label spiritual intelligence). I've personally had experiences that break what we know to be possible. And i'm just one person. I've heard a lot of different people tell me about their experiences, and read a lot of experience. Bc i've had experiences i'm sorta obsessed with asking others bc i just want to know i'm not the only one. I've learned i'm not, but it still hard to accept. Bc i've heard things that should not be possible. Are they all lying, mistaken, delusional? I'm not. So, i really don't know, but i would say we shouldn't overlook it.  

#133
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Outplayz
Maybe you've just run into some of the more hardcore skeptics. They do tend to be more vocal than most.

Also, it is possible you are overgeneralizing skeptical views about particular claims. For instance, I am 99.99% sure that claims about the nature of the afterlife made by major religions are not true. That is not the same as being 99.99% sure no afterlife exists at all.


#134
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stronn
For instance, I am 99.99% sure that claims about the nature of the afterlife made by major religions are not true. That is not the same as being 99.99% sure no afterlife exists at all.
I think i'm being a little bias and thinking of the most recent skeptic i listened to that said he is against anything afterlife. I think you're right. Bc i have that "what if" type afterlife belief, and many do concede maybe... some are hardcore as you said. 

But i fully agree with you. I'm 99% sure the afterlife isn't a version of any of the Abrahamic faiths. I'm also 99% sure no one religion alone holds the truth for everyone. Although, i understand some eastern religions a little less. What i've been hearing from some mystic and gurus is actually pretty interesting... but still, i don't think they have the full truth. But, some of them i think are onto the platform at least. It's all my speculation anyways... but i am confident of the above percentages. 

I'll keep my eye out for more moderate skeptics, i'd like to listen to them against a spiritual person. I guess the one's i see on Youtube are the louder minority, but the latter should be there too.  
#135
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stronn
A mindless process suffices to explain DNA,  therefore Occam's Razor

No not really, if you are making the assumption/claim that there was not a mind involved that's an interpretation of that process. To posit there was not one involved you now have made an assumption and now have to make more assumptions to answer questions. You are assuming that a process can generate itself without a mind involved, plans processes and minds go together though. If you believe there was not one involved that is an assumption of itself and it's simply not enough to claim "it's a mindless process", "the process is just there"....the claim in and of itself is absurd, contradicts our own observations and demands answers. If you're comfortable assuming DNA to be a mindless process that's just fine, but don't go claiming Occam's Razor supports your worldview and beliefs when it doesn't.

To me it's more logical and a more simplistic interpretation that a higher conscious mind is involved in what we observe and experience so Occam's Razor seems to fit just fine with a Creator proposition. If we are going with the assumption we don't know either way what makes your version more likely than the other according to Occam's R? it takes more assumptions to make up a scenario how DNA developed without intelligence seeing that many aspects of creation act as just that...intelligent. Not that you will accept what I'm saying of course, but I think it's important to add that a mindless scenario should not be assumed more likely because of Occam's Razor by any means. With creation/spirituality we are not adding things that don't need to be there, we are answering the questions why things are the way they are and a higher conscious mind has been proposed long before we knew much about creative or "natural" processes. It just so happens that which ever way we look Occam's Razor follows Theism because of its simplicity, and ironically the atheist/materialist has labeled this the "God of the gaps argument" lol. There never was a god of the gaps argument, rather Theism just works to answer the hard questions because it makes far less assumptions.

 Occam's Razor dictates that we do not need to postulate a higher mind.

You're looking at a process making the assumption that the process generated itself. Unless you know that for sure, Occam's Razor fits in just fine with creationism and a higher conscious mind. A higher conscious mind generates processes and the processes we see in creation which of course include energy act as intelligence. That is what we see, the intelligent processes of creating a universe, galaxies, planets and then forms/embodiments ect ect and this naturally supposes a higher conscious reality/intelligence. There's really no "assumptions" being made about this proposition of a higher mind to explain why DNA, evolution and any processes of our world act intelligent so no "fill in the gaps" baloney needed, the proposition was already there and it already explains itself in every scenario which includes why DNA exists or how it exists. If the logic and rationale follow all the way through there's no need to make assumptions it simply just makes sense, Occam's Razor dictates that we stay true to that from every angle and it works all the down the line.
If conscious activity has always existed then energy has always existed....if energy cannot be created or destroyed then consciousness cannot be created or destroyed and if creation acts as intelligent processes then there's a higher conscious mind dictating that process....consciousness comes from consciousness, life from life and intelligence comes from intelligence. Even though that is my proposition, I need the fewest assumptions to make that proposition if any at all. I don't need to assume why my proposition is true, the proposition itself answers all the assumptions.

It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of evidence. There is no evidence that a higher mind is behind DNA.

Evidence is that which indicates a proposition true or valid. In this light, there's more evidence than there is not.

#136
Titanium
Titanium's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 147
0
1
6
Titanium's avatar
Titanium
0
1
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's worth pointing out that horses have 5 digits just like every other mammal.  The hoof is an adapted big toe... in fact all features of mammals in general are just adaptations of the basic features of fish.  Evolution is so well established that you're cheating yourself out of basic logic by rejecting it's veracity.
#137
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Titanium
If we are going with the assumption we don't know either way what makes your version more likely than the other according to Occam's R? it takes more assumptions to make up a scenario how DNA developed without intelligence seeing that many aspects of creation act as just that...intelligent.
Occam's razor fits because, contrary to what you say, an intelligent creator is the far more complex assumption. If you postulate God, you now are left with the problem of explaining why such a being exists. If you say God has no external reason for existing, then Occam's razor dictates that you save a step and say that the universe has no external reason for existing. 

From an information theory view, complexity is measured by the length of the shortest computer program that can fully describe or simulate a process. DNA is very complex, but in principle one could write a computer program to simulate all its biochemical processes, with results that match what takes place in reality. But how long would a program have to be to fully and accurately describe and simulate an omniscient, all-powerful being capable of creating the universe? I don't know it it is even possible with a finite program. God appears to be more complex than any process in the universe.

As for god of the gaps, it's a way to point out that "God did it" is an explanation with no real explanatory value, because you can't use it make predictions. Explaining the weather by saying "God did it" does nothing to tell us whether it will rain tomorrow. Explaining the weather with pressure gradients, wind patterns and heat transfer does.
#138
Titanium
Titanium's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 147
0
1
6
Titanium's avatar
Titanium
0
1
6
-->
@Stronn
I was actually indoctrinated as a child to believe that God created the earth 6k years ago like IlDiavolo likely was.  When I lost my faith I wasn't really sure how like was created since I was only constantly told it was God and did not believe that explanation was accurate.

After a couple years I decided to make an effort to understand how life was created and read a single book on evolution.  The information is so varied and exact that it takes something like indoctrination/denial to disagree.  That's Diavolo, he has no desire to understand he just want's to stroke his indoctrination without understanding.

#139
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@EtrnlVw
Oops, I meant to tag EtrnlVw with my previous post.
#140
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Titanium
Yes, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it takes a deeply ingrained belief system to reject it.

I understand that religious fundamentalists purpose in discussing evolution isn't to learn, but to spread their views. Still, one should respond so that a reader who may be on the fence doesn't just hear the misinformation of creationists.


#141
Titanium
Titanium's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 147
0
1
6
Titanium's avatar
Titanium
0
1
6
-->
@Stronn
Apt.  I guess people are on the fence if they've just been in a week of classes about it and see the appeal of the 'look at the trees' argument because they haven't really looked at it.

For those here's the book I read that left me with no doubts about evolution:

12 days later

Topic's author
#142
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stronn
Yes, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it takes a deeply ingrained belief system to reject it.

Yes, there is evidence that there has been evolution, but not that it was natural selection and random mutation the mechanism that made it possible.
Topic's author
#143
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Titanium
We are not discussing if evolution ocurred, we assume this is true. What we are discussing though is the mechanisms that made evolution happen.

You might have noticed some people here still believe in Saint Charles Darwin and his prophecies. I was also taught about it in the school but something inside me told me there was something wrong about it. So I suggest you to read the whole story and not just what the status quo states. Nothing is written in a stone.



#144
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
If you were taught in school, then you would understand evolution, but you've made it clear you don't. So, that's probably another one of your usual fabrications, Archy. And no, we don't assume evolution happened, we know for a fact it happened, just like we know it's still happening and will continue to happen. Life evolves, Archy. Try and get a grip with the facts.
#145
Titanium
Titanium's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 147
0
1
6
Titanium's avatar
Titanium
0
1
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
We are not discussing if evolution ocurred, we assume this is true. What we are discussing though is the mechanisms that made evolution happen.

You might have noticed some people here still believe in Saint Charles Darwin and his prophecies. I was also taught about it in the school but something inside me told me there was something wrong about it. So I suggest you to read the whole story and not just what the status quo states. Nothing is written in a stone.

The evidence overwhelmed me even after a single book is what I am saying.  The observed facts and predicted side effects of the mechanisms involved.  Anyone who seriously makes these claims I would normally say they simply need to read a book or two.

You, however, are leaning on an argument that seems similar to a 'god/alien of the gaps' argument.  You are objecting perhaps more to abiogenesis or life before the first cell.  On this there is not a lot of great experimentation published.  Enough to convince myself particularly since, as Stronn pointed out.  There is no evidence that a mind intervened.  We know that from one cell humans can form in nine months via natural processes.  A self replicating molecule is entirely likely the original start.  From there it would just need environmental/selection pressures to change for the better.

There is no need at this point to point to a higher being to initiate this. 
#146
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Titanium
Is there a reason why you carry on speaking to diavolo?
It is really clear that is incapable of changing his mind due to his beliefs. No matter how much reason you use his emotion will triumph because that is what he values most. Emotion rather than reason. 
#147
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Titanium
You, however, are leaning on an argument that seems similar to a 'god/alien of the gaps' argument.  You are objecting perhaps more to abiogenesis or life before the first cell.  On this there is not a lot of great experimentation published.

Well of course not in the basic scientific field of study unless you move over more towards quantum physics and what you guys label "pseudoscience" because science is the study of what we can observe in the natural world but that's only one method and is restricted to that method and the physical nature of things.
However, the origin of creation, the soul and the nature of God has been around a long time, so there have been many propositions published actually. There's more knowledge and information about the origins of existence within the study of that nature (spirituality) than any other claims. BTW it's not gap arguments, they are proposed because it's commonsense, has been established and the logic follows. It just so happens that an intelligent Source fills the gaps because it answers the questions naturally not because it's trying to fill the gaps and make excuses.

Enough to convince myself particularly since, as Stronn pointed out.  There is no evidence that a mind intervened.

You mean there is no way the scientific method (which is limited to the material observation) can produce an experiment that shows/demonstrates that there was first an intelligence or a mind lol? but...….only the mounds of evidence that exists within the experiential world of spirituality! that have been proposing things that are true about the origins of existence for a long, long time. You can ignore spiritual sources because you favor a materialistic interpretation but don't claim there's no evidence. The evidence that correlates with the nature of consciousness and the soul are overwhelming, this evidence falls within the category of religion, spirituality and transcendental experience. You can minimize and label that evidence whatever you want, even dismiss it but it's there and it has been there.

Now moving beyond the evidence, there's still commonsense, logic and rationale. Since we know minds and processes go hand in hand Occam's Razor fits with Theism quite well so there's no real reason to assume or accept that there was no mind involved. At least not from the stance of commonsense and the available evidence.

 We know that from one cell humans can form in nine months via natural processes.

You mean processes, not "natural" processes. When you assert "natural" you have now made a positive claim/assumption due to your own interpretation.

 A self replicating molecule is entirely likely the original start.  From there it would just need environmental/selection pressures to change for the better.
There is no need at this point to point to a higher being to initiate this.

Just so you guys understand a clear distinction which I pointed out above, to say there is no higher consciousness involved or that one is not needed is to make the assumption that processes occur without a prior intelligence or mind involved and since there is no way to support such an assertion (because we know through observation and direct experience that processes and minds go together) it's not enough to just claim one is not needed, that's your personal interpretation of that process it's not a fact.
The Theistic proposition is taking the position that these processes aren't just natural and can't be(obviously), they occur because there is first a manipulation involved from a higher conscious Reality that made that process possible under specific conditions and environmental factors which were prepared. Both positions/interpretations have equal footing (if I'm being nice about it), your interpretation is not better or more accurate than the other and vise versa. The scientific method and the observation of evolution are neutral studies and make no claims or assumptions about a Creator or an original Source. Those pushing a materialistic proposition might make the claim because they have no connection or observation of a spiritual transcendent origin but they are only speculating, again it's not a fact you have to be able to show that.



#148
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Titanium
In a nut shell, if you have a materialistic worldview you have to argue/support your position with more than an assumption or interpretation because it's not a fact and it's not a given so just claiming a mind (or better put awareness) is not needed is an assertion not an argument. You have to explain or come up with rationale and examples of how (intelligent) processes take place without a mind or intelligent source involved. I fully understand you have an interpretation of what you think has happened but that interpretation is subjective and your personal opinion.

 Most people jump right into the evolution of embodiments, creatures and humans, but what about the environment itself!? look at what we have, a vast space of galaxies, stars and planets...which make homes for life and embodiments to experience through...ask yourself why? why do these things exist, how do these processes manifest sustainable environments, then intelligence and corporeal beings?
 the Creator manipulates energy and elements to create an environment where living things can exist, then creates/forms stars and galaxies.....planets and homes/places to exist, heat sources, light sources, water sources, currents, opposing forces, contrasting chemistry ect ect and then when the environment has been established then comes the evolution of forms and embodiments so that eventually we could inhabit human form, which is the highest level of conscious awareness on this planet.

So what we have, are specific processes that correlate with intelligence that manifests intelligence. If you ask yourself "what does he mean by intelligence"? just look in the mirror, look around you, look how energy operates, look at creation where it is right now and ask yourself honestly how these processes occur without a mind. The reason these processes act as intelligence to specific means is because it IS intelligence. Energy itself manifests as intelligence because it first had awareness, from there it can form whatever it wants in whatever part of the universes desired. So why deny the Creator in the very process of things?? if you must deny the Creator in the processes don't assume that proposition is supported anymore than Theism and spirituality.

#149
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@IlDiavolo
We are not discussing if evolution ocurred, we assume this is true.
Then you put the lie to that claim


What we are discussing though is the mechanisms that made evolution happen.
In which case you are no longer discussing evolution because the mechanism is defined in the Theory.
You don't believe that evolution occurred, you want to believe that a god created false evidence to fool mankind into believing evolution occurred, but it was god creating all along. Of course the bible from which your god originates informs you that this is simply untrue, your god tells you that he created all living things exactly as you see them today. Your speculations call your god a liar.
#150
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@ET
However, the origin of creation, the soul and the nature of God has been around a long time,
Only a few thousand years, not long at all. 14 billion and 4.5 billion are a long time. Your gods are a very recent phenomenon.