the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

[Dan Rowden]

Species are really constructions of the human mind,

Oh, my!!!

What's that reaction all about? It's patently obvious that what was said is true. The very concept "species" is merely a construct of our mind built on criteria that seem reasonable and useful to us.

Species

How do we identify our species? Our genetic code is always changing, so we cannot use it to identify us. Our physical form too, is always changing. It is impossible to get hold of things that are forever changing. Thus, species are whatever is practicable. - Poison for the Heart

[Iolaus]

How do the species manage to reproduce so faithfully when all they are is a construct of the human mind?

Even if you believe that species can morph into new ones, which I don't, it still does not negate the fact that species are stable and bounded entities for very long periods of time.

[Dan Rowden]

How do the species manage to reproduce so faithfully when all they are is a construct of the human mind?

That is simply one of the criteria we use to construct the category "species".

Even if you believe that species can morph into new ones, which I don't, it still does not negate the fact that species are stable and bounded entities for very long periods of time.

I fail to grasp the significance of that point in the context of evolution.

[Iolaus]

I find myself at a loss for words. So you who honor structure fail to note that there is a real difference between a dog and a cat. Or, for that matter, a human and a cat.

[Dan Rowden]

I find myself at a loss for words. So you who honor structure fail to note that there is a real difference between a dog and a cat. Or, for that matter, a human and a cat.

Of course. We have different names for them, don't we? The point is such differences are not set in stone or absolute in anyway. Our working category of species is purely functional, though obviously reasonable as well.

[zarathustra]

Iolaus, all power to you for at least thinking about things...let me ask you a few questions. At what point in time, evolution aside, did the first species begin? Who or what were these first species? Where on earth did they come from? What did they look like? I could go on, but I think you have enough to ruminate over.

Remember, the theory of evolution, albeit, in an imperfect way, CAN answer all these questions, and then provide EVIDENCE for them out there in the REAL WORLD.

You have now three options:

1. Launch into a tyrade of abuse ( Which I expect is the one you'll choose )

2. Use some silly answer like a supernatural being just sneezed and there they were, all those different species, locked into their genetic codes forever.

3. Or give me something plausable: a new theory, that, historically speaking, can be tested.


Personally, 1 and 2 don't really interest me...

z

[Iolaus]

Well, first off, we have different names for them for very good reasons. Your belief that species are not set in stone is just that - a belief. One which has many good arguments against it, and which arguments are growing in depth and clarity and complexity. You cannot prove it, it is a huge and ongoing debate in science, and it does little more good than Victor's blustering to pretend that there is debate because those who don't swallow evolution theory either don't understand it, or don't want to believe it. Many of the best detractors believed it fervently for years, and in the end just couldn't reconcile it with the real evidence.

I have no personal objection to evolution, and I in fact do think things evolve, just not by random, accidental and mindless processes. But while I think that, say, a bear almost surely will never evolve into anything nonbearlike, I would not go so far as to call the species 'absolute' a word I associate with eternal and timeless unchangeable truth.

Remember, the theory of evolution, albeit, in an imperfect way, CAN answer all these questions, and then provide EVIDENCE for them out there in the REAL WORLD.

It is so much prefereable to have a clue what's going on in this bizarre situation that we humans find outselves in, isn't it? Floating out here in the middle of absolutely nowhere, and no idea what's going on or why. Unfortunately, the evidence does not point toward Darwinian evolution, so I can't buy into it. The evidence is flimsy and easily refuted, with many contradictions. So it just doesn't satisfy me. But if you don't look at it too hard, you can make it do.

There's no sense insisting on buying into the 'best' theory going, simply because we can see we're stumped. People on the debate blogs quite often say "well, it's better than no theory!" Not if it ain't true, it isn't.

There's a crotchety old bastard named John A Davison who has written a paper called A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, or An Evolutionary Manifesto. It is something he came up with on his own, but it's quite similar to what a lot of other people are thinking about in terms of a frontloaded evolution, i.e., life forms started and programmed to evolve. But he goes into some depth as to how it might actually work, from one-celled organisms. There's the panspermia website, which I thought was silly until I went there and I now think they may have some important pieces of the puzzle. And there are theories about the cell having an endogenous, self-evolving intelligence. Endogenous would be the greek or latin for 'generated from within.'

At what point in time, evolution aside, did the first species begin? Who or what were these first species? Where on earth did they come from? What did they look like? I could go on, but I think you have enough to ruminate over.

I suppose that on earth we may have a fairly good handle on the first species here being some heat-loving bacteria about 3 or 4 billion years ago. Perhaps they were planted here. I do not believe they evolved, or that any cell can evolve from a lifeless state. I think the case for intervention, species being planted here on regular intervals at increasing comlexity as the biosphere was ready is fairly compelling. But it doesn't quite get at the answer to how it all got started and where.

Although Kevin doesn't think it's possible for the All to possess any kind of intellgience, purpose or personhood, I am not so sure, and it is very difficult to reconcile all the evidence for a vast consciousness with such a view. It's a difficult question and I think about it frequently. Suppose we were to consider Kevin a universe, and some little cells there would say the same thing, i.e., "We have a mind, of course, we have purpose, we have knowledge - but the whole shebang cannot possess such a thing." This is not far fetched. Every cell is a little life form. It takes in and removes nutrients and wastes, it has a vast chemical knowledge, it stores its blueprints in the library in the nucleus. And it is constnatly building and shipping products here and there. The DNA is not inert at all but very reactive. The cell defends itself, and has a lifecycle. It certainly has purpose.

But the whole Kevin does have a mind.

No doubt, if the All has conscious awareness, it does not function in the same way as our delusional, egoic one does. (Plus, it gives God some masculinity.) Kevin says that for the Totality to have a mind it would have to show preferences and separation of one thing and another. (Not sure I got that right.) But if there is only one thing - the Totality, then why can't the Totality have a mind? One Being, One Mind.

Even some evolutionists are trying to tackle the problem of there being just too much infomation, complexity and intelligence in life forms, and are talking about properties 'self-organization.' So nature just happens to have mind-boggling self-organizational properties that just happen to be inherent. Somehow. Anyway, those boys are on the right track, and managing to stay in good enough graces with the academic establishment not to lose their postions, and status, and funding.

Believing that the universe has an underlying intelligence seems less far fetched than believing in endless winning lottery tickets as required by evolution theory.

If the species do actually evolve in a way in which one species really becomes another, then it happens in spurts of reorganization, not accidental. And all those extinctions are not because the previous specie was truly unfit, but just stopped existing due to an updated model. Of course, some species go extinct due to catastrophism.

[tooyi]

Lest thy blind self before wish for a sight.

Prosopagnosia

Many call them broken and unfortunate.

Lucky bastards, they are!

[Kevin Solway]

But while I think that, say, a bear almost surely will never evolve into anything nonbearlike

Not even in a billion years? Why not?

I do not believe they evolved, or that any cell can evolve from a lifeless state.

So it's more believable that each species was manually placed here on earth, fully formed, by some kind of alien being?

Although Kevin doesn't think it's possible for the All to possess any kind of intellgience, purpose or personhood.

It's a logical necessity.

Suppose we were to consider Kevin a universe

You mean a All?

Unfortunately, this is a contradiction in terms, and so we cannot proceed with it.

But the whole Kevin does have a mind.

You need to demonstrate how the All can have a mind. Keep in mind that the All is infinite, unlike myself.

But if there is only one thing - the Totality, then why can't the Totality have a mind? One Being, One Mind.

Because a mind is that which is aware of "self" and "other" (duality). In the case of the All, there is no "other", and therefore no "self" either.

So nature just happens to have mind-boggling self-organizational properties that just happen to be inherent.

Science, very wisely, doesn't say that such things are "inherent".

How "self-organizational" do you think we'd be if had no food, oxygen, space, genetic history, etc. In truth, our "self-organization" is entirely dependent on things other than ourselves.

Believing that the universe has an underlying intelligence seems less far fetched than believing in endless winning lottery tickets as required by evolution theory.

That's your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that is showing. Evolution doesn't depend on "chance", but on cause and effect. In sexually reproducing species such as our own, genetic diversity is brought about both by the recombination of genes, and also by mutation (perfectly natural mistakes during the copying of complex sequences of genes).

If the offspring are better able to survive because of the gifts that the new combination of genes has given them, then they will naturally outcompete those around them. Chance doesn't have anything to do with it.

Evolution happens in extremely small steps, building one step on top of the other. You don't all of a suddenly find a fully functioning watch popping out of nowhere.

If the species do actually evolve in a way in which one species really becomes another, then it happens in spurts of reorganization, not accidental.

By all accounts, those "spurts" take millions of years.

And all those extinctions are not because the previous specie was truly unfit, but just stopped existing due to an updated model. Of course, some species go extinct due to catastrophism.

In the case of a catastrophe, if a species did not survive it, then the species was "unfit". That's what "unfit" means - unable to survive whatever environment Nature throws at it.

[Faust]

What's that reaction all about? It's patently obvious that what was said is true. The very concept "species" is merely a construct of our mind built on criteria that seem reasonable and useful to us.

actually, I consider a species to be whatever can breed with each other. So a coyote, dog, and wolf are the same species to me. There's no big differences between a dog, coyote, and wolf. It's just more scientific and practical to say that a species is whatever can breed with each other.

Species

How do we identify our species? Our genetic code is always changing, so we cannot use it to identify us. Our physical form too, is always changing. It is impossible to get hold of things that are forever changing. Thus, species are whatever is practicable. - Poison for the Heart

Pfttt. Too bad Kevin isn't a geneticist, because if he was he would realize how stupid and wrong this childish quote is, based entirely on assumptions and inferences and prejudices. Hopefully he has the guts to change it for the sake of accuracy. First, "our genetic code is always changing" has to be said, that only variations are changing, the basic and fundamental codes of our DNA remain the same actually, otherwise we would cease to be human. No matter how long you breed humans, you will still end up with humans, this simple fact debunks evolution. Second, "our physical form is always changing," since when? Maybe the size is, and some other variances that are contained in the gene pool, but our basic structure remains relatively the same, otherwise we wouldn't be human anymore. Kevin thinks he's a scientist, but fortunately he's wrong.

[Faust]

I find myself at a loss for words. So you who honor structure fail to note that there is a real difference between a dog and a cat. Or, for that matter, a human and a cat.

Of course. We have different names for them, don't we? The point is such differences are not set in stone or absolute in anyway. Our working category of species is purely functional, though obviously reasonable as well.

again you're wrong. Those differences are set in stone as long as we exist. Each species has its own distinct and special gene pool that with it, including its own specific combinations of DNA, make it that species, and therefore unable to breed with others. We may share the same genes with other species, but not all of them, and not in the same combinations. So as long as the species exist, there does remain some absolute set of codes for each of them.

[Faust]

Remember, the theory of evolution, albeit, in an imperfect way, CAN answer all these questions, and then provide EVIDENCE for them out there in the REAL WORLD.

did you DELIBERATELY ignore my huge debunking of your 'evidence'??? Perhaps a case of cognitive dissonance, you couldn't bear to read it.

1. Launch into a tyrade of abuse ( Which I expect is the one you'll choose )

2. Use some silly answer like a supernatural being just sneezed and there they were, all those different species, locked into their genetic codes forever.

3. Or give me something plausable: a new theory, that, historically speaking, can be tested.

Personally, 1 and 2 don't really interest me...

it has nothing to do with what interests you, it's to do with how possible it is. And number 2 is perfectly possible. For now 'evolution' is a big doodoo, it should be thrown to the category of "very bad theory with no real evidence but anyone who wants to prove it scientifically should"

[Faust]

But while I think that, say, a bear almost surely will never evolve into anything nonbearlike

Not even in a billion years? Why not?

because genetics doesn't allow it so. Kevin you have this bad prejudice thinking that time will change everything just because it's time. Time will never create a new species from an older species simply because genetics does not allow that. You fail to see that each species has its own gene pool that it can take from, and it cannot breed with other species to create a new species. So because it can only breed with its own gene pool, all those variances are still part of that species, no variance 'changes' the species into something new, because those variances are from the same species. Those variances account for the differences among species, but they can't make new species. As long as you breed cows for millions of years, you will still breed cows, not giraffes.

So it's more believable that each species was manually placed here on earth, fully formed, by some kind of alien being?

or a supreme being?

Evolution doesn't depend on "chance", but on cause and effect. In sexually reproducing species such as our own, genetic diversity is brought about both by the recombination of genes, and also by mutation (perfectly natural mistakes during the copying of complex sequences of genes).

haha, more Piss Poor Classical Argument for Piss Poor Theory. Our genetic diversity is greatly limited because we can only reproduce with our own species. As such we have a limited gene pool of variations, of which still continue to produce humans. Those mutations, are nothing but natural MISTAKES, which results in deformities and gross mental and physical disorders. This isn't improving the species whatsoever.

If the offspring are better able to survive because of the gifts that the new combination of genes has given them, then they will naturally outcompete those around them. Chance doesn't have anything to do with it.

Yeah too bad those natural mutations will make them not survive that much unless they get societal help. What you don't see, you moron, is that once again, those new offspring are still the SAME damn species. No matter how long you breed a species, it will still produce that species!!! There's no 'new' species being formed!

Evolution happens in extremely small steps, building one step on top of the other. You don't all of a suddenly find a fully functioning watch popping out of nowhere.

.....Once again, species constantly breeding will never create a new species, because of their distinct gene pools and preceeding mechanisms of reproduction. I'll say it before and I'll say it again: you can breed cows for millions of years under all the selection pressures, and with all the variations, and you'll still get cows, not giraffes.

By all accounts, those "spurts" take millions of years.

no, those spurts don't exist. The species will still remain that species, variations don't change the species into a new one, they're just variations of that same species.

[David Quinn]

David,

This thread only confirms my view that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't really understand it.

This is such a tiresome old line. If evolution theory is so hard to understand that even people with PhD's and years study somehow fail to 'understand' it when they begin to disagree, then perhaps it does not belong in the school curriculum at all, and should be reserved for just a few grad students.

Funnily enough, what I find is that those who try to argue in favor of evolution begin at a very elementary level and have no clue whatsoever what the real arguments are about.

Anna, seriously, your understanding of evolution, as expressed in this thread, is incredibly deluded. You don't realize how much of a fool you are making of yourself. The same goes for Faust.

You need to read some proper books on evolution and find out exactly what mainstream science asserts on the subject. Read some Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, for example. If, after understanding the theory, you still have some criticisms, then well and good. But first understand the theory.

At the moment, none of your criticisms actually address what scientists think. They express the same level of misunderstanding as the Jehova's Witnesses.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Time will never create a new species from an older species simply because genetics does not allow that.

Perhaps you haven't thought about what a species is. A species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

Imagine that a small group of people went off to live on an island, and after a thousand generations they developed unusual sexual organs such that they could breed only with those on the island, and not with anyone else.

There you have a new species. It's not difficult.

So because it can only breed with its own gene pool, all those variances are still part of that species

This is what you don't understand. For once the variances prevent a group of individuals from breeding with the group they used to be able to breed with, they are by definition a new species.

So it's more believable that each species was manually placed here on earth, fully formed, by some kind of alien being?

or a supreme being?

Not just an "alien being", but a "supreme alien being". :-)

P.S. Do you think we are the same species as chimpanzees - because we are genetically about 99% identical to them.

[Jamesh]

But first understand the theory.

She can't because the basis of her spiritual beliefs rest on some type of intelligent design/process. Her ego is attached to non-death of self and she does not accept what she reads from the non-new agers due to this.

[Iolaus]

David,

Anna, seriously, your understanding of evolution, as expressed in this thread, is incredibly deluded. You don't realize how much of a fool you are making of yourself. The same goes for Faust.

This is bizarre. I have not actually engaged in any real debate about the issues surrounding evolution.

Anna, seriously, your understanding of evolution, as expressed in this thread, is incredibly deluded. You don't realize how much of a fool you are making of yourself. The same goes for Faust.

What makes you think I haven't read them? Dawkins works hardly qualify as more than novels, compared to the serious criticisms, which he never addresses, or addresses in a silly fashion. And what about you, who have no idea - as I already mentioned - why many people disagree with Darwinism, don't you have to read what they say to be informed enough to speak intelligently on the topic?

The stuff I read is on a far higher level than Dawkins, or Mayr. I'm also annoyed that you apparently don't believe me that I have read a shelf worth of books and untold amounts of internet discussions and essays and papers on the topic. I happen to take a real, hobby-like interest in it. It fascinates me and it is a hobby that interests on a very few people. You and Kevin, I'm pretty sure, aren't among them. If you were, you would already be avidly reading. I wouldn't be able to stop you. You will hang on to what you have been taught in school or pick up in the major rags from time to time, until such time as you are told it is time to move on. That is fine, but if you don't care about this stuff, why try to engage in refuting arguments you've never heard and aren't aware exist?

At the moment, none of your criticisms actually address what scientists think.

"Scientists" don't think anything. Scientists are a large group of people who disagree with one another on various topics. I have not really addressed the issues, no.

She can't because the basis of her spiritual beliefs rest on some type of intelligent design/process. Her ego is attached to non-death of self and she does not accept what she reads from the non-new agers due to this.

James, I have seen you write some good posts but this is beneath respectable discourse. It is pure conjecture and ad hominem. Is that your best, then? First of all, lots and lots and lots of religious people manage to believe in Darwinian evolution. Second of all, before I ever investigated the matter, I was probably some sort of theistic evolutionist - but unlike most people I knew that I had not investigated the matter sufficiently and my opinions were provisional. It's true I have some ego attachments, but I could still believe in evolution. It's the evidence that goes against it.

[zarathustra]

Is there any observation (EVIDENCE) which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for YOUR theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.) Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?

Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or NIHILISM will not be accepted.)

Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some documentis your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test (HA HA!) This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?

Is there any observation which has changed your theory?

Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

SOME FOR THE CHRISTIANS:::::

Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.

Why does the Flood story need to be consistent?

Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)

What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.

Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.

Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.

Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).

Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

z

[divine focus]

If the species do actually evolve in a way in which one species really becomes another, then it happens in spurts of reorganization, not accidental.

By all accounts, those "spurts" take millions of years.

Doesn't the theory say something about "punctuated equilibrium?" Consistent, species-wide change followed by periods of mutational stability? How could there always be quick, species-wide change if the mutations were accidental and individual? Wouldn't there be a more scattered and random distribution of species changes through time?

[Iolaus]

Kevin,

Not even in a billion years? Why not?

whole books are written about why not. Like I said to David, you probably aren't interested, and there's nothing wrong with that. But to try to explain it in my way would require a huge amount of work, and even that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for my experience that it is unlikely to do any good. No matter the quality of evidence or of my arguments, little progress is made. These things are pre-decided, and the evidence is filtered through the individual minds, and you know what that means.

Why not go to telic thoughts, or uncommon descent, (a heavily cencored forum, unfortunately) and look at the articles they present on the latest discoveries. Or why not read a couple of books by evolution refuters? The books I am talking about make no references to God or religion. Some of the authors are religious and some are not.

So it's more believable that each species was manually placed here on earth, fully formed, by some kind of alien being?

Well, I wonder if you read what I wrote..because I said that I do entertain evolution occuring via some sort of innate intelligence or consciousness within life. It would occur in spurts, and most things in nature do. I do think there is strong evidence for intervention here, but it is hard to say how much. Here we are, talking about terraforming mars or venus, and suddenly it is so ludicrous to think that in our universe might exist beings older than us who would do that? It's possible they use panspermia deliberately, sending cometlike things our way with the appropriate bacteria to build oxygen in the atmosphere, for example, then soil and so forth.

As to creatures being manually placed here fully formed - at any rate that doesn't answer the question that interests me, which is how did life get started? But the cambrian explosion does give one pause.

Suppose we were to consider Kevin a universe

You mean a All?

Unfortunately, this is a contradiction in terms, and so we cannot proceed with it.

Yes, I mean a All, and as a concept, I see no reason why we can't use it, despite knowing it isn't the case. We are talking about a reality in which God is everything. So we can imagine Kevin being everything. Your skin and the hairs coming out of your skin are the extent of existence.

You need to demonstrate how the All can have a mind. Keep in mind that the All is infinite, unlike myself.

I think it is easier to imagine one understands infinity than to actually understand it. For example, infinite in what dimension? When I imagine eternity, I imagine time that just goes on and on. Or I might imagine timelessness as being like when I can go to the back cover of a book to find out how it ends. But what, really, does it mean to be outside time?
Is the All infinite in spatial extent? We don't actually know that. Whether or not the universe is spatially infinite we do not know, although Big Bang theory (to which I do not subscribe) would tend to refute its being infinite in extent.

Because a mind is that which is aware of "self" and "other" (duality). In the case of the All, there is no "other", and therefore no "self" either.

Is that what a mind is? Does even a self require a not-self? Unless, of course, all is self. You are saying there cannot be a mind in a nondual state.
And even if that is so, about which I am unconvinced, it would still be possible for the godhead to divide itself just enough to have a will and a mind. This may be the real meaning of the Tao passage about the Tao giving birth to one, and the one to two, and the two to three, and thus the ten thousand things. Or of the xian trinity, for that matter.

So nature just happens to have mind-boggling self-organizational properties that just happen to be inherent.

Science, very wisely, doesn't say that such things are "inherent".

Science is not a unified entity, thank God, and scientific thinking is not done by consensus, oh, wait, it often is but that is the social-herd aspect that gets in the way of science. But some evolutionary scientists are talking a lot about self organization properties of matter and they are quite famous.

How "self-organizational" do you think we'd be if had no food, oxygen, space, genetic history, etc. In truth, our "self-organization" is entirely dependent on things other than ourselves.

I'm not sure of your point.

That's your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that is showing. Evolution doesn't depend on "chance", but on cause and effect. In sexually reproducing species such as our own, genetic diversity is brought about both by the recombination of genes, and also by mutation (perfectly natural mistakes during the copying of complex sequences of genes).

Yes, that's basic level evolution theory, although it certainly does depend on chance. Using cause and effect is out of place here. Sure, everything is cause and effect. So what. Winning the lottery depends on cause and effect too, but it ain't bloody likely.

By the way, (not that you're sufficiently interested!!) if you want to read a book by a truly innovative, outside-the-box scientist who has some ideas to assist greatly in making origin of life more plausible, try reading The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold.

Here we are in the middle ages, bleeding sick people and believing angels dance on pins. And the vast majority of scientists are taking part in the debates about whether to bleed someone at the full moon or the new moon. Reading a book by a guy like him makes it a privilege to be alive at such a wonderful time.

If the offspring are better able to survive because of the gifts that the new combination of genes has given them, then they will naturally outcompete those around them. Chance doesn't have anything to do with it.

Humanity has not changed. This is one of the biggest mistakes modern people make - whether they are modern in 1492, 867, or 1200 BC. People live mostly by fairy tales. Which they don't examine.

You might try Stephen C. Meyer, The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. It's a reasonbly short essay which goes into some detail about the difficulties in supposing that random mistakes can really generate useful new information. Biological things fit together like nuts and bolts, the precision is extreme, there has to be assembly instructions, not just parts lying around. But I'm pretty sure I could find something shorter and maybe better. But really, you either have to love the topic enough to read about it or forget it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2177

By all accounts, those "spurts" take millions of years.

It's a supposition that fits the theory but not the evidence. That's the problem which caused Gould to launch his punctuated equilibrium theory. Actually, the above paper goes into it, too.

In the case of a catastrophe, if a species did not survive it, then the species was "unfit". That's what "unfit" means - unable to survive whatever environment Nature throws at it.

At the end of the last ice age we had one of the biggest mammal extinctions ever, and it was large land mammals, mostly north American and some south american. It looks like huge sheets of melting water, called something like a glacial wave, hundreds of miles wide, swept north to south and killed everything in its path.

[Iolaus]

Zarathustra,

Is there any observation (EVIDENCE) which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for YOUR theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false.

Z, I do not have a theory. There are some interesting avenues of inquiry, some clues that might be pieces of the puzzle, but as yet no one really knows. I am terribly sad to have to break this to you, but that is the true state of affairs. And can you entertain even a teeny bit that it might be preferable to acknowledge that rather than insist upon having a belief system? What is the use of a belief if one can't know it is true? Isn't the human mind capable of constructing any number of conjectures and stories?

Evidence that a prevailing theory is all wet is certainly of fundamental importance to any honest line of inquiry, and might be a prerequisite to replacing it. Lack of a replacement is not a criticism I'll take seriously.

Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?

Intelligent designers have made a few predictions, some are hanging and some corroborated. One was that junk DNA would not prove to be junk. But I cannot remember and do justice to your questions. I've seen all of them discussed and those far more capable than I have good answers.

Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or NIHILISM will not be accepted.)

ALL the ideas I mentioned are very recent, even ongoing lines of inquiry. It's exciting!
Do not understand your reference to nihilism or solopsism.

Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some documentis your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)

No, I don't have a theory, and I have read widely. Don't have a one-document approach.

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

I don't know enough about dating methods. Some I trust more than others. Tree rings and ice cores are certainly good data. I am not sure how to approach this question. It is too general.

Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

Not sure what you want. What's the significance.

Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test (HA HA!) This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified?

Well, creationism is basically when you start with religion and a scripture, and work from there. In some sense I suppose that any deist, no matter how hard he supports evolution theory, is a creationist if he thinks God has anything to do with the existence of the universe, but that's quite a stretch. Gernerally, calling intelligent design or other evolutin debunkers creationists is just an ad hominem ploy used to discredit the character without answering the hard questions. Intelligent design doesn't depend on religion in any way, and it starts with empirical evidence, not belief. The creationist, like the atheist, has something to lose if he should happen to be wrong. Luckily, I do not fall into that category. Do you?
Sure, it could be falsified. But Darwinism cannot - at least not in the minds of the Darwinists. Have seen many good essays on this! Darwinism has many hallmarks of religion.

Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

Your questions are fine, others have asked them, and there are places you could go and get reams of response. But your questions are also huge, and you have asked several. Furthermore, I am not sure the relevance of the above question. Why shouldn't animals get trapped on certain land masses? Certainly a Genesis account wouldn't prevent it.

[Jamesh]

James, I have seen you write some good posts but this is beneath respectable discourse. It is pure conjecture and ad hominem. Is that your best, then?

I must admit I am kind of annoyed with you. You made a post recently (the one where others noted it’s worth) that made me think. “Great, Birdy gets it now, she is becoming wiser about reality”. I actually thought about raising the old “evolution” question again to see if you had changed. When it was bought up again, I groaned as I could see it was still the same old Birdy.

Lets examine what you said in response to Kevin in the post that followed your comments to me.

I do think there is strong evidence for intervention here, but it is hard to say how much. Here we are, talking about terraforming mars or venus, and suddenly it is so ludicrous to think that in our universe might exist beings older than us who would do that? It's possible they use panspermia deliberately, sending cometlike things our way with the appropriate bacteria to build oxygen in the atmosphere, for example, then soil and so forth.

I agree we cannot fully disprove interference from other alien forms of life, but I just don’t see any evidence or need for same.

You have to look at evolution holistically, from the point of view of all things, not just life, and for all time. If there was interference, then that life form doing the interference would first have had to evolve.

I personally don’t regard the evolution of a human mind or any form of consciousness as being of a different process to the evolution of any form of matter or thing. E=Mc2, Mc2=E. If matter can devolve into energy when destroyed by a nuclear blast, then energy can evolve into matter.

Well, I wonder if you read what I wrote..because I said that I do entertain evolution occuring via some sort of innate intelligence or consciousness within life. It would occur in spurts, and most things in nature do.

Well, I’m not a neo-darwinist. I’m also a Lamarckian evolutionist. Like you my gut feeling is that once something has evolved to sufficient complexity to be conscious, to have an ego, then it can evolve much faster than via mere mutation. That is, the pattern of existence a complex evolved thing has, can include parts that impel further growth, so further evolution becomes partly innate (though this is still pseudo innateness). I believe all mammals have this innate capacity for growth, but lesser evolved creatures like ants are dependent on traditional mutational evolution/survival of the fittest.

Mind you, this is a fair way from “some sort of innate intelligence or consciousness within life”. I do not presuppose some form of cosmic intelligence or consciousness causes the start of a tree of life (including the tree of life of your imagined God). I’m certain that such a thing does not exist, but my certainty comes from logical deduction, not science. Science can only prove something exists not that it does not, whereas at the level of the totality, logic can do both. My certainly comes from examining the concepts of fundamental causes and the nature of finiteness and infinity.

There is however, one issue I am not certain of, which is – if the universe is infinite, and evolution results in the potential for more and more complexity, then at some stage the probability is an entity will evolve to be a god of the universe. Where is this God?

As there is no evidence for this God (or cosmic consciousness), then this infers to me that:

a) there are insurmountable limits as to what an entity can evolve into. Just like an atom or galaxy can only be so big, so too are there limits on entities.

b) presuming science is fairly correct about the big bang (which I have doubts about), then time travel is not a possibility and evolved Gods die in universal reverse big bang collapses.

c) Without the ability for time travel, such a God is a lesser God, and would be incapable of creating something (the now) from nothing (the future or the past), but is merely a causal manipulator on a grand scale.

First of all, lots and lots and lots of religious people manage to believe in Darwinian evolution. Second of all, before I ever investigated the matter, I was probably some sort of theistic evolutionist - but unlike most people I knew that I had not investigated the matter sufficiently and my opinions were provisional. It's true I have some ego attachments, but I could still believe in evolution. It's the evidence that goes against it.

You give overly positive valuations to anti-evolutionary scientists or theories, because deep down this is what you “wish were true”. I do agree however, that current evolutionary theory has further to go, but it is more akin to say the difference between the limited mathematics in the 1st century and mathematics now – the basics remain the same and are carried through because they are never found to not be false.

Lol, mathematics evolves doesn’t it. If there was some form of innate intelligence, why is there a developmental lag, why don’t we just know everything now? Why is one person smarter or dumber than another.

[Iolaus]

James,

I must admit I am kind of annoyed with you. You made a post recently (the one where others noted it’s worth) that made me think. “Great, Birdy gets it now, she is becoming wiser about reality”. I actually thought about raising the old “evolution” question again to see if you had changed. When it was bought up again, I groaned as I could see it was still the same old Birdy.

Well, who are you, then?
Your judgement seems harsh. If I disagree on a scientific point, I suddenly don't understand the nature of reality? That really doesn't follow. And it leaves out utterly the chance you could be wrong. It really continues to sadden me how harsh people are when there is disagreement. Freedom of speech does not seem to coincide with human nature.

I agree we cannot fully disprove interference from other alien forms of life, but I just don’t see any evidence or need for same.

Let me guess: you haven't read up on it.

You have to look at evolution holistically, from the point of view of all things, not just life, and for all time. If there was interference, then that life form doing the interference would first have had to evolve.

I mentioned that. But I think that in the evolution of humans in particular, there was interference, and it could clear up some confusions.

I personally don’t regard the evolution of a human mind or any form of consciousness as being of a different process to the evolution of any form of matter or thing. E=Mc2, Mc2=E. If matter can devolve into energy when destroyed by a nuclear blast, then energy can evolve into matter.

Well, I agree to a point but I am not sure consciousness is something that evolves or is just a given, underlying property of reality/God/universe.

I wonder if you read what I wrote..because I said that I do entertain evolution occuring via some sort of innate intelligence or consciousness within life. It would occur in spurts, and most things in nature do.

Well, I’m not a neo-darwinist. I’m also a Lamarckian evolutionist. Like you my gut feeling is that once something has evolved to sufficient complexity to be conscious, to have an ego, then it can evolve much faster than via mere mutation. That is, the pattern of existence a complex evolved thing has, can include parts that impel further growth, so further evolution becomes partly innate (though this is still pseudo innateness). I believe all mammals have this innate capacity for growth, but lesser evolved creatures like ants are dependent on traditional mutational evolution/survival of the fittest.

It's an interesting thought and at least you have some of your own...but I question whether we are more complex, really, since a cell is the most complex thing of all, and origin of the simplest cell is the biggest puzzler for the Darwinists. We have more things gobbed together, but our cells aren't more complex, and it is funny that some creatures have way more chromosomes than others. It doesn't seem to relate to higher life forms. A one-celled organism, since that's all it's got, has proto-organ systems and such that our cells don't have.

Mind you, this is a fair way from “some sort of innate intelligence or consciousness within life”. I do not presuppose some form of cosmic intelligence or consciousness causes the start of a tree of life (including the tree of life of your imagined God). I’m certain that such a thing does not exist, but my certainty comes from logical deduction, not science. Science can only prove something exists not that it does not, whereas at the level of the totality, logic can do both. My certainly comes from examining the concepts of fundamental causes and the nature of finiteness and infinity.

That is interesting. Feel free to elaborate. Tell me how you have logically concluded there is no God

There is however, one issue I am not certain of, which is – if the universe is infinite, and evolution results in the potential for more and more complexity, then at some stage the probability is an entity will evolve to be a god of the universe. Where is this God?

Hmmm, a god, or God? Only the source of existence qualifies as God, in my logic. So a superevolved being would be just that.

As there is no evidence for this God (or cosmic consciousness), then this infers to me that:

Uh-oh! When people say there is no evidence for God, I tend to think they are a bit silly and ignorant. Look, just because you don't see the evidence, is no reason to come to such a conclusion. There are lots of things you can't see. Germs. The electromagnetic spectrum. DNA. There are far more things to be perceived than our bodily tools can see. Sad, but true.

a) there are insurmountable limits as to what an entity can evolve into. Just like an atom or galaxy can only be so big, so too are there limits on entities.

Maybe, Or maybe that godlike entity has not made herself known to you. Why are you so big for your britches?

b) presuming science is fairly correct about the big bang (which I have doubts about), then time travel is not a possibility and evolved Gods die in universal reverse big bang collapses.

Or, big bang is not correct and time travel is still not possible. The Hindus supposedly believed in evolving universes of 23 trillion years, (an incarnation of Brahma) with an intermission in between of unknown legth (or maybe the intermission is included) and that it then starts again. You don't need to believe in big bang, it can be another formation, but cyclic universes makes sense to me, using vast periods of time. The question is, is anything remembered one to the next? Or is the dissolution complete?

c) Without the ability for time travel, such a God is a lesser God, and would be incapable of creating something (the now) from nothing (the future or the past), but is merely a causal manipulator on a grand scale.
Wait a minute. What about being outside time? Is that the same as time travel? I don't know much physics, and was not aware that BB supposedly rules out timelessness or time travel. I'm OK with God evolving, although it raises problems, but the God has to be the source of existence or it doesn't compute.

You give overly positive valuations to anti-evolutionary scientists or theories, because deep down this is what you “wish were true”. I do agree however, that current evolutionary theory has further to go, but it is more akin to say the difference between the limited mathematics in the 1st century and mathematics now – the basics remain the same and are carried through because they are never found to not be false.

Well, I think they have been found false. Evolution may be true, and many or most intelligent design people do believe in evolution, but not by random mutations. As to me wishing it were true, I am not an atheist, I do not think the body is all there is, and I think there are realms of suble energies, spiritual energies if you will, that are possible but quite difficult to apprehend. So I would always be at least a theisic evolutionist, but if the evolution theory were well supported, I would adjust. My attachment to this not being a pointless dead universe and my own life futile is profound, I agree, but it does not hinge on whether or not atoms could organize themselves into life forms. If that were the way things work, that would be fine. If the evidence fit, it would be a fascinating business. But all there is is a mass of contradictions.

[David Quinn]

Iolaus,

DQ: Anna, seriously, your understanding of evolution, as expressed in this thread, is incredibly deluded. You don't realize how much of a fool you are making of yourself. The same goes for Faust.

Iolaus: What makes you think I haven't read them? Dawkins works hardly qualify as more than novels, compared to the serious criticisms, which he never addresses, or addresses in a silly fashion. And what about you, who have no idea - as I already mentioned - why many people disagree with Darwinism, don't you have to read what they say to be informed enough to speak intelligently on the topic?

In general, people disagree with Darwinism when they have religious beliefs they want to protect. Darwinism is not a theory that can be easily disproved on scientific grounds because it is broad enough to cope with a wide diversity of evidence. So it is mainly on religious grounds that it receives its objections.

Typically, those who oppose it believe in intelligent design, cosmic consciousness, the specialness of the human race, etc.

As far as I know, scientists aren't arguing whether evolution occurred, but how it occurred. Although natural selection provides the the backbone of the theory, there is still some dispute as to how much other factors come into play, such as sexual selection, cultural selection, etc.

The stuff I read is on a far higher level than Dawkins, or Mayr. I'm also annoyed that you apparently don't believe me that I have read a shelf worth of books and untold amounts of internet discussions and essays and papers on the topic.

It is comments like the following which make me think that you haven't really grasped what the mainstream theory of natural selection is all about:

Believing that the universe has an underlying intelligence seems less far fetched than believing in endless winning lottery tickets as required by evolution theory.

A blind watchmaker, anyone?

-

[Kevin Solway]

. . . panspermia . . .

Such things make no difference to evolution. Life still has to evolve.

You need to demonstrate how the All can have a mind. Keep in mind that the All is infinite, unlike myself.

Is the All infinite in spatial extent?

There is nothing other than itself. That's all you need to know about it. It has no boundary, and that makes it Infinite (by definition).

Because a mind is that which is aware of "self" and "other" (duality). In the case of the All, there is no "other", and therefore no "self" either.

Is that what a mind is?

Yes.

Does even a self require a not-self?

Yes.

You are saying there cannot be a mind in a nondual state.

That's right. Without consciousness of duality ("things") there is no consciousness.

And even if that is so, about which I am unconvinced, it would still be possible for the godhead to divide itself just enough to have a will and a mind.

I myself can, poetically, be thought of as the consciousness of God, but that's not the same as saying that the Totality is conscious. The latter doesn't mean anything.

This may be the real meaning of the Tao passage about the Tao giving birth to one, and the one to two, and the two to three, and thus the ten thousand things. Or of the xian trinity, for that matter.

Yes, Nature gives birth to all things, but it doesn't do so consciously.