Spirituality
12 May 12
20 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillIn what sense then? You claim that it is not a 'third alternative' so it must be either chance, or 'a scheme or plan to arrive at ...'
I would not discribe water flowing down a hill under the influence of gravity as a "planned event" in the normal sense.
However, as we move into the 21rst century it is becomming more evident to many scientists that the LAWS (including the law of gravity) have within them a fine tuning exotically appropriate to the existence of life.
Which is another topic altogether. (you are wrong by the way, but we could have another thread to discuss it).
You are welcomed to explain more about your third alternative involving only laws. I will not pull it out of you like pulling teeth. If you think your case has not been made, then put more words on it to make it.
Either a law like the law of gravity is 'a scheme or plan to arrive at [the outcome]' or it is a third alternative.
21 May 12
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo repeat: [/b]
In what sense then? You claim that it is not a 'third alternative' so it must be either chance, or 'a scheme or plan to arrive at ...'
[b]However, as we move into the 21rst century it is becomming more evident to many scientists that the LAWS (including the law of gravity) have within them a fine tuning exotically appropriate to the existence of life. ...[text shortened]... of gravity is 'a scheme or plan to arrive at [the outcome]' or it is a third alternative.
You are welcomed to explain more about your third alternative involving only laws. I will not pull it out of you like pulling teeth. If you think your case has not been made, then put more words on it to make it.
You take up the burden to defend your Naturalism which up front rules out that any Intelligent causes exist in the biosphere.
Dont' keep demanding that I pull you out of the defensive poster as if all the burden is on me. I don't accept that all the burden is on me and that you have the only normal default position.
You go through some time and trouble and explain yourself.
There are intelligent causes and there are natural causes. Explain your third alternative. If the biosphere is not do to chance and not do to design then blog out the third choice.
Don't wait around for me to argue YOUR case through answering your thousand questions to me.
21 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillIt looks to me that you have been caught out and are trying hard to shift the goal posts.
You take up the burden to defend your Naturalism which up front rules out that any [b]Intelligent causes exist in the biosphere.
Dont' keep demanding that I pull you out of the defensive poster as if all the burden is on me. I don't accept that all the burden is on me and that you have the only normal default position.
You go through some time and t ...[text shortened]... ve. If the biosphere is not do to chance and not do to design then blog out the third choice. [/b]
I am not trying to defend my Naturalism, nor trying to rule out intelligent causes for rules. I am merely pointing out that there is a third option to the two options you gave previously.
There is a distinct difference between a rule being 'due to chance' and an outcome being a result of chance. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the two.
Don't wait around for me to argue YOUR case through answering your thousand questions to me.
Just admit you got it wrong and move on. this over exaggeration and wild attempts at trying to shift the burden is not helping your case.
21 May 12
4 edits
yes, the right conditions for convergent evolution. Namely; many creatures with similar ways of life living in very similar kinds of environment making it highly probable that some will evolve via natural selection, which is NOT purely random, with similar adaptations for that similar ways of life living in very similar kinds of environment.
Actually, the fact that we have evidence of convergent evolution is evidence that natural selection is not purely random as you keep pretending it is.
Would you consider an INSECT that has evolved an eye to have faced that similar conditions as a larger VERTABRE ?
The adaption needs of an octopus would be quite different from those of a human being. The octopus and the human do not share a common ancestral history if the evidence of the Cambrian explosion is to be taken seriously. The basic anatomies of all currently existing animals from sponges to verebrates, appeared simulataneously.
Because all the phyla appeared with this sudden burst simultaneously the different phyla do not share a common genetic history above the level of protozoans. The sharing of similar organs is described as homologous if they arise by inheritance from common descent. The sharing of similar organs is described as analogous if the similarities satisfy the same function but were formed independently along seprated evolutionary paths (ie. not from a common ancester).
A bat has sonar as well as a dolphin. But the bat and dolphin may share this similarity because of a common phyla. The both resemble the body plan of an ancient land dwelling quadruped. The similar function of bat sonar and dolphin sonar is homologous because they both may have a common descent from that ancient land dwelling quadruped.
But the eye of the insect and the eye of the human cannot be do to common ancestry if the evidence of the Cambrian explosion is taken at face value. Or the Mullusk eye and the Vertabre eye are not homologous.
Let's assume that all genes for eye development in all its complexity were present in some one-celled eyeless organism that was an ancestor common to both the Mullusk phyla and the Vertabre phyla. We theorize here an eyeless unknown common ancrestor to Insect, Mullusk, and Vertabre.
Now we imagine a pre-Cambrian ancestor with the genes for eye development. The question arises why this ancestral eyeless lifeform would gave harbored a gene that was to direct eye development. The look ahead implication of such a gene strongly suggests a plan of nature knowing what is going to be good for it down the road of the future. If the gene was used for another purpose in the ancestor why would it have the same retained structure in all visual systems across the three diverse phyla ? And the gene's function in the three phyla would be the same too.
The randomness is pinpointed at the level of mutations occuring changing nucleotide bases on DNA molecules. Upon these random mutations the vast number of harmful ones are filtered out by Natural Selection and adaption of the helpful ones is suppose to drive evolution forward.
The statistical probability of the development of the eye in one phyla is problematic but not as much so as it would be in more than one phyla. We have similar functions seen across five phyla. The formation of the eye TWICE or more is pushing the limits of statistical probability extremly far.
In the point of randomness along the evolutionary development even the most forgiving model strains credibility. The most optimistic model is hugely encredible.
We also have to keep in mind that these mutations are significant only if they occur in the gametes - in the mature reproductive cells. Mutation in the animals skin, for instance, will not be passed on to that individual's progeny.
The issue discussed here is the statistical unlikelihood of the eye being developed more than once accross diverse phyla in animals having no common genetic history. And an imagined common ancestor scenario poses problems with the apparent foresight of nature to retain genes until functionality across diverse phyla should be activated.
A highly respected Science Journal said "The concept that the eyes of inveretebrates ave evolced completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."
"Convergent traits among animals of different phyla have challenged the very basses of evolutionary theory: the hypothesis that traits develop independently, initiated at the molecular level by random-point mutations." - G.L Schroeder of MIT.
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
It looks to me that you have been caught out and are trying hard to shift the goal posts.
I am not trying to defend my Naturalism, nor trying to rule out intelligent causes for rules. I am merely pointing out that there is a third option to the two options you gave previously.
There is a distinct difference between a rule being 'due to chance' and an ou s over exaggeration and wild attempts at trying to shift the burden is not helping your case.
Just admit you got it wrong and move on. this over exaggeration and wildattempts at trying to shift the burden is not helping your case.
No, I don't think the solution is for me to just admit that I got it wrong and that you alone know what you're talking about.
Its a pleasant dream you have there anyway.
How about you just admit that you got it wrong ? ? ?
That's equally as simple.
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
Just admit you got it wrong and move on. this over exaggeration and wildattempts at trying to shift the burden is not helping your case.
No, I don't think the solution is for me to just admit that I got it wrong and that you alone know what you're talking about.
Its a pleasant dream you have there anyway.
How about you just admit that you got it wrong ? ? ?
That's equally as simple.
That's equally as simple.
-and wrong. You haven't said anything to show that HE is the one who is wrong.
21 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by humyNo designer, no plan needed for a snowflake or a crystal? Then why for a eye of an octopus and/or a human being ?That's equally as simple.
-and wrong. You haven't said anything to show that HE is the one who is wrong.
But, but, isn't the snowflake formation just the same as formation of human eye via Evolution ?
Skip the cutsie stuff and just start at about 50 seconds (and turn down the music backround). (And poor design is not the point that I make in this link).
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThe two articles you cited are old and out of date, the science regarding the Cambrian Explosion has moved on since then. From the wiki page -Me:
I think some kind of punctuated changes of sudden modification may be a better fit for the fossil record.
What would you base that conclusion on exactly?
Thinks I have read about the Cambrian explosion and the fossil record. Fossils reveal events. Unfortunately, fossils do not indicate processes by which those events o or the biosphere and man in particular is becoming more and more difficult to ignore.
The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification" ) may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F
It strains the imagination enough to conceive of chance mutations being selected out naturally to arrive at new types of animals in a million years. Within a thousand years is harder to believe.
The Cambrian explosion lasted about 30-40 million years not a thousand.
21 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillI think I told someone of a book I read much of call [b]"The Mystery of Life" which was definitely by a Evolutionist.[/b]Me:
I think some kind of punctuated changes of sudden modification may be a better fit for the fossil record.
What would you base that conclusion on exactly?
Thinks I have read about the Cambrian explosion and the fossil record. Fossils reveal events. Unfortunately, fossils do not indicate processes by which those events o ...[text shortened]... or the biosphere and man in particular is becoming more and more difficult to ignore.
I have asked you before, i remember the book now. The Mystery of Life's Origin:Reassessing Current Theories, written by -
Charles B. Thaxton Ph.D. in Chemistry
Walter L. Bradley Ph.D. in Materials Science
Roger L. Olsen degree in Chemistry
http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/
No evolutionary biologists there.
So you've not read a book on evolution written by an evolutionary biologist since college, and remembering past conversations with you i'd say you were around 60 years of age. Which means you haven't read one for 40 years. Do you not think it maybe time to get yourself up to date?
Not one person on this forum who i have debated this topic with, who doesn't accept evolutionary theory, has read a book on the topic (written by an evolutionary biologist)?! Now is that just me or is that a remarkable coincidence?
21 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillI clearly stated my case and the best you could do was:
No, I don't think the solution is for me to just admit that I got it wrong and that you alone know what you're talking about.
1. try to move the goal posts.
2. demand that I expound my case further even though you didn't say what it was you didn't understand about my argument.
Your attempts to avoid addressing my comments directly clearly show that you are wrong and know it.
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knob
The two articles you cited are old and out of date, the science regarding the Cambrian Explosion has moved on since then. From the wiki page -
[quote]The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification" ) may also not have b to believe.
The Cambrian explosion lasted about 30-40 million years not a thousand.[/b]
The Cambrian explosion lasted about 30-40 million years not a thousand.
I acknolwedge the difference of opinions probably abound by experts.
Ten million years according to some:
The Cambrian Explosion:
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am not sure that that is the book. And the book, portions of which I read, admittedly not the entire, seemed to be no attack on Evolution Theory at all.
[b]I think I told someone of a book I read much of call [b]"The Mystery of Life" which was definitely by a Evolutionist.[/b]
I have asked you before, i remember the book now. The Mystery of Life's Origin:Reassessing Current Theories, written by -
Charles B. Thaxton Ph.D. in Chemistry
Walter L. Bradley Ph.D. in Materials Science
Roger by an evolutionary biologist)?! Now is that just me or is that a remarkable coincidence?[/b]
However, is that book a large soft covered one with very colorful photos on front ?
Why is this Video so unpopular ?
&feature=related
And the Fossil Evidence Beneath the Cambrian Explosion:
&feature=related
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes - which I believe has been pointed out a number of times already.
But just to re-iterate:
Most of the universe operates via physical 'laws' or rules or when they are combined into something more complex, we can call them processes. A process / law / rule does not necessarily have a goal/purpose, but nevertheless cannot accurately be described as 'pu hat are, as far as we can tell, statistically random. That, is what we call chance.
Most of the universe operates via physical 'laws' or rules or when they are combined into something more complex, we can call them processes. A process / law / rule does not necessarily have a goal/purpose, but nevertheless cannot accurately be described as 'pure chance'.
Where the process/law comes from is another matter. It could be a 'brute fact' or it could have a cause. If it is a 'brute fact' then I guess one could say its specific attributes are 'by chance' but I don't think that really captures the essence of what we normally mean by chance.
Some of the 'laws/processes' of the universe contain elements (inputs or outputs) that are, as far as we can tell, statistically random. That, is what we call chance.
Is this what you and humy protest I have not responded to ?
Are you saying you were not convinced or I did not respond ?
Response is not persuasion. I do not claim to be able to force you to be persuaded. But I will respond again. I do not do so expecting to force your agreement. Probably you will remain with the same opinion.
As I get a moment to address this a second time, I'll write something.
21 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillI acknolwedge the difference of opinions probably abound by experts.The Cambrian explosion lasted about 30-40 million years not a thousand.
I acknolwedge the difference of opinions probably abound by experts.
Ten million years according to some:
[b] The Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKMKYd0WSV0[/b]
Good, but no expert is claiming the Cambrian Explosion took place over a thousand years as you stated in a previous post.