|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4817 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
IC,
I really hope you stick around and try to at least understand what is being said here. You really have got to understand how insulting it is for those of us who have dedicated our lives to evolutionary theory to have someone wave it all away as lies or ignorance. Especially from people who haven't yet demonstrated any deeper understanding of what they so flippantly dismiss. Think of it this way... I say I don't believe the Bible because I don't believe that Zeus could turn into a swan. If I made that statement in a Christian debate forum, it would be laughable right? I would be trying to dismiss a concept that I clearly do not understand. To show me how I am wrong would require you (the Christian) to catch me up on my knowledge even before debate could begin. Many, if not most, creationists that come to EvC making equally ridiculous statements regarding biology. Now onto your topic. For me the best examples of evolution can be seen in the imperfect, flawed design of the human body. Specifically those that exist because of ancestry. One of my favorites is the notochord. The notochord is a cartilaginous rod that runs down the back of primitive chordates. It is also found in the early larvae of the rest of the chordates and their relatives. In vertebrates the notochord develops early in the embryo then is absorbed. In primitive chordates the notochord serves as support for the body, a function lost in vertebrates as the skeletal system serves this function. Sometimes in vertebrates, even in humans, the notochord does not completely absorb. When this happens it is usually fatal to the embryo. When non-fatal the result is severe birth defects usually involving brain and spinal development. My point here is that the notochord is a vestige from early chordate evolution. It is true that the notochord triggers body alignment, somite (segment formation), and neural development (It has been years, but I think it triggers the Sonic Hedgehog, SHH cascade). However, these functions are carried out by other structures as well. What is important is that the function of the notochord does not neccesitate the growth and development of the full notochord. That is, this complicated structure develops, creates a few proteins (most redundant), then goes away. It simply just does not make sense as design but makes perfect sense given the evolutionary history of vertebrates. Evolution works on the raw material on hand. So from an evolutionary view it is 'easier' build a structure already in the genome and then dismantle it than it would to develop unique structures for a particular function. Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Bullshit. Don't try to equate the scientific, critical approach to claims and data with the the religious, cherry-picking approach that you use.
quote: There is no evidence-based, rational reason to maintain this. It is a faith-based position.
quote: My position is that there is no rational basis to conclude ID. Occam's Razor is violated when an IDer is invoked. However, if you want to hold a religious view that an IDer exists, then that's fine. But it isn't rational.
quote: That is a classic example of a fallacy called the Argument from Incredulity. Just because you believe or disbelieve something doesn't make it true or false.
There is no practical scientific difference between: "Evolution is God's (or the IDer's) method of designing life" and "Evolution is a wholly naturalistic process." quote: Both of the options explain the same thing. The first just invokes God for no impirical reason. The second statement IS scientific. The first violates Occam's Razor.
quote: Uh, the "naturalistic position" is solely and completely derived from the scientific evidence, GDR. Going beyond the science and invoking a designer is not rational and violates Occam's Razor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes:
Why don't you see evolutionary forces creating the first cell? What specific justification do you have for this position? But you can't just pull this out in isolation. It is the whole package. You asked earlier why I believe that an IDer exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier. Because there is something rather than nothing.Because of the complexity of all life. Because of the complexity of our world and the universe. Because I have consciousness. Because I have self awareness. Because we have a moral code. Because love exists. Etc. It is all things combined that in my view leads me to the view that an IDer exists. Once I come to this conclusion then it seems likely that the IDer had something to do with the first cell.
nator writes: What I actually see is you making rather bold claims about what science understands and what science is capable of, and then quickly backing down and retreating to "it's all just opinion" when you are asked to support those bold claims. I don't accept that. I have not suggested that I know what science is capable of, and I am prepared to accept science as readily as anyone else. I am not prepared to accept as science however that which does not have a scientific basis. For example we can go back to the Dawkins/Collins debate. As near as I can tell they are in complete agreement on the scientific aspects of evolution but they disagree completely on the non-scientific aspects such as why evolution occurred at all. It is a matter of opinion whether we agree with Collins or Dawkins.
nator writes: What you don't seem to do, however, is learn a whole lot about evolutionary theory. Sorry, that's how I see it. I accept that as true but I don't see it as being germane to the discussion. I am not disputing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains how we evolved which is fine by me. What we are discussing is why evolution happened at all, which is not a scientific discussion.
nator writes: The point, though, is that there is no reason other than your wish to hold a religious belief in God, to conclude that life, the Universe, or anything was or is intelligently designed. It isn't my wish, (once again your patronization doesn't add to the discussion), to hold a religious belief. I hold my beliefs because I'm convinced that my beliefs are essentially correct. Can I prove it is a lab? No. Can I prove it mathematically? No. The same holds true for the Atheist. As for why I disagree with your contention that there is no reason to believe in an IDer; I have already stated them in this post and earlier as well. They are reasons to believe as I do whether you accept them as being reasonable or not. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Sheesh. You write one little post on this forum it becomes a full time occupation.
nator writes: Don't try to equate the scientific, critical approach to claims and data with the the religious, cherry-picking approach that you use. We either believe in an IDer or we don't. When we consider why life exists at all, or where the first cell came from we naturally approach it from our previous beliefs. I also don't accept that I'm cherry picking anything and I haven't argued any particular religious position. I am only arguing the Theistic position which could be anything from Deism to Islam.
nator writes: There is no evidence-based, rational reason to maintain this. It is a faith-based position. I agree that it's a faith based position. We all have views on things that can’t be proven scientifically.Frankly I believe that when we observe the natural world, and examine our own nature that it isn't rational to believe that this all happened by chance when we can't even begin to explain why anything even exists at all. nator writes: Occam's Razor is violated when an IDer is invoked. wiki writes: This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. You are suggesting that by saying that evolution theory is a directed process I am making evolution less simple than if it is non-directed. I don't agree. Evolutionary theory exists in exactly the same manner whether it is directed or not. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it.
nator writes: Uh, the "naturalistic position" is solely and completely derived from the scientific evidence, GDR. What scientific evidence is there that proves that there is no IDer who either set in motion or is directing the evolutionary process?
nator writes: Going beyond the science and invoking a designer is not rational and violates Occam's Razor. I don't agree that it violates Occam's Razor and it is my belief that a designer is a more rational conclusion than the lack of one, for the reason that I've already given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My point is that I am not prepared to debate anatomy. I merely pointed out that it seems to me that if we have non-directed evolution occurring that is largely based on "survival of the fittest" then the flaws should have been bred out of us by now. Now look at those two statements. In the first one, you say you won't debate anatomy; in the second, you say that if Darwinian evolution was true, certain anatomical features would have been bred out. You are offering as evidence for your hypothesis the facts in a subject which you are "not prepared to debate", in which you say you are "singularly unqualified", and which you say "ain't your field". And how did you come across these facts about anatomy? Why, because your opponents just mentioned them to you. Apparently, through sheer idiocy, they spoon-fed you the facts which, if analysed by someone such as yourself, who is "singularly unqualified", turn out to support Creationism. Oh come on!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The moment that an ID supporter points to a poor design feature as proof that we were intelligently designed, I'll eat my hat. Eat your hat. That argument has been put forward again and again: I call it the Argument From Undesign. My favorite version of the AFU was a spiel about how we couldn't have evolved from monkeys by natural selection because a prehensile tail would be useful for holding a coffee cup.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Frankly I believe that when we observe the natural world, and examine our own nature that it isn't rational to believe that this all happened by chance ... Good. It is indeed irrational to believe that the natural world "all happened by chance". This is why no-one believes this.
What scientific evidence is there that proves that there is no IDer who either set in motion or is directing the evolutionary process? Exactly the same amount of evidence that proves that there is no weather god who set in motion or is directing the lightning. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Lithodid-Man writes: seastars, like all good deuterostomes (echinoderms, chordates, and a few others) have a complete digestive system with a mouth on the oral surface and an anus on the aboral surface. My mistake, I should have looked it up. The upside of it is that, even talking seastars know better than to talk out of their arses, like creationist are wont to do. (As am I, apparently.) "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
GDR
But you can't just pull this out in isolation. It is the whole package. You asked earlier why I believe that an IDer exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier. Because there is something rather than nothing.Because of the complexity of all life. Because of the complexity of our world and the universe. If the Ider exists what accounts for the level of complexity that the Ider exhibits by way of the design this Ider is capable of generating?Since complexity is the reason you give for the belief in an Ider, how then do we explain the complexity of the Ider? Is there another Ider to account for this one and so on ad infinitum?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
parasomnium writes: My mistake, I should have looked it up. The upside of it is that, even talking seastars know better than to talk out of their arses, like creationist are wont to do. (As am I, apparently.) There is a very funny joke embedded in all of this. During embryonic development all deuterostomes (echinoderms like seastars as well as chordates like ourselves) develop an anus and a mouth like proper invertebrates but then the anus and mouth invert so that the anus becomes the mouth and vice versa. So really we are all speaking out of our arses, from an invertebrate perspective. Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Changed bio slang "invert" to "Invertebrate" to avoid confusion with "invert" used above to mean swiched positions Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Which is simpler: Evolutionary theory, as observed, operates through purely naturalistic mechnanisms. or Evolution, as observed, operates through purely naturalistic mechanisms, but there is in addition an undetectable, invisible God-like intelligence that is so powerful that it can design life and even create it out of nothing at all. Evolution is explained in either case, but adding the IDer is unecessary and doesn't add anything to our understanding of nature. In fact, it only raises many more questions, such as: What is the nature of the IDer? What are the specific mechanisms by which the IDer affects the world? If an IDer exists, what predictions can be made to verify it's effects on the world? What designed the IDer? What designed the designer of the IDer? and so on. Occams razor is violated when you tack an IDer on to evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory doesn't require an IDer. I'm sorry you don't agree, but you are, indeed, violating Occam's Razor. Which is fine, for a personal religious belief. But it isn't rational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Why don't you see evolutionary forces creating the first cell? What specific justification do you have for this position? quote: Of course I can pull this out in isolation, because you made the claim that way. You accept that purely naturalistic evolutionary forces work on nature at least part of the time, but when it comes to the creation of the first cell, you say that they couldn't have been responsible. I'd like to know your justification for this position.
quote: Philosophical question, not a scientific one. Of course, an IDer is "something", so you can't explain the "existence of something" by postulating the "existence of something". That explains nothing.
quote: "Complex" relative to what other life and what other world and Universe? The adjective "complex" only makes sense as a comparison. What other Universe, world, and life have you compared ours to?
quote: All of these congnitive features are known to have natural, biological origins. Read some Cognitive and or Social Psychology sometime if you are interested in learning about current research. Dolphins, Elephants and Bonobo Chimps, for example, also have self-awareness. Capuchin monkeys have something close to self awareness but their's seems to be intermediate betwwen true and nonexistent self-awareness. Since those species are known to have very high intelligence and complex social structures, just like humans do, it is reasonable to conclude that self-awareness is an emergent property of the brain. Other animals, like Bonobo's and other social monkeys, also have moral codes. They recognize fairness and reciprocity, for example. Love is easily understood from a social psychology and biochemical standpoint without any supernatural source needed. What does this mean to your claim of an IDer? It certainly appears as though it's nothing more than a big brain that is the source of those specific attributes you listed, considering that several non-human species, which also have big brains, have them.
quote: That is utterly illogical and isn't based upon evidence at all. It's just something that you like to think is true. You admittedly don't know anything about Cellular Evolution, yet you are confident that evolution couldn't have been responsible for creating the first cell? Further, you conclude within your ignorance that an IDer just "had" to be involved. Again, more fallacious Argument from Incredulity. Please remember, that even if we never understand how the first cell came about, that does not constitute positive evidence for an IDer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Hi gimelnus - welcome to EvCForum.
You wrote a very good post. Unfortunately, I don't feel that this particular thread is a good one for what you wish to discuss. I think this post would make an excellent PNT, so if you would like to repost it, I'll take a look and give it due consideration for promotion. It is, however, off-topic for this thread. "Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gimelnus Junior Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 4 From: Little Rock Joined: |
You are quite correct. I will relocate the post to whichever forum you request. I am quite new here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: Now look at those two statements. In the first one, you say you won't debate anatomy; in the second, you say that if Darwinian evolution was true, certain anatomical features would have been bred out. This is taken out of context. Nator claimed that if an IDer exists then the flaws that she sees shouldn't exist. I just suggested that with the millions of years of evolution that we have had that the best design would now be in place. Frankly I don't believe that it makes a good argument from either position. By the way I support creationism but I believe that the creator used the evolutionary process to do it. I have no problem with Darwin. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024