In Harmony?

Albeit random thoughts, but here goes
If life was not formed by intelligent design then how can we explain the vast gaps between the cognitive willful species of humans and the rather reactionary animal kingdom?
If all life was a result of the big bang, as evolution tries to explain, why is there currently only one human species but many animal species?
The thought I often struggle with, although simplistic in nature is this. You can not simply dump or throw out random amounts of ingredients into a pan and place in or near a random heat source and expect to get a nice cake, but rather more likely you are going to end up with a chaotic mess. You must conceptualize the desired outcome and actuate the process by properly measuring the correct ingredients at the right time, mix and heat properly to get the desired pre-conceptualized outcome, or more simply put, a cake fit for consumption.
And even if life did spring out of some big bang, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter come from to create the big bang?
Is it possible that (both) evolution by creation could coexist?
That possibly the big bang (theory) was a pre-conceptualized idea of a higher power put into actuation, thereby fitting the criteria for Intelligent Design?
Are evolutionists saying that no one, higher power or not is smart enough to preconceive all the necessary components that go into the intelligently designed world we live in? Are scientists not smart enough to clone, to cure diseases, to recreate nature’s design using synthetics? Why is the notion that an original creator of the world we live in seems faulty? Did not someone create the first car, the first telephone, airplane etc? Are we saying that there can not be a higher power that is smarter than humans therefore it must be explained away as an accident or freak of nature simply we because we believe that we cannot see it?
I believe that the good book was written by man, and just as at some parties where you play the rumor game, things do not always get translated the why the original speaker intended. If I went by the bible alone, then firstly I would have to wonder where all the unclean animals of the earth came from, as God instructed Noah to take clean animals onto the ark before the great flood. If one were to read the definitions of a clean animal according to the laws of Moses, then the species we have today simply don’t make sense or fit the original description. One would have to question where they came from if in fact you where going to take the bible as literal and word for word fact. There is certainly a lot left for interpretation, but I sincerely do not believe that evolution and creation can not coexist harmoniously. There must be a creator as there is creation, as every painting has a painter, and every child has a parent, it simply does not make sense (at least to me) that life could not have been conceived from something or someone. I believe that both evolution and creation requires a great deal of blind faith because neither theories can absolutely be explained separately, but together, for me at least, in harmony with one another, it makes sense and seems entirely more plausible. Perhaps the writers of the bible simply did not know, therefore it was not included, or maybe it was written about but during the final review and selection it was deemed too confusing for the simple men of the time to conceive and understand therefore not making the final edits of the bible as we know it today. I think its is interesting to note however that the bible speaks of the inhabitants of the earth and all those in the world, as if there is more than just those living on earth. I found this reference repeatedly so I thought it was interesting to note. I think the bible provides a great deal of scientific cues that require further exploration, but again I don’t see where either source in and of themselves can entirely explain one or the other without any fallacy. But rather that creation and evolution can support each other.
Oh and I have not registered because I am not sure that I have enough genome smarts to contribute anything beyond this post. But I certainly would appreciate any serious replies in the spirit of friendly consideration.Have a great day!oh and if all this has already been discussed than I apologize, I have been reading for a while but hadnt come accross the topic yet. Thanks! and yes I was all over the place with this post, afterall I did say random thoughts....

H,I'll take the first few, although I'm not holding my breath you'll respond... This is called the God of the Gaps fallacy - "I don't know how this happened so Godidit" - probably one of the main reasons why this God / Gods idea took off in the first place. To be fair, you just said "intelligent designer" so you could be talking about aliens, but let's see...Oh, and what "vast gaps"? Got me there. There are so many factual and logical errors in that sentence that I wouldn't know where to begin. Maybe (holds breath) you could clarify?What has the Big Bang got to do with evolution?
Why shouldn't there be only one human species? Whats your thought process here? Agreed. You have outlined a good method for baking a cake.Evolution works by keeping what works and gradually adding to it. Its a very good strategy for solving problems. Ah, this is the best question you've asked so far.If I were to say to you "who created God", you'd say something like "Nothing - God just is" or somesuch. You have a different standard for God, because he's your imaginary friend.Time began at the Big Bang. There was no before. Its arguable whether cause and effect have any relevance to the BB (it certainly doesn't at quantum scales). So you see, we don't have to unnecessarily postulate a magic man in the sky. Which wouldn't answer the question anyway.As for where the matter "came from", well, it came from the energy released at the Big Bang. Its a bit like saying the word "dog" and wondering if that sound was stored inside you before you said it. Sure. No evidence for creation though. Not sure what this means. Are you saying the Big Bang was God? Sounds a bit far-fetched if you ask me - doesn't God have a beard? Too many questions to answer someone who's unregistered. Why should I bother?But I will say that as far as I can make out there's no evidence for God. I'm not saying God is impossible, but it raises more questions than it answers e.gWhere did God come from? What does he do? Can she predict her own actions? How does she perform miracles? What is God's purpose? Who does God answer to? What was God doing before the Universe existed? Why did God make the universe so big? why does God allow suffering? Why has God allowed 99% of all species that have ever lived on this planet to become extinct? Does God concern herself with humans, and if so why? etcIf I replaced "creator" or "higher power" in your quote above with "fairy", would it still make sense to you?Also, you seem to be fond of argument by analogy. Its useful for understanding, but life is not a cake, nor a car, phone or airplane. Or if is it, then we should be able to usefully extend the analogy to the intelligent designer having two parents and an education.As for your abiogenesis reservations - if you first define what life is, we can start to see how likely it could have formed from simple inorganic chemical replicators. It doesn't need to happen by chance alone, since we can keep what works and gradually keep adding to it.PEedit typos[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 03-04-2003]

OK, fine I registered, to what end I don't know.. don't pass out from holding your breath while I figure it out..lol In the beginning of my post I said nothing about God(s), but rather eluded to a creator of our existence or more specifically that the world seems to have been created by some form of intelligent design. The vast gaps I refer to is the cognitive abilities of the single human species as opposed to the instinctive reactionary methods of the animal kingdom in general. It just seems odd to me that there is only one human species and the differences between that species (human) and the rest of the life on earth is so vast by comparison. What do I mean by comparison, well the obvious mostly, granted I am not a animal therefore I do not think like an animal and have no idea what's going on their heads per say, but I am talking the most obvious differences between species. Humans do all kinds of things that animals don't, considering how evolved humans are it just seems strange that there is only one species that all. My question is, if life just evolved from mud or whatever, why wouldn't there be more than one human species unless there was some "purpose" for our existence?Are you saying that the theory of evolution doesn't start with the thought process that life or whatever started or rather evolved from the big bang? The cake analogy I used simply to illustrate the seemingly preposterousness of the random dumping of junk together and expecting to get anything good out of it. It seems it would take a heck of a lot longer for it to come together than the earth is old, the odds are astounding that the absolute right mix could occur over and over again within such a short time span. Well that's my opinion anyhow. I mean it took me quite a few years to make a proper cake and I had a recipe even. Ha ha Ok, who created God? Well that would depend on your perceived concept of what you think God is wouldn't it? Good question, don't know the answer to that, I have my theories on the idea of God, who or what it/he/she/them is and etc but I certainly can't point to anything tangible that could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.Our time may have begun at the big bang, but that's our time, who's to say that that's the only existence of time? Who's to say what is at the end of our universe? Does anyone really know for sure? How do you know there was nothing before the big bang? How do you know that something or someone (which is such an ethereal and abstract idea of it ever being anything a human could understand) didn't cause that chain reaction of events on purpose?How is there not any evidence of creation? The fact there may have very well been an event called the big bang, shouldn't that be evidence enough to establish creation? Maybe it's a matter of semantics, when the moon revolves around the earth does it not create what we know as the tide in the ocean? Or does it evolve into a tide? When a sperm impregnates an egg does it not create a chain reaction spawning life or are you saying it evolves very rapidly into life? Ok so maybe those are not good examples, but do you get what I mean? Sorta? Maybe just a tiny little bit?Anyhow thanks for writing back, I like hearing other people's ideas and this has always been a great subject for debate/conversation. My daughter is currently getting ready for her creation vs evolution debate at school, which of course I am of no help, I just raise the questions from all sides of the coin for her to ponder on! lol!

'then firstly I would have to wonder where all the unclean animals of the earth came from, as God instructed Noah to take clean animals onto the ark before the great flood'This implies that you believe that Noah didn't take any unclean animals aboard the big boat, but Genesis 7:2 says....Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,More problematic to this myth is the source of food for the carnivores after disembarking from the Ark. Since there was nothing left alive on the Earth, apart from the inhabitants of the Ark, then what did the carnivores eatafter they left the Ark?Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

quote:

---

In the beginning of my post I said nothing about God(s), but rather eluded to a creator of our existence or more specifically that the world seems to have been created by some form of intelligent design.

---

"God of the Gaps" is colloquial term for the logical fallacy that PE described.

quote:

---

The vast gaps I refer to is the cognitive abilities of the single human species as opposed to the instinctive reactionary methods of the animal kingdom in general.

---

There are no vast gaps. The great apes show every one of our defining characteristics. Its only a matter of degree. Monkeys come very close and most mammals, even, exhibit a huge range of 'human' behavior.

quote:

---

It just seems odd to me that there is only one human species

---

What is the significance of this? Besides which, there is one living 'human' species but there have been several in the past.

quote:

---

My question is, if life just evolved from mud or whatever, why wouldn't there be more than one human species unless there was some "purpose" for our existence?

---

Why would there be more than one? Why would there be three? Or a hundred? There is nothing in the ToE that predicts how many species ought to be in a genus.

quote:

---

Are you saying that the theory of evolution doesn't start with the thought process that life or whatever started or rather evolved from the big bang?

---

Nope. Sure doesn't. But I'll have to get that later. Right now, I must get to work.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John said he didn't have time to address this, and I don't really either, so I thought I'd just clarify a little: This is probably just terminology. The big bang refers to the event that began the universe roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Life did not begin with the big bang. Our solar system, including the sun and the earth, did not even come into existence until about 8 or 9 billion years after the big bang, condensing from nebular material floating in space. In other words, the big bang has nothing to do with the origin of life and evolution. It doesn't even have anything to do with the origin of the solar system.--Percy

H,Well it looks like I misjudged, underestimated and misinterpreted you, for which I apologise deeply, contritely and unreservedly - you did register after all. It doesn't mean for sure that I'll get a response, but it does give me a "warm tummy feeling" that you are interested in debating this. Your question betrays a lack of familiarity with the principles of evolution. There is no deeper underlying "purpose" to the process (some - not me - accept evolution and think that life has some extrinsic absolute purpose, but I'm not talking about the meaning of life here, only the "purpose" of evolution). A organism breeds and the offspring which survive to be able to breed, breed. Given that the offspring are ever so slightly different from the parent, over unimaginably long timescales these tiny changes can add up to the biodiversity of life we see today. We're keeping what works (that which survives) and throwing away the rest.No purpose there, no absolute good or evil - rather "pitiless indifference" to paraphrase Dawkins.So there's no reason to think that there should be 0,1,2 or 20 different human species - it all depends on the combination of environmental factors and genetic variation which has led up to this point.And someone will correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Neanderthal man would count as another "human species" co-existing with ourselves, albeit a while back . Given that Neanderthal Man is reckoned to have disappeared about 50,000 years ago (a mere evolutionary piffle), would you therefore have accepted that life had no purpose if you were around 50,000 years ago? And did the disappearance of Neanderthal man suddenly endow upon life a purpose? (Although personally I don't think this isn't relevant to the question of whether or not evolution has a purpose, as I've explained above). This has already been answered. I think you're confusing "evolution" with "natural process". Evolution is a natural process, but not all natural processes constitute evolution. The Big Bang is the domain of cosmology and says nothing about evolution. You could believe that the uinverse never began (the steady state theory) and still accept evolution. See above for my rudimentary explanation of how evolution works. It isn't random. Unfortunately for all concerned, cakes don't breed - which is necessary for evolution to work. Agreed - no-one can prove or disprove God (no-one seems to be able to tell me what God is). No-one can prove or disprove the idea that the World was created by an invisible turtle about five minutes ago either, but we don't believe that. My question to you is: how can we determine which unprovable things are reasonable to believe and which aren't? How can we differentiate between the two? This also ties in with what I've written above - if you set out your criteria for what you'll accept to be true and then honestly apply those criteria, no matter where they lead you - then the question can be answered by whether or not you're willing to unnecessarily shoe-horn in something that can never be proven.Sure, something beyond understanding could have set off the Big Bang - just as something beyond understanding could have tied your shoelaces this morning and made you think it was you doing it. Whether or not you choose to believe in this something depends on how credible you believe it to be, and to do this fairly, you need to have a set of criteria by which you can measure what is credible, and what is not. No. This is God of the Gaps again. We don't know how this happened so therefore Godidit. We should only invoke magic (as thats exactly what we're doing talking about something outside of a natural process) as a very last resort. Human history has been a succession of lines drawn in the sand by theology which have since been crossed by subsequent scientific discovery - why should we automatically assume this is any different?Besides, just because science may not have all the answers, we should never assume that theology has any valid claim to know them either, not without evidence. I think I get you, but you're making the evolution = natural process therefore natural process = evolution error again. All the above are natural processes, agreed - but not evolution which is a very specific kind of natural process.There are examples in nature at the quantum scale which go completely against our common sense and intuition - cause and effect not applying, objects behaving differently depending whether or not somebody's looking at them, objects being in more than one place at the same time.....I could go on. Why should nature be understandable to humans? After all, our brains evolved in the main to cope with the challenges and rigours of the African savannah - why should we be arrogant enough to assume we can understand and even conceive of the mechanics of nature?This is why its fallacious to argue from commonsense everyday experience and extrapolate it to the universe at large and automatically assume that there's some hidden truths you're getting at.PE

doink! errr your right. But how did they feed all those animals? let alone fit them all on the boat, and where did they store all the food to feed them while on the boat. And since Noah et al could only eat kosher animals and such, there must have been a lot of breeding going on to feed all the unclean animals as well as themselves and prepare for the future replenishing once on dry land.Theres a lot in the bible that makes no sense at all, and other stuff that makes perfect sense. Its a bitlike folklore, a little non-fiction peppered with a bunch fiction. (no offense anyone, I like the bible! I just wish it made more sense through and through) Like when Cain is told to leave after killing his brother, he says something like they will surely kill me and God puts a mark on him...who is they? and where did they come from?Well this probably isnt the proper place for this anyhow, so in any case....you were right. There were both clean and unclean animals taken aboard according to scriptures.[This message has been edited by Harmonization, 03-07-2003]

Well thanks! I think that some people feel safer believing in a "purpose" and that's why it is so popular. I don't really understand the bible's version of God, yet at the same time I believe there has to be a creator, maybe that is my safety net. And I also like the old testament, its got some pretty sound advice and code of conduct I think that can be applicable to modern times. (of course that is my opinion and I am entitled to it without ridicule! )I think if I believed that my life had absolutely no meaning, that if it didn't have any purpose other than procreating and evolving the human species then I mean really, what's the point? I am just another cow in the herd. If my life has no other purpose and meaning and that when I die that's all she wrote, then what's the point???? There has to be a stinking point?!?!? Doesn't there? Arrrrrgggghhhhh...lol.Ok back to evolution of the human species cause that's what really, really bugs me. Yes there was ancient man, I know that, I understand there were other sub-species of humans at one time or another, but it still seems really odd that the current human species is all that is left.And although apes are similar to humans in many ways they are not similar enough, supposedly dolphins are pretty similar too. (so I hear) But orangutan, gorillas, chimps, spider monkeys and all the other species of primates, yet there is only one surviving human species.That doesn't seem just a little odd to anyone else? Considering that we have no purpose for being here? The only advanced species on the face of the earth to be industrious yet we serve no function other than to evolve? I think that boggles my mind more than not believing in a creator. No, not a magician, or magic fairy man in the sky, rather a creator or perhaps better put a mad scientist.Ever seen Men in Black where they are shooting marbles or something like that with the universe? I used to lay awake at night as a child and wonder if we where just some organism on a larger body, like a parasite, or a cell or something. Studying cells in junior high science made me wonder if the sun wasn't just the nucleus of a larger cell structure and we (the earth) were just protons or whatever. Talk about feeling really, really small.Ok, so I will be content to just continue to believe there has to be a higher power (because I want to and it keeps me sane..mooo) somewhere out there, while questioning and learning about evolution etc. Because I do believe in evolution, but I have a really heard time believing that nothing came before the big bang. That in and of itself makes no sense to me at all.So do you think if we don't all blow each up, that the human species will eventually evolve into something else? Or maybe if we do blow each other up, perhaps evolution will turn us back into frogs or something? And just how do you get something from nothing (big bang)? Huh? Ok stop laughing, I know your laughing!!! I never said I was a smartie, just an average joe(ette)! Lol [This message has been edited by Harmonization, 03-07-2003]

Noah's Flood is a myth, they didn't feed any animals or fit them on a boat, none of these things happened at all.To understand the Bible you need to distance yourself from it, you need to understand that the authors were writing for specifics purposes, they weren't interested in historical or scientific accuracy (and it shows), they were interested in getting their points across. This could be a myth like Noah's to illustrate, amongst other things, how powerful God is, or the plagues on Egypt that also shows God's power, or even the resurrection of Christ myth to show that God can forgive our sins, albeit we HAVE to torture and murder his son first. Best wishes.Brian------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Evolution works by keeping what works and gradually adding to it. Its a very good strategy for solving problems.and who makes this strategy ?are you suggesting evolution is the mind , because , all things being equal the simplist explanation is usually the correct one
therefore i conclude that God is the logical answer

You're confusing function with design again. Some things just work without having been designed. But that's a new realization to our language, so sometimes it's hard to talk about function without using words that suggest intelligent intervention where none is really being implied. For instance, "strategy". Nobody's implying that a strategist exists to come up with evolutionary strategies. They arise naturally, by accident, and are selected for because they improve survivability. God is not the simplest answer, by far. The god hypothesis introduces a number of entities, the existence of which cannot be demonstrated. Naturalistic explanations are always simpler than supernaturalistic ones.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-29-2003]

Hi MtW,

quote:

---

(me) Evolution works by keeping what works and gradually adding to it. Its a very good strategy for solving problems.

​

(you)and who makes this strategy ?

---

I don't really know how to pitch my answer to you, as I don't know your level of understanding of the subject. The glib answer to your question is "nature", but this probably won't help you understand very much, accurate though it may be.Why do I think this is not helpful? Because I think when you say "who" in "who makes this strategy?" you more accurately mean "which guided intelligence makes this strategy?". So the key question I guess we need to address here is whether all strategies necessarily need to be determined by a guided intelligence?The answer is of course: "depends on what you mean by strategy" Now I was using evolution by natural selection as an example of a good strategy in solving problems e.g genetic algorithms and the like, and in this case you don't need to have anybody determining the strategy.Take for example some experiments done by Adrian Thompson's team in Sussex University. Using a 10x10 grid of logic cells, he attempted to use unguided evolution to produce a circuit of less than 100 logic gates which could differentiate between two audio tones. Conventional wisdom was that this could not be done, at least by a human designer.Thompson used a genetic algorithm whereby he started off with a random set of feeder circuits and allowed them to "mutate" randomly. The "fitness" of each mutation was measured (ie its ability to discern two audio tones) and the fittest "survived" to have further "mutations" etc. This is a very simplified version of how natural selection operates in nature.After about 5000 generations, not only did the team have a circuit which worked (with only 32 logic gates) - they couldn't understand how it did so - it was somehow using thermal properties on the imperfections of the board itself! Some of he logic gates were not even connected to the others but made a difference to the output (probably through electromagentic coupling) something which human designers would never use!So "who" then designed the circuit (and by implication the best strategy for detecting the difference between two sounds given the conditions). Clearly not the humans - they didn't even know how it worked. The humans gave the algorithm a measure of "fitness" but they did none of the designing. This all came out of the process itself. There was no guided intelligence which devised this particular strategy. Discover articleThompson's homepage and published papers

quote:

---

are you suggesting evolution is the mind

---

Nope.

quote:

---

, because , all things being equal the simplist explanation is usually the correct one
therefore i conclude that God is the logical answer

---

God is one of the most complicated explanations you can have.PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-29-2003]

Hi PE,That Discover article has to be one of the most intriguing, and at the same time scariest, evolutionary algorithm stores I ever read. Thanks for the reference. It's intriguing because it unequivocally shows the power of RM&NS to generate novel solutions to specific problems. It's a bit scary because the experimenter doesn't really know how it's doing it. It even appears that after only 5000 generations the experiment started modifying and manipulating its environment (i.e., the substrate, the external power supply, and even the computer monitoring the genetic algorithm). I wonder if anyone has ever thought of doing this kind of physical experiment without a specified end state. You'd still have to have some kind of fitness function, but it might be interesting to see what the thing "evolved" on its own - what it might end up being capable of after X generations. Can you say, "Dr. Frankenstein"?

Hi Quetzal,Aye - it freaked the bejesus out of me when I first read it.More frightening is the fact that they're working on circuits which are robust enough to take varying environments into account now. Shades of "The Terminator"...PE