My blog about my experiences defending science

[rcgldr]

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Assuming life started out as a single cell plant / animal, does random mutation explain the process that resulted in a huge range of variety and sophistication of living things, taking into account the amount of time living things and their energy sources have existed on earth?

 

[Gokul43201]

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

And it is theology that does this, not science. Science utilizes a systematic approach to investigate nature and make deductions that fit observations.

 

[silkworm]

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Assuming life started out as a single cell plant / animal, does random mutation explain the process that resulted in a huge range of variety and sophistication of living things, taking into account the amount of time living things and their energy sources have existed on earth?

Pardon me, I'm not sure I totally understand your question.

Mutations in genetic information do occur, and as long as these mutations do not make the organism suffer a premature death or make it unable to reproduce, these mutations will spread throughout its species, even without natural selection eliminating some organisms and favoring others.

For more information, I'd consult the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg" , which is mathematical and does not assume selection (but also does not assume mutation), and a study of DNA replication.

 

[PIT2]

And it is theology that does this, not science. Science utilizes a systematic approach to investigate nature and make deductions that fit observations.

Exactly my point. As soon as one, in the name of defending science, starts calling some things supernatural and other things natural, then one has turned science into a religion.

For instance, when one decides up front that it is supernatural for the universe or life to have been created, then one is making a statement no different from the statements religious people often make (saying that it is supernatural (ridiculous) that the universe or life weren't designed).

So yes, technically science isn't a religion. However, i understand fully how some people (without knowing it) can turn science into a religious view of reality. For instance take this article below: http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

It discusses the possible options for why the universe is such an improbable cosmic coincidence. Because this is a scientific source, nowhere does it mention that there does infact exist the possibility that the universe might have been created. I can understand that people who read such literature their entire lifes may start to develop the misconception that "because the scientific literature doesn't mention this option, it simply is not an option!".

 

[PIT2]

It's cause does not exist inside out material universe? Can you scientifically support that?

Did matter exist at the moment of the big bang?

If there is an intelligent being that exists in our universe that did somehow designed the living things on this planet, where is your support for it? Should we just trust your judgement?

What judgement?
U seemed to be claiming that it is somehow supernatural when intelligence designs 'life' (as opposed to 'computers' or anything else). I am saying that in order to make those judgements, one has to know what nature is.

Deciding up front that life wasnt designed, because science requires it not to be designed, doesn't make non-design true. In fact, it only says something about ones belief-system and is no different from a religious person believing that god designed life.

Similarly, when a painter discovers that he can't create sculptures with his brushes, he shouldn't claim that sculptures are supernatural or that they don't exist.

If it exists in the material universe, scientific data and methodology can support it. It can also falsify it. If such a thing is falsified, it can no longer be a scientific theory.

Thats fine, but it still says nothing about whether something is supernatural or not.
Unless u mean to say that nature is limited by what science can measure (in which case, again, our consciousness is supernatural)

Talking about falsification, can u tell me how abiogenesis is falsified?

 

[rcgldr]

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Mutations in genetic information do occur, and as long as these mutations do not make the organism suffer a premature death or make it unable to reproduce, these mutations will spread throughout its species, even without natural selection eliminating some organisms and favoring others.

In higher life forms, this mutation would have to affect the reproductive cells. In the case of human females, it's my understanding that all of the eggs are made before birth, so it's unlikely mutations would affect human eggs, leaving only male reproductive cells, which include a somewhat random sub-set of genes, so the mutation would have to affect the production of reproduction cells. I don't know if other species share this same trait.

But back to my basic question, do the patterns of mutations seem to be random, or do they seem to be biased towards "improvements"? Again, limiting this to the cases where any new sub-species survives and isn't killed off by the environment it's introduced into.

 

[silkworm]

Exactly my point. As soon as one, in the name of defending science, starts calling some things supernatural and other things natural, then one has turned science into a religion.

For instance, when one decides up front that it is supernatural for the universe or life to have been created, then one is making a statement no different from the statements religious people often make (saying that it is supernatural (ridiculous) that the universe or life weren't designed).

So yes, technically science isn't a religion. However, i understand fully how some people (without knowing it) can turn science into a religious view of reality. For instance take this article below: http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

It discusses the possible options for why the universe is such an improbable cosmic coincidence. Because this is a scientific source, nowhere does it mention that there does infact exist the possibility that the universe might have been created. I can understand that people who read such literature their entire lifes may start to develop the misconception that "because the scientific literature doesn't mention this option, it simply is not an option!".

It's not difficult to comprehend the difference between natural and supernatural. I even gave you some very simple definitions to help point that out, and I don't know why you've ignored them. It's pretty self explanatory because it's so obvious. I don't know why you're taking such an issue with this. To insert the actions of deities into science would make it a religion, but science does not do that, it only sticks to scientific methodology and is limited to the physical universe.

 

[silkworm]

Did matter exist at the moment of the big bang?
What judgement?
U seemed to be claiming that it is somehow supernatural when intelligence designs 'life' (as opposed to 'computers' or anything else). I am saying that in order to make those judgements, one has to know what nature is.

Deciding up front that life wasnt designed, because science requires it not to be designed, doesn't make non-design true. In fact, it only says something about ones belief-system and is no different from a religious person believing that god designed life.

Similarly, when a painter discovers that he can't create sculptures with his brushes, he shouldn't claim that sculptures are supernatural or that they don't exist.
Thats fine, but it still says nothing about whether something is supernatural or not.
Unless u mean to say that nature is limited by what science can measure (in which case, again, our consciousness is supernatural)

Talking about falsification, can u tell me how abiogenesis is falsified?

The time before the big bang is an extrapolation based on scientific methodology, data, and is limited to the physical universe. So, it is still scientific and it has support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang"

I'm not saying that an alien source for the design of life on this planet would be a supernatural source, however, for such an idea to become accepted science you must first find support for it. Where is it?

Science does not require that life not be designed, it only requires that if it is designed it has to be designed from a natural source and to be accepted as science, it must have support.

Your arguments weak and apparently biased. Your analogy about the sculpture is comical in its irony. When something is falsified it is because it was falsified, not because a supernatural part of the theory was discovered. Take Haeckel for example. He lost his support for biogenetic law by better observation of an organism's development in the embryo, not because it existed outside of the limits of nature.

I can't tell you how abiogenesis can be falsified, because it does have support. It is not a theory. It simply the generation of life from nonliving things, and does not appear to comment on whether or not it IS the source of life on this planet, just that it is possible.

 

[silkworm]

In higher life forms, this mutation would have to affect the reproductive cells. In the case of human females, it's my understanding that all of the eggs are made before birth, so it's unlikely mutations would affect human eggs, leaving only male reproductive cells, which include a somewhat random sub-set of genes, so the mutation would have to affect the production of reproduction cells. I don't know if other species share this same trait.

But back to my basic question, do the patterns of mutations seem to be random, or do they seem to be biased towards "improvements"? Again, limiting this to the cases where any new sub-species survives and isn't killed off by the environment it's introduced into.

Females are not born with all of their eggs. They actually continually produce them until menopause. I can understand why you'd think that, as most of the public thinks that females are born with all of their eggs. I thought so for a long time, but I didn't have that cleared up until I studied a bit of current biology.

I'm not sure what you mean by subspecies and I'm not entirely sure by what you mean improvements. I assume by improvements you mean mutations that will make an organism more fit for its environment. The answer is no. There are constantly harmful (debilitating birth defects) or relatively moot mutations that does not "improve" the organism.

 

[PIT2]

It's not difficult to comprehend the difference between natural and supernatural. I even gave you some very simple definitions to help point that out, and I don't know why you've ignored them.

The definitions u gave were flawed and boiled down to circular reasoning.

It's pretty self explanatory because it's so obvious. I don't know why you're taking such an issue with this. To insert the actions of deities into science would make it a religion, but science does not do that, it only sticks to scientific methodology and is limited to the physical universe.

And as i said before, the limits of science do not determine what is natural.

 

[silkworm]

The definitions u gave were flawed and boiled down to circular reasoning.
And as i said before, the limits of science do not determine what is natural.

You're going to have to qualify these statements if you want me to respond. As of right now, there's nothing to say. This whole conversation seems to have degraded into, "I know you are, but what am I?"

There's no circular reasoning involved. Science is limited to the natural universe. I'm sorry if that's hard to take, but it's the only way it can work.

 

[PIT2]

Science does not require that life not be designed, it only requires that if it is designed it has to be designed from a natural source and to be accepted as science, it must have support.

What is natural?
Can u think of a 'design' theory which is scientific?

Your arguments weak and apparently biased. Your analogy about the sculpture is comical in its irony. When something is falsified it is because it was falsified, not because a supernatural part of the theory was discovered. Take Haeckel for example. He lost his support for biogenetic law by better observation of an organism's development in the embryo, not because it existed outside of the limits of nature.

My analogy hit the nail right on its head
Again u talk of natural and supernatural, without explaining what the two are. The explanation u gave turned us all into supernatural (conscious)beings btw.

These statements come forth from a religious belief which many seem to have about what nature is, while the truth is that we do not know what nature is. This belief is, sadly, based on a method called science, which is used as a tool to investigate reality.

Similarly, a painter uses a tool to paint his paintings. If he decided up front that what his brushes can paint is natural, and that which they cannot paint is supernatural, then sculptures are supernatural.

Its a simple analogy but effective in the that way it shows how ridiculous it is to claim that one knows what is natural and what is supernatural.

I can't tell you how abiogenesis can be falsified, because it does have support. It is not a theory. It simply the generation of life from nonliving things, and does not appear to comment on whether or not it IS the source of life on this planet, just that it is possible.

Are u saying there is no scientific theory for the origin of life?

 

[PIT2]

There's no circular reasoning involved. Science is limited to the natural universe. I'm sorry if that's hard to take, but it's the only way it can work.

U may find this little quote interesting:

Let us look more closely at the definition for methodological naturalism from Wikipedia:

[Methodological naturalism] underlies the application of the scientific method in science, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and hence does not accept supernatural explanations for such events.

Ok, fair enough. So far so good. Let's dig a bit further, to Wikipedia's definition of the supernatural:

The supernatural as distinct from nature

In this, the most common view, the term supernatural is contrasted with the term natural, which presumes that some events occur according to natural laws, and others do not, because they are caused by forces external to nature. Some believe in forces beyond what is commonly considered natural while others believe all forces can be described as natural.

So there we have it. Methodological naturalism is described as science investigating nature, pragmatically, ignoring supernatural explanations. And the supernatural is defined as forces outside of nature. Circular definitions, each defining itself in terms of the other. What a load of rubbish!

 

[rcgldr]

Females are not born with all of their eggs. They actually continually produce them until menopause. I can understand why you'd think that, as most of the public thinks that females are born with all of their eggs.

Only because I've read and heard this a lot from so called biologists. How did this line of thinking get started?

I'm not sure what you mean by subspecies and I'm not entirely sure by what you mean improvements. I assume by improvements you mean mutations that will make an organism more fit for its environment. The answer is no. There are constantly harmful (debilitating birth defects) or relatively moot mutations that does not "improve" the organism.

I thought that most birth defects aren't due to mutations, but due to bad timing in the chemical signals that cause cells to specialize. There are some gene related defects, like getting extra chromosones, such as Down's syndrome, but I'm not sure where the extra chromosone originates from, the mother, the father, or during embryo developement.

Maybe it would be better asked "has there been a equal trend towards simpler life forms due to mutations as well as more sophisticated ones". Could humans "evolve" back into amoebas?

other questions:

Is there an accepted idea for just how often true mutations that result in a new species occur (how many years per mutation on average)?

Is there an explantion for the transition from single celled plant / animals to multi-celled plant / animals? This seems like the first critical step in evolution. The next step would seem to be the development of a nervous system and brain for animals.

A bit off topic here, but how do amoeba's "sense" food and capture it, with no apparent nervous system?

 

[silkworm]

What is natural?
Can u think of a 'design' theory which is scientific?



My analogy hit the nail right on its head
Again u talk of natural and supernatural, without explaining what the two are. The explanation u gave turned us all into supernatural (conscious)beings btw.

These statements come forth from a religious belief which many seem to have about what nature is, while the truth is that we do not know what nature is. This belief is, sadly, based on a method called science, which is used as a tool to investigate reality.

Similarly, a painter uses a tool to paint his paintings. If he decided up front that what his brushes can paint is natural, and that which they cannot paint is supernatural, then sculptures are supernatural.

Its a simple analogy but effective in the that way it shows how ridiculous it is to claim that one knows what is natural and what is supernatural.
Are u saying there is no scientific theory for the origin of life?

Nature is the natural universe. The supernatural exists outside of nature and cannot be controlled by natural means. It also can not be tested. For example, Santa Claus can not be tested. Unicorn evolution will not be present in the fossil record. We can't study the devil to see how he can take the heat, nor can we measure the temperature of Hell.

A good example of this was given to my by my friend recently. If you pick something up and let go of it, you know it's going to fall because of the theory of gravity. It's been tested, in our universe, over and over again. You can't as a scientist say that God is simply pushing the objects down because you can't prove it, and you also can't control God to see what would happen if he weren't pushing them down. You can't measure God's contribution to falling objects, and you can't control for the effect of any supernatural force on the object because it can not be controlled.

As I said in previous posts, a 'design' argument could made scientifically as being done by an extraterrestrial, not supernatural, being or beings. These aliens would exist in our universe. HOWEVER, for such an argument to have validity, scientifically, it would have to be supported scientifically. Also, I feel I must note, that this design argument would have to explain everything that the theory of evolution explains, and does not solve the problem of their origin.

Conciousness is part of the natural universe. It is generally studied in the realm of psychology and neurology. It is governed by our physical universe, and so can be, and is, tested by science.

Your analogy is still a weak one. But let's stick to the assumption he can only paints what he can see. Sculptures would not be supernatural because your painter's experiences are based in the 3 dimensional objects that he does experience. Because of that, a sculpture would exist in nature, a nature he cannot escape, and if he paints what he can see, he is painting 3D objects, which is what a sculpture is, even if he paints it in 2D. Similarly, if he gives what he paints the appearance of depth he is painting in 3D as a sculpture exists. As he is painting what is real, he cannot paint the supernatural, because he can not experience the supernatural, as in he can't paint a portrait of God because he can not see God.

Abiogenesis is just a term for the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things, and I mean spontaneous in the scientific sense. There is not currently a THEORY of how this occurred on this planet, but different possibilities have support. They are also based in natural explanations.

 

[silkworm]

U may find this little quote interesting:

No, the quote isn't interesting. It's weak.

We can only eat other organisms for food. What is a rock? A rock is a naturally occurring mineral. Can we eat it? No, it is not an organism. Why? Because it is not alive.

 

[silkworm]

Only because I've read and heard this a lot from so called biologists. How did this line of thinking get started?

I thought that most birth defects aren't due to mutations, but due to bad timing in the chemical signals that cause cells to specialize. There are some gene related defects, like getting extra chromosones, such as Down's syndrome, but I'm not sure where the extra chromosone originates from, the mother, the father, or during embryo developement.

Maybe it would be better asked "has there been a equal trend towards simpler life forms due to mutations as well as more sophisticated ones". Could humans "evolve" back into amoebas?

other questions:

Is there an accepted idea for just how often true mutations that result in a new species occur (how many years per mutation on average)?

Is there an explantion for the transition from single celled plant / animals to multi-celled plant / animals? This seems like the first critical step in evolution. The next step would seem to be the development of a nervous system and brain for animals.

A bit off topic here, but how do amoeba's "sense" food and capture it, with no apparent nervous system?

I think the thing about the eggs still being produced throughout the life of a female mammal is relatively new. The oldest source I found on it was from 2004 and it occurred in mice. I know that this is also supported by human females, but I can't find a source on it.

That's a good question about humans evolving back into a single celled organism. In principle, I don't see why it could not happen, but I could see how it would definitely take some doing. If I find some time I'll look around for something I can find on that, because anything I say here of why it would or wouldn't would simply be equivocation on my part.

As for mutation rate, I couldn't remember the number (I was thinking 1/700,000, but I wasn't sure) so I pulled this off of wikkipedia's article on mutation rates:

The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but is generally on the order of 10-8 (1 in 100 million) per nucleotide per generation[1]. Specifically, mutation rate in eukaryotes is in general 10-4 to 10-6, and for bacteria and phages the rate is 10-5 to 10-7 per gene per generation[2].

I don't think you can calculate how many mutations it takes for a speciation to occur because there are so many factors to consider, including what the mutation effects. I do know from the work of Phil Gingerich that the evolution (though not necessarily a speciation) can occur at a rate of 0.1 of a standard deviation per generation. For more information on that, I'd recommend you consulting Dr. Gingerich's work yourself because it's too involved for me to get into here.

I don't know what the evolutionary step from multicelled organism, from there to plant, from there to animal occured. But I believe the current thinking about single celled to multicellular organism is through colonies of single celled organisms. That is, single celled organisms living together like a large number of siamese twin. If you've never seen one in a microscope, I recommend it. They're interesting.

An amoeba is a single celled organism, so it's message doesn't need to travel, it's already there.

 

[PIT2]

We can only eat other organisms for food. What is a rock? A rock is a naturally occurring mineral. Can we eat it? No, it is not an organism. Why? Because it is not alive.

Actually, we can eat rocks

 

[silkworm]

Actually, we can eat rocks

You can, but they're not a food source. If you don't believe me, go on an all rock diet and see how long you live. The point is the reason why a rock is not a food source is because it is not an organism (plant or animal).

 

[Rach3]

You can, but they're not a food source. If you don't believe me, go on an all rock diet and see how long you live. The point is the reason why a rock is not a food source is because it is not an organism (plant or animal).

That's not a very useful classification. For example, bacteria at ocean vents subsist by oxidizing inorganic chemicals like H2S, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis.

 

[PIT2]

Nature is the natural universe. The supernatural exists outside of nature and cannot be controlled by natural means. It also can not be tested.

Tested how? U mean by scientific methods?
Did u just say that the limits of science determine what is natural?

And does something being 'natural' proclude it from being 'designed' or being 'intelligent'?

As I said in previous posts, a 'design' argument could made scientifically as being done by an extraterrestrial, not supernatural, being or beings. These aliens would exist in our universe. HOWEVER, for such an argument to have validity, scientifically, it would have to be supported scientifically. Also, I feel I must note, that this design argument would have to explain everything that the theory of evolution explains, and does not solve the problem of their origin.

(just a note: if god doesn't come from earth, then he would be an alien.)
Remember all those scientists who kept saying that if there were life elsewhere, we may not even recognise it because it might not look like life on earth? Similarly, id say that we may not recognise intelligence(s) elsewhere, because it may not resemble the things we call intelligent.

If nature turned out to be intelligent, then is nature supernatural?
That would be a bit odd wouldn't it?

Conciousness is part of the natural universe. It is generally studied in the realm of psychology and neurology. It is governed by our physical universe, and so can be, and is, tested by science.

Then prove to me that u are conscious. Also prove that consciousness is governed by physical laws, because as of yet, not a single physical law describes or predicts anything even remotely like consciousness. Furthermore, the (supposed) origin of consciousness is incorperated in the theory of evolution (by enthusiastic proponents at least) as nothing more than a miracle (one which completely overshadows the 'jesus-walks-on-water' miracle).

But ok, let's suppose that consciousness is natural - with which i fully agree (though it wasnt according to ur definitions of natural and supernatural)- then what do u suppose a god is? Could god perhaps be some kind of consciousness that exists and creates things much like our own consciousness creates things? Why could god then not be natural aswell?

Your analogy is still a weak one. But let's stick to the assumption he can only paints what he can see. Sculptures would not be supernatural because your painter's experiences are based in the 3 dimensional objects that he does experience. Because of that, a sculpture would exist in nature, a nature he cannot escape, and if he paints what he can see, he is painting 3D objects, which is what a sculpture is, even if he paints it in 2D.

But wait a second. Nature was defined as being what the painter can paint with his brushes. Ur statement 'a sculpture would exist in nature' is thus false according to the analogy - it is supernatural and exists outside of nature.

Also, painting a 2D image is not the same as creating a sculpture.
I can make a drawing of god creating life, but that doesn't turn it into the origin of life on earth.

Abiogenesis is just a term for the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things, and I mean spontaneous in the scientific sense. There is not currently a THEORY of how this occurred on this planet, but different possibilities have support. They are also based in natural explanations.

I know a few billion people who also have an explanation for how life originated. They have lots of support also.

 

[silkworm]

That's not a very useful classification. For example, bacteria at ocean vents subsist by oxidizing inorganic chemicals like H2S, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis.

Well, he's not a bacteria is he? I suppose I should have put methane and the sun as well, in case he had chloroplasts. I assumed he's a motile, multicellular organism, which only leads me to think he's a animal. Is that a poor assumption?

 

[silkworm]

Tested how? U mean by scientific methods?
Did u just say that the limits of science determine what is natural?

The limits of science are what is testable. All that is testable is in our universe. Hello?

And does something being 'natural' proclude it from being 'designed' or being 'intelligent'?

No, it certainly doesn't. We're both in nature, as is water. You can get poetic and say that both are 'designed' by physical laws, which dictates all matter.

(just a note: if god doesn't come from earth, then he would be an alien.)

That's sort of true. If God can be detected in the natural universe, he would be an alien. But then what's to keep us from calling any alien God?

If nature turned out to be intelligent, then is nature supernatural?

Okay. This is the last time I'm going to respond to a statement like this, and if you do it again I'm leaving this conversation.

Intelligence does not make something supernatural. I never said that.

Then prove to me that u are conscious. Also prove that consciousness is governed by physical laws, because as of yet, not a single physical law describes or predicts anything even remotely like consciousness. Furthermore, the (supposed) origin of consciousness is incorperated in the theory of evolution (by enthusiastic proponents at least) as nothing more than a miracle (one which completely overshadows the 'jesus-walks-on-water' miracle).

We can prove that we are conscious by exposing ourselves to random stimuli and reporting simular results of what we experience. And then further support it by repeating it with other people. consciousness is governed my physical laws because 1) touching certain parts of the brain causes certain responses (famously, the smell of coffee) 2) it can be further supported by the fact that the brain is made of material that we know follow the laws of the physical universe 3) We can measure the brain activity during thought.

I'd like to see your source on the evolution of consciousness. It was probably not a primary source as there are no "miracles" in science, only what is "not well understood." Of course, in science, "miracle" is poetic language for "not well understood".

But ok, let's suppose that consciousness is natural - with which i fully agree (though it wasnt according to ur definitions of natural and supernatural)

Test... Did you read this?

- then what do u suppose a god is? Could god perhaps be some kind of consciousness that exists and creates things much like our own consciousness creates things? Why could god then not be natural aswell?

What I suppose a God is is moot. I can not test for God or control for God so I can not consider God in a scientific investigation. If you can think of a way to either test or control for God, scientifically, please let me know.

But wait a second. Nature was defined as being what the painter can paint with his brushes. Ur statement 'a sculpture would exist in nature' is thus false according to the analogy - it is supernatural and exists outside of nature.

Then the painter would he himself be supernatural, as would a sculpture, and whatever he was paining on, and his brush, etc. If you want to switch "supernatural" and "natural" here (it's cute, I suppose), that is fine. But that painter, IN THIS SCENARIO, can conduct science ONLY in HIS nature, the "supernatural."

Also, painting a 2D image is not the same as creating a sculpture.
I can make a drawing of god creating life, but that doesn't turn it into the origin of life on earth.

Hey, knock yourself out and paint it in 3D. And you just agreed with me.

I know a few billion people who also have an explanation for how life originated. They have lots of support also.

Where is the SCIENTIFIC support for this?

Look, I've been proceeding in this conversation in good faith. I am however a busy person who on top of everything else just began summer classes. I can't continue in this conversation if you're just out to waste my time.

 

[PIT2]

The limits of science are what is testable. All that is testable is in our universe. Hello?

Our consciousness is not in our universe? Hi.

No, it certainly doesn't. We're both in nature, as is water. You can get poetic and say that both are 'designed' by physical laws, which dictates all matter.

Good, so u admit that the universe and life may have been designed by a designer, and that they all may still be natural.

We can prove that we are conscious by exposing ourselves to random stimuli and reporting simular results of what we experience. And then further support it by repeating it with other people.

Unfortunately, this does not prove anyone is conscious. It only proves that the person responds. He may well be a non-conscious zombie. The only reason u accept that the person is conscious, is because u know u urself are conscious. However, this is merely an assumption and not any form of scientific proof.

Just try to find out if bacteria are conscious.

I'd like to see your source on the evolution of consciousness. It was probably not a primary source as there are no "miracles" in science, only what is "not well understood." Of course, in science, "miracle" is poetic language for "not well understood".

People who believe evolution explains how life evolved and who believe that consciousness arose somewhere on the evolutionary timeline (which is what most evolutionists believe), believe in miracles. True, it is not well understood how this could happen (not understood at all in fact) yet that doesn't stop their faith.

consciousness is governed my physical laws because 1) touching certain parts of the brain causes certain responses (famously, the smell of coffee) 2) it can be further supported by the fact that the brain is made of material that we know follow the laws of the physical universe 3) We can measure the brain activity during thought.

It only shows that there is interaction between consciousness and the physical. It could just as well be that the physical is governed by consciousness.

What I suppose a God is is moot. I can not test for God or control for God so I can not consider God in a scientific investigation. If you can think of a way to either test or control for God, scientifically, please let me know.

U cannot test if ur neighbour is conscious. U can also not prove to him or anyone else that u love ur mother. Is ur neighbour moot? Are all experiences moot, and is science itself thus based on moot?

Then the painter would he himself be supernatural, as would a sculpture, and whatever he was paining on, and his brush, etc. If you want to switch "supernatural" and "natural" here (it's cute, I suppose), that is fine. But that painter, IN THIS SCENARIO, can conduct science ONLY in HIS nature, the "supernatural."

Exactly, the analogy fits perfectly

Where is the SCIENTIFIC support for this?

So in order for something to be 'supported' it may only be 'scientific support', which brings the circle to a close. I am sure by now u see the problem with this view, since it presupposes science as the absolute path to the truth.

Look, I've been proceeding in this conversation in good faith. I am however a busy person who on top of everything else just began summer classes. I can't continue in this conversation if you're just out to waste my time.

U can ignore most my questions since they are rhetorical, i only hope u understand what i was trying to say.

 

[silkworm]

PIT2,

You did not prove your point, only pushed very weak equivocation and poor semantics.

I can only ask you to reread my earlier posts and TO STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.

I do understand what you were trying to say, but you failed to support it. Furthermore, your points are pointless and poorly equivocated and you appear to purposely have not conducted yourself towards progress or honest communication in this discussion.

Because of this, my participation in our discussion has ended until you can show you are conducting yourself honestly in it. Until then, any further discussion is evidently futile.

 

[PIT2]

Au revoir,

and don't stop painting, just be aware of the sculptures

 

[Rach3]

Wow, this thread has de-evolved into a protozoan! I hope I don't get sick by coming in contact with it... oops too late!

(seriously, I don't think this belongs in General Discussion any more...)

 

[silkworm]

Wow, this thread has de-evolved into a protozoan! I hope I don't get sick by coming in contact with it... oops too late!

(seriously, I don't think this belongs in General Discussion any more...)

You've been itching to use the word 'protozoan' for awhile, haven't you?

What's your justification for it no longer being General Discussion? If some forum policy was violated, I apologize.

 

[Omega_6]

You've been itching to use the word 'protozoan' for awhile, haven't you?

What's your justification for it no longer being General Discussion? If some forum policy was violated, I apologize.

It is just that this topic brings forward many people who believe in something that you simply can not argue with. I feel your pain, but these people have their beliefs and most of them will never change. All they can do is attack evolution while they have absolutely no proof of their own theory (besides circular reasoning, of course).

 

[Rach3]

You've been itching to use the word 'protozoan' for awhile, haven't you?

What's your justification for it no longer being General Discussion? If some forum policy was violated, I apologize.

Policy is fine. It's drifted from a 'general' discussion into a 'topical' discussion - philosophy of science and such.