Does the Universe Have a Mind of Its Own?

[Les Sleeth]

An atom is a kind of logic gate. If it absorbs a photon one of its electrons jumps to a higher energy state, and then that electron falls re-emmiting the photon with random direction.

Programming eh? Outside of life, why don't you show me programming that results in practical, self-sustaining, reproducing, adapting systems which are not created by consciousness (human)? You can't find one, not one, example of programming of that quality which consciousness wasn't required to make it happen. Yet you seem to think that the forces which create and sustain an atom are capable of producing the programming of life. I don't see the source of your confidence.

So we see that the logic that might be used for programming is inherent in nature. . . . All we need for evolution to create a program is that these kind of natural logic gates be accidentally arranged in an organic system in a way that the system has a better chance of survival and reproduction.

Your statements tell me you are another one who can't tell the difference between a theory and a fact. Because something is "logical" doesn't mean it happened. And then you say, "All we need"? Well, if it is so simple, then why don't you demonstrate it occurring? Let's see that arrangement "accidentally" taking place. And don't tell me how evolution had billions of years to do it. That doesn't mean you get to sidestep the rules of proof. No observation of what you've hypothesized to be true means no proof. That is the rule of science, not my rule.

Lots of things "might" be, but you have to prove it before you get to claim to the public that you've solved the evolution issue. And that is exactly what evolutionists are doing. They have some facts, and where the facts are missing they fill it in with theory, but act like that theory is nearly a fact. Such practices are unethical and misleading.

Another perhaps higher form of natural logic, needed for natural selection to create organic programs in the way explained above, is say an organic compound that reacts in a certain way under certain circumstances.

More theory. Yes, an organic compound does react certain ways under certain circumstances. But so what? Let's see you get organic compounds to, for example, self-organize into life. Scientists like to say that's "most likely" what happened, but they are so far from demonstrating it's true that that "most likely" is incredibly optimistic at this point. It isn't a scientific statement, that most likely is a believer's statement.

And so we arive at beneficial programming through natural selection. What do you make of that?

Nice theory, when are you going to provide the proof. See, I am a nonbeliever, and I don't just mean evolution. I refuse to believe anything which I cannot find evidence to support. You are clearly a "scientism" believer. You accept BEFORE THE FACTS ARE THERE TO SUPPORT THE BELIEF that mechanics, physicalness, and science are all we need to explain reality.

Well, I don't. I don't believe anything in advance of facts. That is how I stay neutral, that is how I remain objective. I far prefer to be insulted by you (see below) and other science zealots than to sacrifice my objectivity to gain your acceptance.

How did you ever make philosophy guru? its a sorry state of affairs if it happened because of the sheer volume of your posts.

And so you have what zealots resort to when they can't make their case. Ad hominem attacks. Why don't just let the quality of your arguments show how smart you are?

However, since I have been here I have challenged science's objectivity about the probability of abiogenesis and claims made regarding known microevolutionary processes creating organs. In spite of that I was elected, at a science site, Philosophy Guru two years running. So obviously I am not a gutless kiss-ass thinker looking for approval am I? At least I stand up for and try to support with logic and evidence that which I assert. I'll be looking forward to seeing what kind of thinker you are.

 

[alfredblase]

Lots of things "might" be, but you have to prove it before you get to claim to the public that you've solved the evolution issue. And that is exactly what evolutionists are doing. They have some facts, and where the facts are missing they fill it in with theory, but act like that theory is nearly a fact.

And this is exactly why I think you don't understand evolution theory.

There is not a single theory in the entire history of science that has ever been proven beyond ANY doubt. One can only say we are x percent sure that this happens and our logical theory leading to these predictions is supported by evidence that our predictions are extremely likely to come true.

Ok so how do we apply the above criteria of proof to the theory that accidental arrangment of chemicals, atoms blah blah blah, by evolution (meaning random changes that are succesful), came up with organic programs? Well there have been around 4000 million years in which such an accidental arragement could have taken place. This means it is proven, with a confidence far far higher than any other theory ever, that it HAS happened. So there is a 99.99999999... percent chance (or something ridiculously likely like that) that evolution DID come up with organic programs, all on its own. Now this does not prove that there is no universal conciousness that created its own non random organic programs, but why evoke something for which we have NO PROOF whatsoever (universal conciousness) over something like evolution for which we have the most conclusive proof EVER in the history of science?

Answer: you dont, you stick with the above proven evolution theory.

Looking forward to your concession, hehe

Edit: I can't believe I got sucked into an "is there a god argument" without even realising it. Universal conciousness, intelligent design, hahaha they are in the same boat, along with all disguised religious ideas which borrow selectivley and or misleadingly from science so that they can seem more credible. The last time I heard about intelligent design was in a Jehovas witness magazine, entitled "the watchtower" or something like that . I was 15 and realized immediately how emm how can I put this politely ... that i should put it down before my fragile young mind was poisoned by such filfth.

 

[wave]

That variation which causes different size bird beaks within a single species I am saying is "accidental."

Biologists call that "different alleles". I appreciate your effort, but those two words would have been an adequate response.

One interesting fact is that mutations to complex processing organs such as the liver, heart, eye or brain almost always are harmful or useless.

Just so we don't mislead other people - most mutations are neutral. In addition, whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial depends on the environment. For instance, sickle cell allele causes red blood cells to have a crescent shape. It can be considered harmful because it can damage blood cells and clog blood vessels. However, people with sickle blood cells are less likely to contract malaria. Hence it is beneficial to people living in areas where malaria is prevalent.

So in terms of the genetic variation we can observe occurring today in living organisms, there is no indication that mutations will lead to organ development.

All mammals have the same genetic information required to synthesize vitamin C. However, that mechanism is broken in all primates (including humans) because we share the same disabling mutation. In other words, our liver perform different functions than that of our common ancestor. Now explain why this is not an example of organ development.

Genetic mutation simply causes existing genetic information to become corrupted - genetic mutations follow a downward trend. For example, it is universally agreed that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from an original pair of "dogs". This is "Variation within a Kind," NOT upward evolution from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwin's theory of evolution.

That is a gross misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. Evolution is not about evolving from a lower "kind" into a higher "kind". There is no "upward" or "downward" in Evolution. This http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/laddervstree.gif" perfectly illustrates your misconception.

...No new genetic information is added, genetic information is always lost: the original pair of "dogs" had all of the potential characteristics of all their various progeny, while the descendants themselves have lost that same potential.

That is ludicrous. I didn't expect you to parrot that kind of nonsense, Les. For every mutation, the opposite mutation is also possible. If a mutation result in a loss of information, then the opposite mutation must increase information. Your claim that mutations always result in a loss of information is absolutely false.

Your conclusion is still wrong even if your claim was true. Complexity is not determined by the amount of genetic information (i.e. number of base pairs in a genome). The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs, while the Amoeba Dubia genome has over 650 billion base pairs. Your genome is 200 times smaller than that of a single-celled organism! It follows from your own reasoning that either an amoeba is more complex than you, or it contains 667 billion base pairs that does not qualify as "information". If you argue for the latter, then please give a concise definition for "information" in terms of genetics and explain why you consider some base pairs to be information while others are not.

As the great philosopher Karl Popper pointed out, "The real difficulty of Darwinism is the well-known problem of explaining an evolution which prima facie may look goal-directed, such as that of our eyes, by an incredibly large number of very small steps; for according to Darwinism, each of these steps is the result of a purely accidental mutation. That all these independent accidental mutations should have had survival value is difficult to explain."

Famed geneticist H. Graham Cannon said, "A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which marks the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale."

Nobel laureate for penicillin research Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.

Nobel laureate John C. Kendrew for his discovery of the structure of the protein myoglobin said, "Just as in a book misprints are more likely to produce nonsense than better sense, so mutations will almost always be deleterious, almost always, in fact, they will kill the organism or the cell, often at so early a stage in its existence that we do not even realize it ever came into being at all."

Are you parroting again? Creationists often take a quote out of context (or worse), so I don't trust a quote mine. I hope you won't interpret my prudence as an attack on your character. If you wish to discuss a certain argument then present your evidence and I'll gladly respond.

Do you see my objection yet? We can strongly support that all life descended from single living source, but we cannot demonstrate that accidental genetic variation produced all the organs/organisms the find present.

I don't know. Let me explain what I think your objection is and you tell me whether I have it right or not, OK?

You said "I don't claim speciation doesn't happen via accidental genetic variation/natural selection. We see it all the time now, plus we manipulate animals (as in dog breeding) through that avenue." I also recall other instances where you claim to accept natural selection and common descent. So it appears that your objection is against the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. mutations) rather than against Evolution itself. You also claim that since scientists have not determined the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms, we cannot exclude "universal consciousness" as a possibility. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Les Sleeth]

All mammals have the same genetic information required to synthesize vitamin C. However, that mechanism is broken in all primates (including humans) because we share the same disabling mutation. In other words, our liver perform different functions than that of our common ancestor. Now explain why this is not an example of organ development.

I swear, all you evolution believers must have a blind spot. When did I ever say that livers didn't develop via genetic variation? What I said was, you cannot show what caused that variation! The type of genetic variation we can observe today is not hacking it as an organ creator, so tell me the basis for your confidence in ordinary accidental variation?

That is a gross misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. Evolution is not about evolving from a lower "kind" into a higher "kind". There is no "upward" or "downward" in Evolution. This http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/laddervstree.gif" perfectly illustrates your misconception.
That is ludicrous. I didn't expect you to parrot that kind of nonsense, Les. For every mutation, the opposite mutation is also possible. If a mutation result in a loss of information, then the opposite mutation must increase information. Your claim that mutations always result in a loss of information is absolutely false.

Mutations observed today is all I am talking about. Not mutations of the past. I am convinced that at one point mutations were occurring which produced new information because obviously all life has come about that way. Once again, for the zillionth time, I will repeat that you do not know what caused the kind of mutations which so consistantly resulted in new information that virtually perfect organs were developed. Whatever caused that is not reflected in the the type of mutations we observe today.

Are you parroting again? Creationists often take a quote out of context (or worse), so I don't trust a quote mine. I hope you won't interpret my prudence as an attack on your character. If you wish to discuss a certain argument then present your evidence and I'll gladly respond.

Not parroting, I was simply trying to show that not all science thinkers are willing to overlook where organ development via ACCIDENTAL genetic variation lacks proper evidential support.

I don't know. Let me explain what I think your objection is and you tell me whether I have it right or not, OK?
You said "I don't claim speciation doesn't happen via accidental genetic variation/natural selection. We see it all the time now, plus we manipulate animals (as in dog breeding) through that avenue." I also recall other instances where you claim to accept natural selection and common descent. So it appears that your objection is against the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. mutations) rather than against Evolution itself. You also claim that since scientists have not determined the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms, we cannot exclude "universal consciousness" as a possibility. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Close. I claim that we don't know what caused the type of mutations which resulted in organs, and that the quality of mutations today doesn't give us enough evidence to extrapolate they were the cause.

I also claim that scientists gloss over this problem, and pretend that the mutation quality observed today is more than adequate to tell the public that the evidence in support of Darwinist evolution is "overwhelming."

I personally don't question that life evolved over time. I am only questioning the certainty which evolutionist believers assert that they have it all but figured out what caused the genetic changes that led to organs. I also am not convinced that a universal consciousness caused the quality of genetic changes that led to organs. I honestly don't know. I just don't like evolutionist zealots trying to act like they have it covered when they don't.

 

[Les Sleeth]

And this is exactly why I think you don't understand evolution theory.
There is not a single theory in the entire history of science that has ever been proven beyond ANY doubt. One can only say we are x percent sure that this happens and our logical theory leading to these predictions is supported by evidence that our predictions are extremely likely to come true.

I've understood evolution theory since I was biology student, and for most of my life I accepted it. And please, don't lecture me about theories. I am perfectly happy with most of evolution theory. I am focusing on one, AND ONLY ONE, area where the theory doesn't hold water.

You know, believers are all alike, whether it's evolution or creationism. Question your cherished sacred cow in anyway and it's all out attack on the blasphemer, his education, character and all.

Ok so how do we apply the above criteria of proof to the theory that accidental arrangment of chemicals, atoms blah blah blah, by evolution (meaning random changes that are succesful), came up with organic programs? Well there have been around 4000 million years in which such an accidental arragement could have taken place.

Not so, the first life is believed to have come about in the first 500 million years, and then most of life's phyla in 15 million years.

This means it is proven, with a confidence far far higher than any other theory ever, that it HAS happened. So there is a 99.99999999... percent chance (or something ridiculously likely like that) that evolution DID come up with organic programs, all on its own. Now this does not prove that there is no universal conciousness that created its own non random organic programs, but why evoke something for which we have NO PROOF whatsoever (universal conciousness) over something like evolution for which we have the most conclusive proof EVER in the history of science?

Boy, talk about a bunch of made up statitistics. Please quote the authorities which provide those figures. You made it up.

I didn't say there is proof of a universal consciousness did I? However, I bet you, like most evolutionist zealots, have no idea if there really is any evidence of a universal consciousness because you don't study anything except that which supports what you already believe.

I can't believe I got sucked into an "is there a god argument" without even realising it. Universal conciousness, intelligent design, hahaha they are in the same boat, along with all disguised religious ideas which borrow selectivley and or misleadingly from science so that they can seem more credible. The last time I heard about intelligent design was in a Jehovas witness magazine, entitled "the watchtower" or something like that . I was 15 and realized immediately how emm how can I put this politely ... that i should put it down before my fragile young mind was poisoned by such filfth.

Thank you for showing just how objective you really are.

 

[PIT2]

Fear not, i understand what ur saying Les. And i think u have one hell of an excellent point.

 

[alfredblase]

hahaha now I am an "evolutionist zealot" xDD

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline:

4100 MYA The surface of the Earth cools down enough for the crust to solidify. The atmosphere and the oceans form[1].
4000 MYA Life appears,...

All we need for the possibility of random arrangement of organic chemicals forming a valid logic gate arrangement (i.e. a program) is lots of carbon, and a very varied environment.

So according to wikipedia there have been around 4000 million years in which such an arrangement could have taken place. Its obvious, come on...

Right, next: OF COURSE I made my statistics up! Do you really think I'm going to sit here and calculate the exact chance that successful organic programs would evolve from god knows what chemical soups over 4000 million years??! But what I am sure of is that its again OBVIOUS that the chances are extremely high, higher than any confidence applied to any theories you undoubtedly do believe in.

and yes perhaps i have not been very cautious or sensible as regards the tone of my posts, but this is an informal forum which is meant to be among many other things a fun and relaxing way to pass the time. I am sorry if offended you in anyway, it was not my intention. (but i did think a "philosophy guru" could adopt a more "zen" like attitude to heckling) :P ;)

greetings, alf =)

Edit: actually i think will sit here and provide a simple mathematical, rough, and extremely conservative estimate of the chances of what i advocate happens, happening. watch this space =)

Edit: scratch that i don't think i will, :P

Edit: ok just figured it out, i think i will again heh

 

[sameandnot]

honestly, i think this is a lame discussion, but i am going to point out my observation, any way. as i sense that it is fundamentally important.

it seems apparent, to me, that this argument is not about "mind" at all. humorously, we are not even talking about what is meant by "mind" or what it is. this upsets me; i thought that y'all would be more concerned with answering the question, rather than "proving your own beliefs and points". in your efforts, the point of this thread has been missed, enormously, and this discussion has become second-rate, at best.

if it helps, in this tangent debate-match, those who are concerned with the "truth of the matter" may want to consider pondering the nature of "accidents". you all are talking about "accidents" and conscious evolution, but what EXACTLY is an "accident"?

it's like, what is order and what is chaos? at what point is chaos, order and at what point is order, chaos?

some say, "chaos is order" and others say that, "order is chaos". others say that "chaos" and "order" are fundamentally different, but then, who says when It is order and when It is chaos?

to say that evolution is accidental is to say that it's all an accident (there is only accident), and to say that it evolves consciously is to say that it all evolves consciously (there are no accidents). [period] get it?

who can prove it?

sincerely,
Bored on PF

 

[wave]

I swear, all you evolution believers must have a blind spot.

I certainly do. Don't you?

When did I ever say that livers didn't develop via genetic variation?

Your exact words - "there is no indication that mutations will lead to organ development". Apparently your blind spot is much larger than mine.

What I said was, you cannot show what caused that variation!

It is usually impossible to determine the cause of mutations. For example, a mutation caused by ultraviolet radiation can be indistinguishable from a mutation caused by chemicals. Why the big fuss?

Mutations observed today is all I am talking about. Not mutations of the past.

Irrelevant. Your claim that mutations always result in a loss of information is false - period. I don't care whether you're talking about mutations observed in the past, present or future.

I claim that we don't know what caused the type of mutations which resulted in organs, and that the quality of mutations today doesn't give us enough evidence to extrapolate they were the cause.

I also claim that scientists gloss over this problem, and pretend that the mutation quality observed today is more than adequate to tell the public that the evidence in support of Darwinist evolution is "overwhelming."

Scientists gloss over it because it is not a problem! There is absolutely no evidence to suggest mutations were different in the past. In fact, it is very silly to talk about "quality" of mutations because it doesn't make sense. Would you ask a chemist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of chemical reactions today? Would you ask a physicist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of forces today? Do you seriously believe paracentric inversions in the past are somehow different than those observed today??

 

[Les Sleeth]

Scientists gloss over it because it is not a problem! There is absolutely no evidence to suggest mutations were different in the past. In fact, it is very silly to talk about "quality" of mutations because it doesn't make sense. Would you ask a chemist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of chemical reactions today? Would you ask a physicist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of forces today? Do you seriously believe paracentric inversions in the past are somehow different than those observed today??

There IS a problem, and you are just being obtuse about it. I would bet my inheritance that if creationists were trying to get by on the evidence you have for genetic variation producing organs that you'd be all over them like a bad smell.

You know, this is a logic issue, not a biology issue. So no more condescending "very silly" or "parroting" comments meant to distract us from your crappy logic. Lay out step by step the logic that justifies inferring today's genetic variation, which can only be proven to produce bigger bird beaks et ect., can produce organs. I would LOVE to see that.

 

[LaPalida]

I didn't say "genetic variation." Geez! I said ACCIDENTAL genetic variation. You guys are so blinded by your a priori beliefs you can't understand a very simple point. How do you know, for example, that genes weren't consciously manipulated to produce organisms? As I have pointed out, you can't find any new organs today being developed via microprocesses. So what evidence do you have that the genetic changes were accidental way back when all the organs/organisms first developed? Science isn't offering the only option for what created life, and I say it is unfair for evolutionists to act like they've all but explained things.

I checked the paragraph I quoted you saying and I didn't see word "accidental" anywhere in it. You may have meant it but it's not there. So you did in fact say "genetic variation" not "accidental genetic variation". But anyway that's just semantics.

I have pointed out to you that "new organs don't just arise" they are modified structures from previous organisms. You insist on this fallacy. Neither did all organs and organisms first develop "back then" (that's like claiming that humans and dinosaurs horses and monkeys lived together which is not true). We have new species arising all the time. In fact new organs (like a horse born with two wings) popping into existence out of the blue would prove evolution false.

Science isn't about being fair, it's about explaining the world around us and how it works. Evolution is about explaining the diversity and the structure of life. It says nothing about the creation of life (abiogenesis for example is NOT part of evolution).

I don't expect that, I am simply pointing where the evidence is lacking. Why do evolutionist believers get to leap to conclusions that favor their theory when they lack the evidence to do so? Just because they do it in the name of science?

Ok. So I'm still waiting for your definition of this "evidence". Biologists, Paleontologists, and Geologists are certainly of the opinion that there is plenty of it but not you. Why? What exactly do you construe as evidence?

Hold it right there. They all did not develop over long periods of time, some of them developed within 15 million years. But even if some organs did develop over longer periods, you still don't know what caused the genentic changes that produced those organs. You are just ASSUMING that known microevolutionary processes did it. You can't demonstrate today that they can do it. Don't you see? You are sticking theory in place where evidence is lacking and then acting like that theory is a fact. I don't believe anything, and I mean nothing, except what I or someone else has experienced. I am not just going to accept the assurances of evolutionist zealots that one day they'll have the evidence. When they get it, then they get to say they've made their case. Until they do, the question is open.

In any case, it isn't my problem that you can't observe evolution working the way you claim it does. The rules of proof demand that you provide the evidence, and not say "well, we can't find it yet, but until we do we are going to tell the world that this is most likely how things developed." Hey, all that is is evolutionist believers taking credit for something that is still highly in dispute.

So you think that 15 million years is not a long time? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? And then you expect to see something new and radical to develop within your lifetime? Which is what? 100 years at best? Proof and evidence for macroevolution is right here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ but let me list it lest you don't click on the link because it's "propaganda":

Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
1. Unity of life
2. Nested hierarchies
3. Convergence of independent phylogenies
* Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
4. Transitional forms
* Reptile-birds
* Reptile-mammals
* Ape-humans
* Legged whales
* Legged seacows
5. Chronology of common ancestors

Part 2. Past history
1. Anatomical vestiges
2. Atavisms
* Whales with hindlimbs
* Humans tails
3. Molecular vestiges
4. Ontogeny and developmental biology
* Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
* Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
* Snake embryos with legs
* Embryonic human tail
* Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
5. Present biogeography
6. Past biogeography
* Marsupials
* Horses
* Apes and humans

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
1. Anatomical parahomology
2. Molecular parahomology
3. Anatomical convergence
4. Molecular convergence
5. Anatomical suboptimal function
6. Molecular suboptimal function
1. Protein functional redundancy
2. DNA functional redundancy
3. Transposons
4. Redundant pseudogenes
5. Endogenous retroviruses

Part 4. Molecular evidence
1. Protein functional redundancy
2. DNA functional redundancy
3. Transposons
4. Redundant pseudogenes
5. Endogenous retroviruses

Part 5. Change
1. Genetic
2. Morphological
3. Functional
4. The strange past
5. Stages of speciation
6. Speciation events
7. Morphological rates
8. Genetic rates

Once again I demand to know what exactly you want as evidence/proof. I don't see people whining about Atoms or the Force of Gravity, neither of which we can observe directly (only their effects can be observed) but which have plenty of evidence and proof around them. Sure, I suppose I can always say that "You don't know that it's some invisible force acting on the Atoms, for all we know it could be little fairies and elfs making the atoms act the way they do". Proof please! I'm not the one inventing supernatural forces to explain ordinary natural phenomena.

So the theory goes. However, I am willing to accept for now that one thing does develop from another. But when are you guys going to get my point? What you don't know is what caused the genetic changes. RIGHT NOW, YOU CANNOT OBSERVE ORGAN DEVELOPMENT VIA ACCIDENTAL GENETIC CHANGES. So you cannot just leap to the conclusion that the genetic variation we see now created organs way back when.

Do you mean what was the catalyst/pressure that caused the genes to change? Anything could have caused the genetic changes, from random copy errors to solar radiation, but it wasn't directed by a force with a single-minded purpose behind it (because there is no proof for this that cannot be attributed to a natural explanation). Then natural and sexual selection took it a step further.

There is adequate genetic evidence to accept that all life evolved from a bacteria. That isn't my issue at least. I totally accept that all life evolved over time. What I object to is Darwinists attributing genetic changes to chance mutation, or some other mechanistic change factor yet to be discovered, and then telling the public that evolution is all but proven. THAT is crap.

If you read my response to Wave, accidental genetic variation is where my objection is 100% focused. No one knows what caused the quality of genetic changes that led to a human. There is absolutely nothing like that going on today in genetic variation. So how can one extrapolate from what happens today some unobserved quality of genetic change that was supposed to have occurred millions of years ago?

Remember, this thread is about if the universe has a mind of its own. The reason we are now on evolution is because I am suggesting that since the source of organ-building genetic variation is open, then it is possible that a universal consciousness caused those genetic changes. But too many scientists are pretending that the genetic variation question really isn't open, that they have it adequately accounted for. CRAP, bull, misleadingness, exaggeration, propaganda . . . that's all it is.

I believe that your argument is one from incredulity. You cannot believe/accept that all life evolved through random genetic variation, you believe that there must be a guiding force or some kind of universal conciousness behind it.

From the start you denied macroevolution takes place "Yes, macroevolution is what's unsupported by evidence. In terms of what I "believe," personally speaking, I believe what is supported by proper evidence. Otherwise, I believe nothing.".

The definition of macroevolution is: "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Now you admit that you agree that wings evolved from legs "So the theory goes. However, I am willing to accept for now that one thing does develop from another.", There is adequate genetic evidence to accept that all life evolved from a bacteria." So therefore you dispute not the fact of evolution (that we all evolved/changed over time from a single ancestor in the past and that such changes bring about the diversity of life seen around us today) but you dispute a particular theory of evolution (the how, the mechanisms behind it, namely the random genetic drift theory). You confused two different issues.

My question to you now is: If you say that genetic variation (the theory of random genetic drift) is not caused by chance but perhaps by the guiding hand of god or some other "universal intelligent force" then why do we have so many useless/neutral mutations and fatal mutations? If it's GUIDED why would there be mistakes? Alot of harmful mutations don't even make it right? The only two explanations I can think of is one, there is no force and it is random (errors in copying the genes) or there is a force and it is malevolent or irrational and is distingushable from chance. Using Occams razor I use the simplest explanation, the one that doesn't invoke another mystery and complexity, for which I have no proof whatsoever, to explain the first.

On the question of universal conciousness. It is possible but is there any evidence for it? Until such a time that there is evidence I take the default position of the negative. To jump the horse here: You would probably want to ask, what would I consider proof of intelligent design, universal consciousness, god etc? Well I would first need you to define what you mean by universal consciousness, how it works, and why you would get that idea in the first place.

Just want to mention another thing here because several people got annoyed that the discussion took a turn in another direction. Well the person who posted the original question mentioned intelligent design as one of the things that made him think about this topic so I don't think it's too far off the topic since evolution is the naturalistic explanation of life as opposed to supernatural.

 

[PIT2]

So you think that 15 million years is not a long time? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? And then you expect to see something new and radical to develop within your lifetime? Which is what? 100 years at best? Proof and evidence for macroevolution is right here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ but let me list it lest you don't click on the link because it's "propaganda":

What Les is saying is in fact also said on that same page:

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Les Sleeth]

What Les is saying is in fact also said on that same page:

Thank you sir. I've actually quoted that paper before (in another thread) as an example of what I think is a fair approach to debating the issue. The author isn't really saying that he doesn't believe microevolutionary processes won't some day adequately account for macroevolution (in fact, in another paper of his states his confidence that they will). However, he does, by his statements above, honestly acknowledge the controversy. He was smart to bring the focus to common descent because that is strongly supported by the evidence.

 

[LaPalida]

I am beginning to feel that we disagree on this issue a lot less than we think we do. Whether it is by your bad phrasing of your original statements, shifting ground, or I my lack of comprehension of them I don't know because as I see it you don't disagree that macroevolution (evolution above the species level) happens (although you said "Yes, macroevolution is what's unsupported by evidence. In terms of what I "believe," personally speaking, I believe what is supported by proper evidence. -Otherwise, I believe nothing." <- the statement that led me to believe that - macroevolution does not happen - is what you were claiming) you just disagree with the theory of random genetic drift happening on a larger scale (new phyla arising in a short time with only random genetic variation as the only cause). Did I get that right?

I don't disagree with this paper at all (that is why I quoted it). There is a genuine scientific controversy here regarding the workings of evolution but it is NOT about whether macroevolution takes place it is about HOW it takes place. I would be the last person to say that I know the answer to that because the biologists themselves haven't established fully the causes and the workings as of yet. I personally don't attribute everything to chance. Random genetic variation along with all the other factors (changes in the environment, natural/sexual selection, solar radiation et al) are the causes and workings of evolution in my opinion.

Anyway now back to the conscious universe (I apologize for contributing to the drifting away from the topic): If it is possible then how would we know it and how could we prove it? I am open to the possibility of some sort of intelligence that is so far beyond our comprehension that we wouldn't know it even if it was right in front of us, but that leaves us at an impasse since then it would only be pure speculation either way. Could life itself and the laws of physics be proof of this "intelligence"? The fact that we exist? Could life be the universe asking itself a question? Is it possible that if life arose from chemicals that it is subject to the same kind of physical laws and that the laws themselves are what guides the development of life - but how did the laws of the universe come about? Could the universe be a mass consciousness, not a single mind but a hive mind? What are your thoughts?

 

[saltydog]

I noticed two recurring themes: What caused the Cambrian explosion and what mechanism could account for the genetic changes which produce new organs/organism?

I wish to propose such: Catastrophe Theory and Non-Linear Dynamics.
For the first I present the cubic differential equation:

\frac{dy}{dt}=a+by-y^3

It exhibits the cusp catastrophe and I believe can serve as the model of the Cambrian Explosion:

I see all of pre-Cambrian life on the top fold of such a cusp, gradually increasing in complexity. At some point, 500 million or so years ago, a "critical point" in the biochemistry of life was reached pushing life past a bifurcation point resulting in the catastrophe we observe as the Cambrian explosion: Disparte clans emerged on the bottom fold of the cusp. The ODE above exhibits abrupt qualitative change at it's bifurcation point. The world is full of such dynamics and such a phenomenon could account for the Cambrian explosion.

In the case of organ development, I resort to non-linear dynamics and the words of Rene' Thom who said, "all creation or destruction of form, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement by capture by the attractors representing the final forms". From this perspective, the genesis of organ arises from the dynamics of the biochemistry as well: through random change, the biochemistry is pushed through a critical point into a basin of attraction, the center of which lies the attractor we perceive as the organ, the organism, and mind itself.

No doubt some, Ok Les maybe, will require proof of such. I yield and can offer none. However, in time through study, I've come to adopt this posture in the matter simply because it makes sense and provides at least a plausable working hypothesis to explain many of the questions about nature and life that I've pursued most of my adult life.

I don't believe in a universal conscience, rather there is only dynamics.

 

[alfredblase]

this is a completely pointless discussion

 

[Les Sleeth]

From this perspective, the genesis of organ arises from the dynamics of the biochemistry as well: through random change, the biochemistry is pushed through a critical point into a basin of attraction, the center of which lies the attractor we perceive as the organ, the organism, and mind itself.

As you predict, I would ask for proof, but not necessarily a demonstration of an entire organ developing. Two areas where if sufficient evidence were collected would make me more open is that 1) biochemistry can, on its own without conscious asssistance, be pushed to the "criticial point" perpetual system-building self organization, and 2) either if the quality of genetic variation we see today were shown to be creating organs in progress or if some set of conditions could shown to dramtically alter the now-observed bird-beak quality of genetic variation to a highly creative quality of genetic variation. Getting a few amino acids to form spontaneously and adjustments to existing organs doesn't cut it as "sufficient evidence" to make the kind of inferences evolution theorists are now making.

No doubt some, Ok Les maybe, will require proof of such. I yield and can offer none. However, in time through study, I've come to adopt this posture in the matter simply because it makes sense and provides at least a plausable working hypothesis to explain many of the questions about nature and life that I've pursued most of my adult life.

I commend your careful statements about the evidence you have. I respect other opinions as long as they aren't claiming they have evidence they don't, or making improper inferences from the evidence they have. A working hypothesis is a crucial part of conducting science, but not nearly as important as confirming that hypothesis with observation.

I don't believe in a universal conscience, rather there are only dynamics.

We believe what we (or others we trust) have experieced, yes? Universal consciousness has been reported experientially for millennia, but few science enthusiasts have studied those reports. So statements I often hear such as "there is absolutely no evidence of a universal consciousness" is a statement made in ignorance.

I myself can't say there is enough objective evidence to state unequivocally that there is a universal consciousness. On the other hand, the experience of a universal consciousness has been primarily an "inner" experience. One cannot judge an inner experience by the externalizing standards of science.

Most science enthusiasts now believe, like you, that they can account for everything with physical dynamics. I don't think they can and here is my number one reason: the lack of a mechanistic self-organizing principle capable of organizing chemistry into life, and then capable of varying genes so effectively as to create organs (and gene variation does boil down to biochemistry's self-organizing potentials).

If someone could demonstrate such a self-organizing potential in ordinary chemistry, that for me would really tip the scales in favor of physical processes/dynamics as the creator of life and subsequent life forms.

Yet the truth is, no such potential has been demonstrated, not even close. ONLY when you add human consciousness to the mix do you start to see the kind of system-building organization that life exhibits. Now, in terms of inferring from what we know, I infer that because consciousness is the only known force in the universe to organize with the quality needed to lead to metabolizing, self-sustaining, reproducing, adapting systems, then it is possible that consciousness was what organized the first life and what guided genetic changes that created new organs.

You say you believe in dymanics. Why couldn't one of the universe's dynamics be consciousness? Do you know of any other organizing dymanic that comes close to it as an organizing force? As I said, there is evidence (albeit, somewhat difficult to find) in the form of reports of quite serious inner practitioners (i.e., not religious doctrine). So I don't see why dynamic lovers are so closed to the possibility, especially when they don't have anything better to propose.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am beginning to feel that we disagree on this issue a lot less than we think we do. Whether it is by your bad phrasing of your original statements, shifting ground, or I my lack of comprehension . . .

I don't know which either. I am very interested in learning how to communicate my point so that it is understood right away and I can avoid the seemingly endless repetition of what I am trying to say. But I must admit that part of me feels that to even question anything at all about evolution theory draws attacks from people who believe it wholeheartedly. It's ironic because most of what they attack me for I am not even proposing.

. . . of them I don't know because as I see it you don't disagree that macroevolution (evolution above the species level) happens . . . you just disagree with the theory of random genetic drift happening on a larger scale (new phyla arising in a short time with only random genetic variation as the only cause). Did I get that right?

All I have been saying is that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that known microevolution processes created organs, because all they can be observed doing today is making "adjustments" to existing organs (i.e., not actually creating useful new organs).

I don't disagree with this paper at all (that is why I quoted it). There is a genuine scientific controversy here regarding the workings of evolution but it is NOT about whether macroevolution takes place it is about HOW it takes place.

Yes and that has been my one and only point all along (and not just here, but in other debates in the Philosophy of Science and General Discussion areas of PF). Yet every single time I try to point to this gap in evolution theory (which quite a few experts acknowledge) I have been attacked for everything from not understanding evolution, lacking education and being "silly" to being a creationist or intelligent design advocate.

All I have been doing is trying to point out we need some dynamic we don't have, or some unknown kind of change to dynamics we know about, in order to explain the level of organization and quality of change we know must have occurred to produce all aspects of life forms.

Anyway now back to the conscious universe (I apologize for contributing to the drifting away from the topic): If it is possible then how would we know it and how could we prove it? I am open to the possibility of some sort of intelligence that is so far beyond our comprehension that we wouldn't know it even if it was right in front of us, but that leaves us at an impasse since then it would only be pure speculation either way. Could life itself and the laws of physics be proof of this "intelligence"? The fact that we exist? Could life be the universe asking itself a question? Is it possible that if life arose from chemicals that it is subject to the same kind of physical laws and that the laws themselves are what guides the development of life - but how did the laws of the universe come about? Could the universe be a mass consciousness, not a single mind but a hive mind? What are your thoughts?

Well, you are reasoning as many of us do about the possibility of a universal consciousness. Other than the "reports" I mentioned to saltydog, there isn't much in the way of proof.

In other threads I have questioned the demand for empirical proof when it comes to universal consciousness. The basis of empiricism is sense experience. In other words, one proposes something (a hypothesis) and then one tries to confirm what's been proposed by observation (i.e., using the senses to see, hear, taste, etc.).

But what if a human being is capable of an experience that is not dependent on the senses? And what if it is precisely that experience where all the reports of a universal consciousness is coming?

Well, in fact that really is the case. There are records stretching back 3000 years of people who practiced withdrawing from the senses, and then claiming they merged or joined with something vast and conscious. This practice in the East is called samadhi, and in the West is called union. I've talked about it so many times here at PF I won't subject everyone to it again, but you can do some research yourself and find out about it.

My point is, when it comes to proof, there are different standards for proving something externally and proving something internally. I've heard science types so many times demand the kind of proof for a universal consciousness that one requires for science. Personally I don't think physicalness and the presence of a universal consciousness are studied or known through the same methods; that is, the way we get to know the physical universe is different (exactly opposite in fact) than the way we would investigate the possibility of a universal consciousness.

If that is so, the only way science is going to know anything about it will be due to "gaps" where physical principles can't explain things. Of course, scientists, as human beings, can learn to withdraw from the senses, turn inward, and experience what others have, and thereby prove to themselves what is possible in that regard. They just can't use science to investigate it.

 

[LaPalida]

We believe what we (or others we trust) have experieced, yes? Universal consciousness has been reported experientially for millennia, but few science enthusiasts have studied those reports. So statements I often hear such as "there is absolutely no evidence of a universal consciousness" is a statement made in ignorance.

I myself can't say there is enough objective evidence to state unequivocally that there is a universal consciousness. On the other hand, the experience of a universal consciousness has been primarily an "inner" experience. One cannot judge an inner experience by the externalizing standards of science.

For me anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it. People also reported seeing ghosts, the Virgin Mary, aliens and UFO's, the Devil, and Elvis too. Until there is concrete proof for this it's all just hockey pockey stuff. Hate, love, thinking, hallucination are all inner experiences too but no one is denying they exist. Why?

But what if a human being is capable of an experience that is not dependent on the senses? And what if it is precisely that experience where all the reports of a universal consciousness is coming?

Well, in fact that really is the case. There are records stretching back 3000 years of people who practiced withdrawing from the senses, and then claiming they merged or joined with something vast and conscious. This practice in the East is called samadhi, and in the West is called union. I've talked about it so many times here at PF I won't subject everyone to it again, but you can do some research yourself and find out about it.

How would one know then that it is a genuine experience, independent of external senses, and not just imagination, hallucination, schizophrenia or self-delusion?

 

[Les Sleeth]

For me anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it. People also reported seeing ghosts, the Virgin Mary, aliens and UFO's, the Devil, and Elvis too. Until there is concrete proof for this it's all just hockey pockey stuff. Hate, love, thinking, hallucination are all inner experiences too but no one is denying they exist. Why?

The "concrete proof" is acquired by you, the individual, learning the inner skills, practicing them for years so that you can have the "union" experience regularly, and then deciding what YOU believe that experience is. You cannot judge it by other's experience.

How would one know then that it is a genuine experience, independent of external senses, and not just imagination, hallucination, schizophrenia or self-delusion?

Well, how do you know you aren't living in a Matrix? How do you know you aren't dreaming all this? How do you know you aren't a computer program? How do you know . . . anything?

 

[saltydog]

A working hypothesis is a crucial part of conducting science, but not nearly as important as confirming that hypothesis with observation.

Thanks Les. I agree and perhaps should spend more time doing the latter than proclaiming the former. They have already accumulated what I believe to be a very rich source of information about the neurosciences in the Mind and Brain Forum.

 

[FSC729]

Big Question

The one question I haven't seen addressed is this, if the universe had a mind would we be able to percieve it as such?
This is akin to a neuron in our brain being able to percieve our minds much like we experience our minds in the "Descartes" sense.
Though we are much more complicated than a neuron and are self aware it does not necessarly follow that we would be able to percieve such a universal self awareness. At the current time we won't even be able to answer such a question using reason since we don't really understand the origin of self awareness within our own brains.
Our limited notion of mind or self awareness is seriously tinged with human notions of what it means to be self aware. Being that we are the pinnicale of self aware animals (on planet earth), there appears to be a heirarchy of self awareness and intelligence. We could easily imagine entities or beings with an intelligence and self awareness that would be incomprehensible to us humans, much like an ant trying to understand human thinking.
John G.

 

[wave]

So no more condescending "very silly" or "parroting" comments meant to distract us from your crappy logic.

By "silly" I meant nonsensical. I apologize if you thought I was condescending.

The "parroting" comment was justified, although it was not meant to be condescending. Your claim that mutations always result in a loss of information is absolutely false. You received disinformation and you repeated it without understanding. Otherwise you would have seen the fallacy of your claim. A mutation will lose information if and only if the opposite mutation will add information. A mutation is possible if and only if the opposite mutation is possible. You repeated disinformation without such basic understanding. That is parroting.

I am very interested in learning how to communicate my point so that it is understood right away

It would help me understand your points better if you:
1) Provide precise definitions, especially when requested to do so.
2) Use your own terminology in a consistent manner.
3) State your claims and questions in a consistent and unambiguous manner.
4) This last issue is harder to describe... Sometimes you shift out of context when you reply to my response of your comments. It gives me the impression that you only read my response, but not what I have quoted in my response. Subsequently your reply has nothing to do with what I have responded to in the first place. I'll try to point it out next time.

I know you are about ten times smarter than you need to be to see what's wrong with pushing accidental genetic variation as the creator of organs.

Lay out step by step the logic that justifies inferring today's genetic variation, which can only be proven to produce bigger bird beaks et ect., can produce organs.

That's a good example of issues 1, 2 and 3 above.
1) You never gave a precise definition for "accidental genetic variation". When I asked for a definition all I got was an example involving bird beak size.
2) Your change of terminology from "accidental genetic variation" to "today's genetic variation" confuses me because I don't understand the difference.
3) You have asked us to demonstrate that accidental genetic variation can cause organ development as well as organ creation. Development could mean creation or alteration to something that is already in existence. It's not clear to me which interpretation is correct.

I know you are about ten times smarter than you need to be to see what's wrong with pushing accidental genetic variation as the creator of organs.

I sincerely don't see the problem. Perhaps you feel frustrated because you don't fully understand my position. It's probably my fault because I didn't give enough reasoning to support my opinion. Consequently you may have interpreted my lack of justification as a sign of denial. I apologize if that is the case.

Your main objection is that Evolutionists credit genetic variation as a cause of organ development (i.e. both creation and alteration). My response is that your quarrel is with the foundation of genetics and not with Evolution. The mechanisms for genetic variation is a subject of contention in the scientific community. However, the affects of genetic variation on organ development is a scientific fact that has been observed in nature and demonstrated in the lab. To say "there is no indication that mutations will lead to organ development" (your exact words) implies "DNA doesn't specify organ development". If you truly think that then bring your objections to geneticists rather than evolutionary biologists. The onus would be on you to show which of the necessary insertions, deletions, duplications, inversions, translocations, etc. are impossible.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Your main objection is that Evolutionists credit genetic variation as a cause of organ development (i.e. both creation and alteration). My response is that your quarrel is with the foundation of genetics and not with Evolution. The mechanisms for genetic variation is a subject of contention in the scientific community. However, the affects of genetic variation on organ development is a scientific fact that has been observed in nature and demonstrated in the lab.

I am going to disagree here. You may be stating the ideal statement of the facts, but it isn't how a great many evolutionists present their theory to the public. I know this for a fact having observed it many, many times even as recently as last week on the Science Channel where working scientists implied that the facts of evolution are so overwhelming there is little doubt; and here's the kicker, they also implied that the exact sort of genetic variation that gives us bigger/smaller bird beaks gave us organs.

Another example. I was reading a program for teaching evolution to high school students a couple of days ago. It organized the lessons into a several-week teaching program; included in the lessons was teaching how gradual changes, with ordinary genetic variation and natural selection, over time produced organs. How can that be taught without making it crystal clear how little evidence there is to support that part of the theory?

To tell you the truth, I cannot recall any scientists publically acknowledging that when it comes to accounting for HOW genetic changes were able to produce organs, the evidence is sorely lacking. In too many instances I've read or heard, scientists leave the impression that there is enough evidence to assume purely mechanistic genetic variation-natural selection alone is an adequate "creator."

To say "there is no indication that mutations will lead to organ development" (your exact words) implies "DNA doesn't specify organ development".

I have repeated "accidental" so many times I occasionally leave it out of a sentence. If you want to take that particular "mutation" comment out of the context of the dozens of times I had "accidental" attached to it (or genetic variation), fine.

You say I need to define my terms better. Okay, I will accept that. But how many ways can one interpret "accidental"? Genetic variation, if it is unguided by consciousness, requires chance in order to create organs (unless someone can demonstrate a mechanistic basis for self-organization, which no one can yet).

I specifically juxtaposed guided genetic changes and "accidental" genetic changes early on in this thread, and repeated it a couple of more times. I also pointed out that the only type of "accidental" genetic variation we know of right now cannot be demonstrated to produce organs. Possibly we humans can apply our consciousness to genetics to produce some neat organs, but then that wouldn't be "accidental" would it.

If you truly think that then bring your objections to geneticists rather than evolutionary biologists. The onus would be on you to show which of the necessary insertions, deletions, duplications, inversions, translocations, etc. are impossible.

I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. The onus is not on me to disprove someone else's theory! If you advocate a theory, then it is on you to demonstrate the accuracy of it. Besides, I've not said it isn't possible, I said there isn't enough evidence to be acting like HOW genes varied as they did when organs were created is covered by what we know of microevolutionary processes today (this is every bit an improper inference as saying the possibility of abiogenesis is covered by the couple of amino acids that formed in the Miller-Urey experiment). My demands for better evidence and more conservative inferences are perfectly proper and healthy skepticism.

If evolutionist believers weren't leaving the impression, and sometimes claiming outright, that today's observed genetic variation-natural selection team (i.e., bird beak producers) created all life forms (plus not openly acknowledging where there is a lack of evidence), then you might get away with saying it's a genetics problem. But as long as evolution is being represented to the public the way it is now, I and other thinkers demanding objectivity are going to fight the current misrepresentation of the strength of the theory.

 

[Royce]

However, the affects of genetic variation on organ development is a scientific fact that has been observed in nature and demonstrated in the lab.

Can you provide support or a link to support this statement? Scientific facts are hard to come by honestly in nature or the lab.

 

[wave]

I am going to disagree here. You may be stating the ideal statement of the facts, but it isn't how a great many evolutionists present their theory to the public.

Fine, if that is your perception.

To tell you the truth, I cannot recall a single scientist honestly acknowledging that when it comes to accounting for HOW genetic changes were able to produce organs, the evidence is sorely lacking.

Evolutionary mechanisms can be a controversial subject in the scientific community, and I say that while donning my "evolutionist zealot" hat. I attended a seminar last month where two biologists argued over that very subject until they were blue in the face. On the other hand, whether genetic variations can produce organs is not contested.

It is reasonable to question whether the accepted evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient for organ creation. However, your objections has also been targeted towards whether genetic variations can produce organs (posts 12, 34, 53, 55, 59, 64 and 70). The latter objection is the source of our disagreement.

I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. The onus is not on me to disprove someone else's theory!

If you claim that a theory is invalid, then the onus is on you to support that claim.

If evolutionist believers weren't leaving the impression, and sometimes claiming outright, that today's observed genetic variation-natural selection team (i.e., bird beak producers) created all life forms (plus not openly acknowledging where there is a lack of evidence), then you might get away with saying it's a genetics problem. But as long as evolution is being represented to the public the way it is now, I and other thinkers demanding objectivity are going to fight the current misrepresentation of the strength of the theory.

Once again, that is your perception. However, you are correct to doubt anyone who claims that genetic variation created all life forms.

 

[wave]

Can you provide support or a link to support this statement?

Reference for the vitamin C synthesis example that I used in this thread:

Nishikimi M, Fukuyama R, Minoshima S, Shimizu N, Yagi K., 1994. Cloning and Chromosomal Mapping of the Human Nonfunctional Gene for L-Gulono-gamma-lactone Oxidase, the Enzyme for L-Ascorbic Acid Biosynthesis Missing in Man. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 269: 13685-13688.

Scientific facts are hard to come by honestly in nature or the lab.

How do you define "scientific fact"?

 

[Les Sleeth]

If you claim that a theory is invalid, then the onus is on you to support that claim.

Well, we must running out of things to disagree about.

I've supported the claim, repeatedly. But a theory has to be worthy of refuting too. I'm pretty sure that's one reason the staff here at PF discontinued having a liberal Theory Development section -- too many theories failed to fit the facts or be supported by evidence.

In this case, if one buries an evidentially unsupported feature of a theory amongst otherwise well supported aspects, and then pretends it deserves the same confidence as everything else, then I say that lack of a fair representation of the facts demands a proper defence by advocates; it isn't me who is making misleading statements. Anyway, what am I to do if advocates refuse to admit what they are doing?

 

[wave]

Well, we must running out of things to disagree about.

I am sure we'll find something eventually. Perhaps the next time you bring up union.

In this case, if one buries an evidentially unsupported feature of a theory amongst otherwise well supported aspects...

Just to be clear - the unsupported feature (i.e. evolutionary mechanisms) that we've been discussing is not a part of Evolution.

Evolution can be defined as changes in allele frequency within a population over time. Notice the definition doesn't mention how allele frequency change or what causes it to change. In other words, the mechanisms of evolution is independent of Evolution itself. We have separate theories to explain evolutionary mechanisms. So it is inconsequential to the theory of evolution how genetic variations came to be. Evolution will not be affected, even if "universal consciousness" is the mechanism for all genetic variations.

Anyway, what am I to do if advocates refuse to admit what they are doing?

I have never met someone like that in a research setting. We attack each other viciously, so we try to be the first to point out our own flaws. If you visit Toronto Canada, come to one of our seminars and you'll see what I mean.

The only time when I encounter such advocates is on the internet. They often accept Evolution based on faith rather than understanding. It is just as bad as those who dismiss Evolution without truly understanding the theory. All you can do is try to reason with them. However, it's easy to label people when they disagree with you. Some of those people could be right and you are the one not getting it.

 

[Amp1]

I see that no one has commented on Paul Martin’s Post (# 46). He has produced a reasonable line of thought. It may occur to you that I agree with it because it is somewhat similar to my posts and invests the premise of universal conscious with a time transcendent quality. The only short coming I think I notice is a way for the individuality of each conscious being to be differ from one another. Unique personality should be some sort of consequence of a universal conscious interaction between and with the unique beings/personalities within the universe.