Does the Universe Have a Mind of Its Own?

[van gogh]

is it possible that the universe has a mind of it's own, is it possible that it thinks in it's own way.
we know that information passes thru energy and the universe is full of energy. we may never be able to tolk to it, just like a tree will never be able to tolk to us, but i believe that it has a mind of it's own.
I'm hearing a lot about intelligent design lately but no one knows who the desiger is, what if the designer was the universe a designer of everything.
i would appreciate if whoever reads this posts what they think of it
i'm verey interested what others may think of it.

 

[arildno]

Hmm..my mind belongs to the universe (I don't know whether yours do), and I am not churlish enough to deny the universe property rights to my mind.

Thus, the universe does have a mind of its own.

 

[van gogh]

yes, but i think universe is one big mind

 

[Evo]

I'm hearing a lot about intelligent design lately but no one knows who the desiger is,

Intelligent design that you hear about now days is the invention of a few Christian fundamentalists, they try to avoid saying it, because their goal is to try to have their religious views taught as an alternative to valid science, but the Christian God is the designer in their view.

 

[DM]

is it possible that the universe has a mind of it's own, is it possible that it thinks in it's own way.

Can you think of anything inorganic that has a mind of its own? I would agree that the universe possesses and provides all the energy found around us but believing the universe has a mind of its own is equivalent to suggesting that my house, as SelfAdjoint once inferred very well, has a mind of its own.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Let us not confuse mind with the reality to which it must conform to arrive at an awareness and knowledge of and an understanding about the universe in which the mind resides and that makes the development of a mind possible.

 

[LaPalida]

Can you think of anything inorganic that has a mind of its own? I would agree that the universe possesses and provides all the energy found around us but believing the universe has a mind of its own is equivalent to suggesting that my house, as SelfAdjoint once inferred very well, has a mind of its own.

Hmmm. I can say that Artificial Intelligence (not that we have one ... yet) would have a mind of it's own but would not be composed of organic molecules. Viruses which are not truly alive either, but they are organic, can be said to have a mind of their own (or not depending on what you mean by mind). Which brings me to this point: I think that the questions one should first pose are what does one mean by "mind of its own" and what does one mean by "intelligence".

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hmmm. I can say that Artificial Intelligence (not that we have one ... yet) would have a mind of it's own but would not be composed of organic molecules. Viruses which are not truly alive either, but they are organic, can be said to have a mind of their own (or not depending on what you mean by mind). Which brings me to this point: I think that the questions one should first pose are what does one mean by "mind of its own" and what does one mean by "intelligence".

Viruses don't exhibit any mind, they only exhibit programming. They may alter to adapt, but only because they possesses the programming to do so. I'd say to mean anything other than programming, "mind" requires subjectivity, a sense of "self."

In terms of the universe being conscious, just because there is an inorganic presence in the universe (matter/physics) doesn't mean the mind of the universe (assuming one exists) is dependent on it. In fact, in the case of our solar system, Earth, life and human consciousness, it may be the other way around.

 

[LaPalida]

Viruses don't exhibit any mind, they only exhibit programming. They may alter to adapt, but only because they possesses the programming to do so. I'd say to mean anything other than programming, "mind" requires subjectivity, a sense of "self."

Ok. I agree. However... if we are to accept the fact of Evolution then does it not follow that we have evolved from organisms that once exhibited only programming (in fact our own cells exhibit just such a quality) and that with enough time for mutations and the following complexity mind is then only an advanced program, or rather a construct of that advanced program. Thus a sufficiently advanced AI with a complex enough mind can be said to have a mind of its own and be self-aware.

 

[sameandnot]

Viruses don't exhibit any mind, they only exhibit programming. They may alter to adapt, but only because they possesses the programming to do so. I'd say to mean anything other than programming, "mind" requires subjectivity, a sense of "self."

so, then, who "programmed" the viruses?

we could say that you are progrmmed too. you don't seem to exhibit any free will. you respond to posts in the way that you know how to, without fail. if you don't, at first, know, you will figure it out.

doesn't sound much different than your "programming", as we know that viruses "learn" (adapt/evolve) in order to "transcend"/"go beyond" the "counter-attack" of the immune system.

the difference is only in complexity.

 

[scott1]

It is possible.I read an article in scentific armerican that black holes where like computers and that all matter had information in it and black holes could process that information.If there Black holes are like computers it is possible that they could some kind of abillty to "think".It is possible that black holes could the CPU's of the universe and there proccesing information and energy and somehow sending it to other black holes and this gives entire universe somekind a colltive consiness.Which is possible since qutaum physics that everything interconnected with each other in some way.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Ok. I agree. However... if we are to accept the fact of Evolution then does it not follow that we have evolved from organisms that once exhibited only programming (in fact our own cells exhibit just such a quality) and that with enough time for mutations and the following complexity mind is then only an advanced program, or rather a construct of that advanced program. Thus a sufficiently advanced AI with a complex enough mind can be said to have a mind of its own and be self-aware.

If we accept the actual facts of evolution, and not the hype pushed by physicalist believers, then the only relevant facts we have are common decent and genetic variations that either produce useless/destructive changes or which produce simple superficial beneficial changes like bigger bird beaks, longer monkey tails, new colors, etc.

There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms.

So evolution, despite the hyperbole of believers, can't be shown to have created its own programming. The programming is there, yes, but the question is still wide open as to how it got there.

Getting to your point, that "a sufficiently advanced AI with a complex enough mind can be said to have a mind of its own and be self-aware," I don't see it. First of all, we don't know that the basis of subjectivity is complexity. I've pointed out (many times) that if subjectivity arises from complex mental functions, then why do meditators (who still the mind and therefore mental complexity) not only retain subjectivity, but report that it is strengthened when the mind is silenced?

Of course, a lot of AI guys think subjectivity will arise from complexity anyway, so my answer to them is, okay, demonstrate subjectivity from complex programming. Nobody has even come close, so I remain skeptical. What some AI believers do is to lower the standard for subjectivity or dismiss it altogether as illusory. Now that is a dubious tactic if I've ever heard one. You know, if you can't make your computer actually be conscoius, then change the definition of consciousness so computers can be called consciousness. If so, then what are we humans, chopped liver?

 

[Les Sleeth]

so, then, who "programmed" the viruses?
we could say that you are progrmmed too. you don't seem to exhibit any free will. you respond to posts in the way that you know how to, without fail. if you don't, at first, know, you will figure it out.
doesn't sound much different than your "programming", as we know that viruses "learn" (adapt/evolve) in order to "transcend"/"go beyond" the "counter-attack" of the immune system.
the difference is only in complexity.

I didn't introduce a "who" that provided the programming. If you ask physicalist believers they will say it came about through a bunch of happy accidents. Of course, they can't recreate any such set of accidents now.

However, you are wrong to say the only difference between me (human consciousness) and a virus is complexity. The big difference is my subjectivity which a virus cannot be shown to possess.

 

[PIT2]

However, you are wrong to say the only difference between me (human consciousness) and a virus is complexity. The big difference is my subjectivity which a virus cannot be shown to possess.

At which point in evolution do u think subjectivity may have arisen in organisms? Is this with the rise of the central nervous system? Or right at the beginning of life?

 

[Les Sleeth]

At which point in evolution do u think subjectivity may have arisen in organisms? Is this with the rise of the central nervous system? Or right at the beginning of life?

Personally I think it first starts to show with the CNS. Good insight PIT2.

 

[sameandnot]

The big difference is my subjectivity which a virus cannot be shown to possess.

talking about humans and viruses can be more tricky. how about we consider if a dog or a cat has "a mind of its own." i suggest this because, it appears that what you mean to say is that: viruses lack self-awareness; the sense of self as you call it. this, i believe, is what you are talking about, when you say "subjectivity." that is a complex feeling.
really.
the feeling that i have, of my own self, is extremely rich in complexity. i have the clear and distinct perception that this feeling is so complex that if i were to try to describe the feeling of my being conscious of it, i would merely mutter and clamour foolishly. this "sensation of self" is a very complex one, and therefore, the difficulty in relating to a virus, which has, probably among the simplest sensations, as its richest, is great.

-la palida asked a necessary question, which has not yet been explored, in the least. "what does one mean by mind of its own and what does one mean by [/i]intelligence[/i]."

the thread needs to deal with a major issue, i think.
•there is a term, which is in the question even, that we still don't know (or agree on) the meaning of: when we say "mind," what are we referring to?

how can we have gone this long, without even trying to understand the question?

??How do we plan to answer a question, that we don't understand??

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

For me the most cherished attribute of my mind is that it enables me to reason. Intelligence would be a measure of the minds ability to reason.

 

[PIT2]

Personally I think it first starts to show with the CNS. Good insight PIT2.

But where do the first organisms (the ones without a CNS) fit in then? They are highfunctioning systems, but they are not conscious?

 

[Les Sleeth]

talking about humans and viruses can be more tricky. how about we consider if a dog or a cat has "a mind of its own." i suggest this because, it appears that what you mean to say is that: viruses lack self-awareness; the sense of self as you call it. this, i believe, is what you are talking about, when you say "subjectivity." that is a complex feeling.

My own current opinion, which is open and ever-changing, is that a dog possesses subjectivity. However, a dog is also just about overwhelmed by his biology and conditioning, so his self-awareness may be severely or entirely obscured from himself.

Humans appear to be the first beings capable of escaping being totally dominated by their biology and conditioning (though IMO most humans fail to make much progress in these respects), and able to actually recognize a distinct "self." Functionalist thinkers like Daniel Dennett will disagree, but personally I don't think he knows beans about his own true self.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But where do the first organisms (the ones without a CNS) fit in then? They are highfunctioning systems, but they are not conscious?

They are indeed high-functioning systems, but appear to be mindless chemical factories. For example, without them there would be no atmosphere capable of supporting the variety of life we find present today, and we wouldn't have had a basis for multicellular life to develop. Even today our bodies are made up of billions of mindless cells which still do nothing more than serve as chemical production systems. The CNS is where all subjectivity is happening; all individual cells appear in service to the ruling consciousness inhabiting the CNS.

 

[tbc]

I agree with Van Gogh. Though my support may not be much good to him! I have nothing to back it up except a strong feeling--not much good on this forum. Anyway, just wanted to let him know what i thought (since s/he asked). I might do some more research and thinking and come up ith some good arguments.

 

[PIT2]

They are indeed high-functioning systems, but appear to be mindless chemical factories. For example, without them there would be no atmosphere capable of supporting the variety of life we find present today, and we wouldn't have had a basis for multicellular life to develop. Even today our bodies are made up of billions of mindless cells which still do nothing more than serve as chemical production systems. The CNS is where all subjectivity is happening; all individual cells appear in service to the ruling consciousness inhabiting the CNS.

I meant what is it about the organisms without a CNS that makes hem 'alive', if it isn't consciousness. Are they in service to the universal consciousness, like our bodies' cells are in service to our CNS consciousness?

Im trying to imagine which things are conscious in what way.

1. an organism with a CNS is conscious of itself as an organism
2. an organism without a CNS is conscious as a universal consciousness
3. a rock is conscious as a universal consciousness (like a non-CNS organism)

According to what we've been talking about, is this what it comes down to?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I meant what is it about the organisms without a CNS that makes hem 'alive', if it isn't consciousness. Are they in service to the universal consciousness, like our bodies' cells are in service to our CNS consciousness?
Im trying to imagine which things are conscious in what way.
1. an organism with a CNS is conscious of itself as an organism
2. an organism without a CNS is conscious as a universal consciousness
3. a rock is conscious as a universal consciousness (like a non-CNS organism)
According to what we've been talking about, is this what it comes down to?

After question 1 things get a bit too speculative for me. My own leanings are that an organism without a CNS may be ever so slightly conscious, but then it might just be pure chemistry that is very effectively organized. There isn't enough behavior exhibited by single cell organisms to really make any sound inferences about consciousness, so I prefer to leave the question open.

What organized the chemistry to become that cell however is what I am more likely to attribute to some sort of universal consciousness. If it's a bit of that universal consciousness that emerges in biology to be an "individual" consciousness, then it seems like it relies on the CNS for that emergence.

I don't think a rock is conscious or aware in anyway whatsoever because it shows no such quality. Why speculate it's conscious without any evidence to make us suspect it?

 

[PIT2]

After question 1 things get a bit too speculative for me. My own leanings are that an organism without a CNS may be ever so slightly conscious, but then it might just be pure chemistry that is very effectively organized. There isn't enough behavior exhibited by single cell organisms to really make any sound inferences about consciousness, so I prefer to leave the question open.

Alright, maybe I am imagining a universal consciousness in the wrong way. When i think about a universal consciousness i imagine one that is conscious of all the universe. So when i said that if non-CNS organisms (nr.2 (and also 3))do not experience their own consciousness (as individual organisms/rocks) then the universal consciousness experiences them as part of itself.

What organized the chemistry to become that cell however is what I am more likely to attribute to some sort of universal consciousness. If it's a bit of that universal consciousness that emerges in biology to be an "individual" consciousness, then it seems like it relies on the CNS for that emergence.

So the CNS 'receives' consciousness from the universal one and in the same proces the universal one splits itself up (as each CNS is conscious as a separate individual) and through evolution the individuals then become more and more conscious.

I don't think a rock is conscious or aware in anyway whatsoever because it shows no such quality. Why speculate it's conscious without any evidence to make us suspect it?

When i mentioned numbers 2 and 3 being conscious as a universal consciousness, i meant that the universal consciousness was conscious of them (since it is universal).

I have a billion more questions but they are so speculative i won't even ask them

 

[Les Sleeth]

So the CNS 'receives' consciousness from the universal one and in the same proces the universal one splits itself up (as each CNS is conscious as a separate individual) and through evolution the individuals then become more and more conscious. . . . I have a billion more questions but they are so speculative i won't even ask them

I am sure you realize I am just playing "what if" with you. I don't know if anything I said is true. I play the "what if" game with myself quite a bit, and it just so happens that one of my favorites is "what if there is a universal consciousness, how would it be involved in creation." Some of the things I've suggested to you are ideas I've had about how a universal consciousness might function if it exists and plays any role in guiding creation.

To make the game more realistic, I have a rule that whatever I say about the way a universal consciousness might function has to fit some facts. The CNS and organization ideas appeal to me because nobody knows what consciousness is or its source, and nobody can explain how things got so exquisitely organized as to form a cell and all the other life forms that followed.

 

[tbc]

Ok, I've been doing more thinking and reading posts and I've got more to add to my previous post.
My idea of a universal consciousness (if there was one) is one that itself lacks centre, but is composed of all the matter, energy and even space of the universe. In the same way as no one brain cell can be considered to be self-conscious, or even of particular intelligence, the individual components of the universe have very very little intelligence of their own.
It is only the combination of all the atoms etc. that create the 'intelligent universe'. It is this that give the universe a 'will' that plans and decides the values of initial physical properties, like particle masses and the various fundamental forces.
I believe this universe could have willed it's own creation...Well, I am tired and rambling...I do that a lot.
Im new to this philosophy thing, so apologies to anyone i annoy by my vague and wandering inputs. 'night

Oh also, the idea that the universe be 'self-aware' is in my opinion meaningless, because to be aware of yourself you must be aware of something that is not yourself and make a powerful distinction. Since the universe is itself composed of everything, this distinction would be impossible.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Oh also, the idea that the universe be 'self-aware' is in my opinion meaningless, because to be aware of yourself you must be aware of something that is not yourself and make a powerful distinction. Since the universe is itself composed of everything, this distinction would be impossible.

I don't understand your logic. I can't see why one needs anything besides oneself to be aware of. I actually set aside time everyday to do just that because it is so enjoyable.

 

[LaPalida]

A couple of quick questions, before I respond to your posts, on some of the terms you guys are using. What is CNS? I'm new here and I don't know what it means. Les Sleeth what do you mean by a physicalist?

If we accept the actual facts of evolution, and not the hype pushed by physicalist believers, then the only relevant facts we have are common decent and genetic variations that either produce useless/destructive changes or which produce simple superficial beneficial changes like bigger bird beaks, longer monkey tails, new colors, etc.

There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms.

Also need to clarify a couple of things here too. By the quote above do you mean that you believe in micro but not macro evolution? By high-functioning organs do you mean things like brain, heart, wings etc?

 

[Les Sleeth]

A couple of quick questions, before I respond to your posts, on some of the terms you guys are using. What is CNS?

CNS is the central nervous system. We've been suggesting that a sense of "self" first starts to show in critters that have one. Something with a CNS as primitive as a Jellyfish is hard to show subjectivity in, but I think I see it. Will, for instance, I see as subjective even if it is being dominated by, say, hormones and other biological factors. It's sort of a paradox to say something has a "self" yet is so emersed in biology or so controlled by conditioning that it can't recognize it's own self. That is why I say humans seem to be the first level of awareness to really be able to identify a self.

Les Sleeth what do you mean by a physicalist?

The term "physicalist" is used to describe the belief that all that exists has arisen from physical principles or matter. Some people used to say "materialist" but that term doesn't seem to include physical principles which aren't exactly matter.

Over in the Philosophy of Science section of PF you can find a thread I started called "Define Physical." That was a pretty good discussion because you can see that it isn't exactly clear to everyone, even scientists, what physical is. My own suggestion for a definition was "mass, the effects of mass, and the products of mass." I suggested that because if mass didn't and had never existed in the universe, you can't find any gravity, you won't find any radiation, there will be no matter.

So if you are a physicalist, you believe physicalness can produce everything. Where that idea becomes most contentious is with the formation of life, the evolution of life forms, and most of all . . . the development of consciousness.

Also need to clarify a couple of things here too. By the quote above . . .

There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms

. . . do you mean that you believe in micro but not macro evolution? By high-functioning organs do you mean things like brain, heart, wings etc?

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.

I mentioned the hyperbole of physicalists in regard to evolution because they often gloss over the fact that there is no evidence that microevolution can produce organs. Some mentors around here, like Evo who posted earlier, will go so far as to say the "evidence is overwhelming" in favor of evolution. I don't know if she simply doesn't understand where there is no evidence, or if she is just in denial.

Stephen Jay Gould said: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Personally I think if all transitional forms had been preserved, there really would be a record showing that all life evolved from the first life forms (algae/bacteria). The reason I think there is no fossil record is because the evolution of new life forms happened too fast, so there weren't enough transitional forms to ensure a fossil record.

One more bit of evidence I think that is virtually indisputable is the genetic record which clearly indicates common descent.

So if common descent is true, if all life forms did evolve from more primitive forms, then is there any reason not to extrapolate macroevoluation from microevolution?

YES! The problem is that in Darwinistic evolution theory genetic variation and natural selection are the only mechanisms we have for producing changes (well, plus how disease or changes in environmental chemistry might alter an organism). But today we cannot find evidence that genetic changes produce new organs. Bigger bird beaks, new shades of moths, longer monkey tails . . . no problem. But not organs.

Then you have the Cambrian explosion where virtually every phyla of animal first appears within a 10 million year period. There is no known mechanism for producing that quality and quantity of change. Certainly not accidental genetic variation and natural selection; they operate a billion times too slowly (at least as they are observed today) to attribute the kind and quality of changes that took place during the explosion.

Replacing phyletic gradualism with punctuated equilibrium doesn't help much either except to let evolutionists off the hook. It's like saying, "well, we can't explain it with our theory so let's say that's just how things work." The problem of course is that what caused such incredibly perfect genetic variation to produce hearts, livers and brains is not explained by saying "that's just what happened."

To those of us open to some sort of universal consciousness participating in creation, changes made at the genetic level would the perfect place for he/she/it to do so. The quality of changes are exactly the kind a human consciousness, for instance, would make if it were smart enough. In other words, if we had invented a living cell and could control its genetics, and if we wanted it to evolve new traits, where would we introduce changes? In its genes of course. So theoretically the idea makes sense.

Evolutionist believers like to complain "there is no evidence" that consciousness intervened in genetics. But the lack of evidence for macro from microevolution doesn't seem to bother them. Hmmmmm. I say it is impossible to be objective if one already believes something is true before one looks at evidence. And that is exactly what's going on with evolutionist believers, and why they can't see they shouldn't yet assume that all life evolved via microevolution.

As for me, who is not committed to believing anything, I am free to consider all theories without prejudice.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Macroevolution unsupported?

Yes, macroevolution is what's unsupported by evidence.

You continually assert this, and I continually refer you to Evidences for Speciation over at the Talk Origins Archive to refute the assertion. This is hard evidence for macroevolution!

Quoting Gould is just not sufficient. Since his death it has become obvious that among his clever and misleading statements there is a will to suppress public knowledge of what he acknowledged within the community of scientists. This will was driven by his desire to give public support to Marxist interpretations of human nature.

 

[sameandnot]

In the same way as no one brain cell can be considered to be self-conscious, or even of particular intelligence, the individual components of the universe have very very little intelligence of their own.

check this out. it was an article in the January 2006 issue of Discover magazine, which reviews the year in science:

69
Brain Scientists Find Single Cells That Can Think

You may not be devoted to Halle Berry, but at least oneof your brain cells is. Christof Koch, a neuroscientist at Caltech, and Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon at the University of California at Los Angeles, revealed this spring that their research team had discovered individual brain cells that fire in response to particular people and places. A Bill Clinton neuron lights up at photos of the former president, but not for other ex-presidents,* males—or Hillary.

Such faithful neurons conflict with the conventional wisdom—a single cell is not supposed to know so much. With almost as many neurons in the neocortex as stars in the galaxy, there still aren't enough for every possible input, and the researchers suspect that brain cells get reserved only for important people—like Bart Simpson. Still, every idea may leave its own electrical trace. "Someday," says Koch, "we may be able to track the footprints of your thoughts." —Jessica Ruvinsky

...

 

[roamer]

YES! The problem is that in Darwinistic evolution theory genetic variation and natural selection are the only mechanisms we have for producing changes ...Then you have the Cambrian explosion where virtually every phyla of animal first appears within a 10 million year period. There is no known mechanism for producing that quality and quantity of change. Certainly not accidental genetic variation and natural selection; they operate a billion times too slowly (at least as they are observed today) to attribute the kind and quality of changes that took place during the explosion.

Les I tend to agree with you that genetic variation and natural selection seem to occur much to slowly to produce the evolutionary changes needed to account for the fossil record especially the cambrian explosion, but what if there is one more mechanism in darwinistic evolution, say behavior. Erwin Schroedinger wrote in "Mind and Matter" that he felt the behavior of the individual plays the most relevant part in evolution. This might sound ok for higher animals that seem to exhibit intelligence but, he did not restrict behavior to higher animals. An example he used was a flower that grew on all over a mountain, say some of these flowers deveolped hairy foliage mutation the result would probably be that the flowers with the hairy foliage would be favored in higher regions of the mountains. Over time it would seem that these flowers made a migration to the environment that is most desirable for their characteristics. In this example the chance mutation occurred first and the environmental selection occurred to secure that chance mutation in the genome of the hairy foliage flowers. So this really doesn't sound any different from normal Darwanism, but there does seem to be a behavior that the flower has taken on which is in a way forced by environment and chance mutations.

Now perhaps if the accumulated behavior that an organism takes on was looked at, it might help explain why the huge explosion of organisms in the Cambrian era was possible? I have absolutely no biological background but I might guess that maybe organisms with a certain level in complexity in behavior had developed pre Cambrian era and this accumulated behavior drove them to make drastic changes in physical mechanisms like organs.

To me it seems that when I look at a organism, say a deer, there is a whole aspect of the deer that simply isn't explained by the physical aspect of the animal. Certainly you have an animal that has a set DNA which basically governs the way it looks and even to a great degree the way it acts. for example a deer has organs for eating grass, hoves for running fast, ears for listening for predators, ect. In this sense form is function, but there is a whole other aspect of the deer that has nothing to do with the physical aspect of the deer. Say you have a deer herd in some northern location and one in some southern loaction. The two herds have basically the same dna but they certainly have different behavior. Perhaps the northern herd develops certain migration strategies for winter months well the southern herd doesn't need to. These behaviors certainly aren't expressed in the genome, but they may influence the genome. The behavior also doesn't seem to be just a product of the environment either since it has been accumulated by previous deer herds a long time ago when environments where much different.

This would still leave us with the question of how to define behavior (perhaps behavior is driven by conciousness) but it doesn't seem opposed to Darwins theory of evolution.

 

[sameandnot]

does anyone here, actually think that they know what they are talking about?

 

[Les Sleeth]

You continually assert this, and I continually refer you to Evidences for Speciation over at the Talk Origins Archive to refute the assertion. This is hard evidence for macroevolution!
Quoting Gould is just not sufficient. Since his death it has become obvious that among his clever and misleading statements there is a will to suppress public knowledge of what he acknowledged within the community of scientists. This will was driven by his desire to give public support to Marxist interpretations of human nature.

Well, I continously ask you to demonstrate that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation is what caused organ development! When are you going to provide that evidence? You can't just assume that known microprocesses have produced the macro scene since those processes can demonstrate no other ability than superficial change.

Do you really understand the objection? 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. But that is an entirely different issue than if ACCIDENTAL genetic variation can produce an organ. All it takes for speciation is superficial changes, as Darwin observed way back when. He merely assumed that the microprocesses lead to the development of the entire organism. He didn't have the evidence then, and you don't have the evidence now. So I don't know why you and other "believers" won't admit it.

i also haven't challenged common descent. The genetic record is there. But once again, not you nor anyone else can demonstrate that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation caused the development of the organs/organisms even if we've all descended from a common ancestor.

What was it exactly that caused the genetic changes that led to new organs and organisms? Since evolutionists don't have the answer, I say the possibility that some sort of universal consciousness has participated is a valid contender despite the fact that physicalists are in a huge rush to claim they got it all explained so they can keep the hated God concept out of all explanations for reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les I tend to agree with you that genetic variation and natural selection seem to occur much to slowly to produce the evolutionary changes needed to account for the fossil record especially the cambrian explosion, but what if there is one more mechanism in darwinistic evolution, say behavior. Erwin Schroedinger wrote in "Mind and Matter" that he felt the behavior of the individual plays the most relevant part in evolution. This might sound ok for higher animals that seem to exhibit intelligence but, he did not restrict behavior to higher animals. An example he used was a flower that grew on all over a mountain, say some of these flowers deveolped hairy foliage mutation the result would probably be that the flowers with the hairy foliage would be favored in higher regions of the mountains. Over time it would seem that these flowers made a migration to the environment that is most desirable for their characteristics. In this example the chance mutation occurred first and the environmental selection occurred to secure that chance mutation in the genome of the hairy foliage flowers. So this really doesn't sound any different from normal Darwanism, but there does seem to be a behavior that the flower has taken on which is in a way forced by environment and chance mutations.
Now perhaps if the accumulated behavior that an organism takes on was looked at, it might help explain why the huge explosion of organisms in the Cambrian era was possible? I have absolutely no biological background but I might guess that maybe organisms with a certain level in complexity in behavior had developed pre Cambrian era and this accumulated behavior drove them to make drastic changes in physical mechanisms like organs.
To me it seems that when I look at a organism, say a deer, there is a whole aspect of the deer that simply isn't explained by the physical aspect of the animal. Certainly you have an animal that has a set DNA which basically governs the way it looks and even to a great degree the way it acts. for example a deer has organs for eating grass, hoves for running fast, ears for listening for predators, ect. In this sense form is function, but there is a whole other aspect of the deer that has nothing to do with the physical aspect of the deer. Say you have a deer herd in some northern location and one in some southern loaction. The two herds have basically the same dna but they certainly have different behavior. Perhaps the northern herd develops certain migration strategies for winter months well the southern herd doesn't need to. These behaviors certainly aren't expressed in the genome, but they may influence the genome. The behavior also doesn't seem to be just a product of the environment either since it has been accumulated by previous deer herds a long time ago when environments where much different.
This would still leave us with the question of how to define behavior (perhaps behavior is driven by conciousness) but it doesn't seem opposed to Darwins theory of evolution.

I am open to anything that makes sense. I am even open to accidental genetic variation-natural selection. All I've said is the evidence is missing when it comes to saying anything with certainty about how genetics vary exactly as they need to in order to produce an organ/organism. That question should be left open, and Darwinists should not be assuming their little pet theory is correct.

See, I don't say I know the answer. I am merely objecting to people who also don't know the answer acting like the "evidence is overwhelming" in favor of their favored theory. It's a total scam job being pushed at the public. Yes there is overwhelming evidence, but it sure ain't in the area of what has produced organs and organisms! The evidence is overwhelming that we have descended from a common life form, and that speciation can occur via accidental genetic variation and natural selection. That's it, there is no other certain evidence.

So why are Darwinists acting like they've got organ development all but accounted for by "overwhelming evidence" when they ain't got squat?

 

[roamer]

Les,

All I've said is the evidence is missing when it comes to saying anything with certainty about how genetics vary exactly as they need to in order to produce an organ/organism. That question should be left open, and Darwinists should not be assuming their little pet theory is correct.

I know you aren't implying you know, and it seems obvious to me your whole point is that neither do the Darwinists when it comes to explaining things like organ development in the Cambrian era. All I was trying to do was see what people thought of the idea of accumulated behavior of organisms and its effect on evolution. The idea certainly is not my own either, as i mentioned it was something Erwin Schrodinger talked about. I also apologize because I probably haven't given it a very good explanation at all. If anyone else has heard of Schrodingers ideas on evolution please chime in. I was just trying to mention them since I thought it added another evoltuionary perspective.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les,
I know you aren't implying you know, and it seems obvious to me your whole point is that neither do the Darwinists when it comes to explaining things like organ development in the Cambrian era. All I was trying to do was see what people thought of the idea of accumulated behavior of organisms and its effect on evolution. The idea certainly is not my own either, as i mentioned it was something Erwin Schrodinger talked about. I also apologize because I probably haven't given it a very good explanation at all. If anyone else has heard of Schrodingers ideas on evolution please chime in. I was just trying to mention them since I thought it added another evoltuionary perspective.

Well, one thing I've wondered about is how behaviors get programmed into an animal. You see birds doing some amazing things, for instance, that don't appear learned and which others of their species all do. I forget the name of the bird that builds these incredibly ornate nests trying to attract a femaie. It mystifies me how that skill and desire got into his brain.

 

[roamer]

Here http://www.theapologiaproject.org/Cambrian.pdf"is a paper that some people might find to be an interesting read on the Cambrian explosion. I was only able to skim the section on Testing Neo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium against the Cambrian Fossil Record. It seemed to me they made a fairly good case for why neither of the two theories can account for the observed fossil record. The authors also seem to be argueing for intelligent design.

 

[van gogh]

I agree with Van Gogh. Though my support may not be much good to him! I have nothing to back it up except a strong feeling--not much good on this forum. Anyway, just wanted to let him know what i thought (since s/he asked). I might do some more research and thinking and come up ith some good arguments.

i appreciate that

 

[Amp1]

Gbot

Post #31, How did the neuron see the photo? Getting back on topic, Van Gogh, I think the universe could have a mind. Just as our bodies are composed of many cells and different kinds of cells at that, there is an analogous similarity with the universe super clusters, clusters, elliptical galaxies, spiral galaxies, ect. There is an overall structure to the universe also and the eletro-magnetic medium - light pervades it, so yes I think it is possible. Philipe Jose Farmer wrote a SF classic 'The Green Mask' with where he suggested the univese is a nascent being.

 

[tbc]

Hi sameandnot:(post # 31) intersting stuff, but i don't think it entirely counters my comment. I see that as being individual cells responding to outside stimuli, nothing particularly new about that except that these cells are tuned to individual people or places-like specialised brain cells. I still wouldn't describe them as self-conscious or particularly intelligent.
(post #33) I certainly don't claim to know what I am talking about. Its philosophy, its about dipping into questions you don't really know the answers to, and ya, ok, the more hard facts you have the better but they're not as essential as in most physics or science threads. Its a place for expressing and discussing thoughts.

van gogh: You're Welcome!

This topic seems to be becoming a disscussion on macroevolution (not that I'm complianing). I have nothing to add on that, because i don't know enough about it, but it is very interesting and informing. Just one thought i'd like to put out there: Would it be possible for an organ to develop gradually, over time from a more simplistic form of the organ. Let me give and example, (please bear in mind i have no biological background): Let's take an eye. Could there possibly have been a simple organism that developed a cell whose chemistry changed depending on the level of light, allowing that creature to tell i it was in light or dark and thus prehaps increasing its chances of finding plant food. Now over time could the organism (as a species) have developed more cells in order to detect light more accurately, eventually perhaps a simple lens to focus (this seems a bit advanced), colour receptors for recognising food etc... Eventually arriving at a fully developed eye? ie. an organ from microevolution? I realize that Les Sleeth's argument may be that there's no evidence to indicate that the initial light receptor would ever develop, and if not, fine, it was just a thought.
Ive got other ideas, for wings, hearts etc. Just want to know what ppl think.

Back on topic: Anybody else think the universe just works too well for there not to be some form of intelligence behind it?

And, finally, completely unrelated: I remember thinking once how funny it would be if the universe was just built by a higher (and by chance much larger race) as a type of ornament that's nice to look at. Like a mobile that keeps exploding and contracting in a globe on someone's desk. Ya completely off topic, i know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This topic seems to be becoming a disscussion on macroevolution (not that I'm complianing). I have nothing to add on that, because i don't know enough about it, but it is very interesting and informing. Just one thought i'd like to put out there: Would it be possible for an organ to develop gradually, over time from a more simplistic form of the organ. Let me give and example, (please bear in mind i have no biological background): Let's take an eye. Could there possibly have been a simple organism that developed a cell whose chemistry changed depending on the level of light, allowing that creature to tell i it was in light or dark and thus prehaps increasing its chances of finding plant food. Now over time could the organism (as a species) have developed more cells in order to detect light more accurately, eventually perhaps a simple lens to focus (this seems a bit advanced), colour receptors for recognising food etc... Eventually arriving at a fully developed eye? ie. an organ from microevolution? I realize that Les Sleeth's argument may be that there's no evidence to indicate that the initial light receptor would ever develop, and if not, fine, it was just a thought.
Ive got other ideas, for wings, hearts etc. Just want to know what ppl think.

You may already be aware that just such a light receptor has been observed, so certainly it is possible for complex, high-functioning organs to have developed through incremental changes. In fact, that is the common theory for how organs came about.

But let me make a couple of points. In the logic of philosophy, it is commonly accepted that if one can conceive of something, then it is possible. I don't necessarily agree with that, but let's allow it for the moment. In that case, it is possible as some creationists assert that God merely gave the appearance of billions of years of evolution, when really it just took seven days. They conceived it, so it is possible. So what is possible, once we understand the scope of that, becomes far less significant than what is probable and improbable.

For incremental changes to take place as you suggest is "possible," we need a few conditions (if Darwinistic evolution is going to be given credit for the development). We need genetic changes that result in positive contributions to a future organ, and we need time for that change to be selected and preserved in future generations of the organism while waiting for more positive genetic variations to occur which will further develop the budding organ. Each variation must be selected. It has been shown that not all variations preserved need to be beneficial at the time, however that is the exception, not the rule.

Hold that thought for a second and factor in the Cambrian explosion where in a 10 million year period virtually every phyla of animal developed. That means, dozens of new organs that single cell animals didn't have quite suddenly developed.

Okay, so if genetic variation and natural selection pulled that off, it means a rate of positive, beneficial genetic variation had to have occurred unlike anything we can now observe. Given the time constraints, it appears that the genetic changes needed to develop eyes, livers, pancreases, pineal glands, tongues, guts, fins, skin, brains, ears . . . occurred with very few mistakes!

Today we observe nothing like that in genetic change, nothing. The evidence just isn't there to infer that accidental genetic change will produce organs. As I said, bigger bird beaks and longer monkey tails are no problem, but that's it.

So we are back to the difference between possible and probable. It is possible that genetic variation had an incredibly long run of happy accidents, but highly improbable. In any case, we don't have the evidence now to logically infer that known microadaptive processes can produce organs.

My one and only complaint about Darwinists is they are not properly representing the significance of the evidence they have. There is nothing wrong with having a theory, but to continuously tell the public the evidence is "overwhelming" that evolution has produced all life forms, when the evidence they are talking about is simply minor changes to existing structure . . . that is misleading.

I don't say God did it or some universal consciousness. But SOMETHING affected genetic change during that rapid phyla development which we so far have not discovered. What was it? No one knows, so the question should be left open and scientists should not pretend the question is all but settled in favor of their pet theory.

 

[tbc]

Les Sleeth:
You may already be aware that just such a light receptor has been observed, so certainly it is possible for complex, high-functioning organs to have developed through incremental changes. In fact, that is the common theory for how organs came about.

No i didnt know that but its nice to know i was on to something!

...in the Cambrian explosion where in a 10 million year period virtually every phyla of animal developed. That means, dozens of new organs that single cell animals didn't have quite suddenly developed.

Yes, I thought of this while i was writing and realized that it was another argument against the idea, but i forgot to mention it. (Just like the Darwinists, eh Les? )

I should point out at this stage that I'm mostly trying to come up with explanations for the Cambrian explosion that exclude God or a universal consciousness, even though i think the universal consciousness is a strong possibility and more importantly, in my opinion, a probability.

Is there anyone out there that knows:
1.Is there any chemical or other matter that can alter the rate at which mutations or genetic changes take place in a species, in other words a type of catalyst for evolution?
2.Is there any evidence of such a compound being prevelant around the Cambrian Explosion?
3. Has there been any study on this possibility?
I realize that this is still Darwinian thinking on evolution.

My thinking is that if there was such a chemical, in unusually high concentration (in say the atmosphere or water), it could have caused a period where genetic mutation was more pronounced and there was great variety in the types of changes taking place. This would cause 'extreme evolution' where positive mutations were clear winners over negative ones
accelerating the overrall rate of evolution.

Oh, and i know I am still playing with possibilities, but if there was evidence for this possibility i may eventually consider it a probablility.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is there anyone out there that knows:
1.Is there any chemical or other matter that can alter the rate at which mutations or genetic changes take place in a species, in other words a type of catalyst for evolution?
2.Is there any evidence of such a compound being prevelant around the Cambrian Explosion?
3. Has there been any study on this possibility?

There are some intelligent theories. Right now, for example, some thinkers have hopes for a combination of true polar wander, predation, and an increase in the number of Hox genes as an answer to how, without conscious intervention, all those great organs could have developed. But no one can demonstrate it is true yet, so it is just another theory without any more weight than a theory proposing universal consciousness participated.

My thinking is that if there was such a chemical, in unusually high concentration (in say the atmosphere or water), it could have caused a period where genetic mutation was more pronounced and there was great variety in the types of changes taking place. This would cause 'extreme evolution' where positive mutations were clear winners over negative ones accelerating the overrall rate of evolution.

Awesome! Now demonstrate that and you have the basis for claiming genetic variation-natural selection alone "most likely" produced all living forms. Of course, until you or someone can demonstrate it, the question remains open.

I realize that this is still Darwinian thinking on evolution. . . . Oh, and i know I am still playing with possibilities, but if there was evidence for this possibility i may eventually consider it a probablility.

I hope you don't think I want to discourage your thinking, or dissuade you from trying to prove Darwinist evolution, or convince you there is a God. My only interest is a fair representation of what is actually known and not known so that a truly open, objective discussion can be had by all sides of the argument.

 

[tbc]

I hope you don't think I want to discourage your thinking, or dissuade you from trying to prove Darwinist evolution, or convince you there is a God. My only interest is a fair representation of what is actually known and not known so that a truly open, objective discussion can be had by all sides of the argument.

I know youre not trying to affect my thinking, I just wanted to express that i too was neither arguing for or against Darwinian theory. It just happened to be involved in that idea.
Also, as you mentioned (and i know you don't necessarily agree with this) that some consider the aim in philosophy to be probabilities, rather than possiblities. I was just clarifying the relevence of my questions, etc.

Awesome! Now demonstrate that and you have the basis for claiming genetic variation-natural selection alone "most likely" produced all living forms. Of course, until you or someone can demonstrate it, the question remains open.

Heheh, ya, that's might be the hard part...*grabs shovel*

Also, would you mind explaining some of these terms you mentioned:
true polar wander, predation, Hox genes

Thanks.

I realize i just seem to be rehashing theories you already know a lot about, cheers for having the patience to discuss them with me. Its very informative (and saves me trawling through the internet following these things up!)

 

[Paul Martin]

is it possible that the universe has a mind of it's own, is it possible that it thinks in it's own way.

I think both are possible and both are likely.

when we say "mind," what are we referring to?

the feeling that i have, of my own self, is extremely rich in complexity. i have the clear and distinct perception that this feeling is so complex that if i were to try to describe the feeling of my being conscious of it, i would merely mutter and clamour foolishly. this "sensation of self" is a very complex one, and therefore, the difficulty in relating to a virus, which has, probably among the simplest sensations, as its richest, is great.

For me the most cherished attribute of my mind is that it enables me to reason. Intelligence would be a measure of the minds ability to reason.

I agree with both of these: the overwhelmingly mystifying complexity, and the preciousness of the ability to reason. But if I were to try to put my finger on the essence of mind, I think it is fundamentally the ability to know. (I also think this ability has evolved to the complexity existing today. But more about that later.)

Anybody else think the universe just works too well for there not to be some form of intelligence behind it?

I do. Also Gregory Bateson, Erwin Schroedinger (when he was alive), Chris Langan, and many others.

Intelligent design that you hear about now days is the invention of a few Christian fundamentalists, they try to avoid saying it, because their goal is to try to have their religious views taught as an alternative to valid science, but the Christian God is the designer in their view.

I agree with evo. There are many people who think there might be, or might have been, some conscious intervention in the evolution of the universe but who are definitely excluded from the rubric of "Intelligent Design", or "ID". They are not part of that fundamentalist group evo referred to. I think the ID group may even have copyrighted the terms.

If anyone else has heard of Schrodingers ideas on evolution please chime in.

I don't know about his ideas on evolution, but I am aware of an idea of his that I think applies to the question of this thread. And, I think it is an idea that could answer many of the questions here that remain unanswered. The idea is that there is only one consciousness, or one conscious entity, in all of reality.

"what if there is a universal consciousness, how would it be involved in creation."

Well, suppose Schroedinger was right: that there is only a single consciousness in all of reality. The first logical conclusion you could come to is that if a conscious God exists, then Schroedinger was God. (He came to that conclusion, mentioned it in the book "What is Life", and promptly got dropped by his publisher. At least that's the way I understand it.). The next logical inference you could make is that if the essence of me is my consciousness, and the essence of you is your consciousness, then I am you and you are me. Generalizing this, we would conclude, as the Hindus and the Buddhists do, that we are all One.

So, Les's question is how might this universal consciousness be involved in creation. Well, one obvious implication is that since most of the universe has been around a lot longer than brains have, or even than single celled living organisms have, the universal consciousness must not be dependent on them. And, from there, it is an easy leap to conclude that the universal consciousness must not be resident in brains at all.

So how could it work then -- to appear to each of us that we think individually and autonomously with our brains? That's easy too. We are well acquainted with multiplexing methods and time-sharing methods in our computer systems that can give exactly such an illusion. No problem, since we are only speculating on what might be the case. So, IMHO, Schroedinger's idea is not only plausible, but the implications provide easy answers to some pretty hard problems.

Well, one thing I've wondered about is how behaviors get programmed into an animal. You see birds doing some amazing things, for instance, that don't appear learned and which others of their species all do.

That's easy. Since the one universal consciousness predates all birds, it is reasonable to suppose that it has also acquired some pretty formidable capabilities. (This is the "evolved complexity" I referred to earlier. Just think of the extent and complexity of the visible universe.) Among those capabilities could easily be the ability to program impressive behaviors into birds, spiders, and other animals.

so, then, who "programmed" the viruses?

Again, the answer is easy: the one universal consciousness.

However, you are wrong to say the only difference between me (human consciousness) and a virus is complexity. The big difference is my subjectivity which a virus cannot be shown to possess.

When you say "my subjectivity" and "human consciousness", I think you are seduced into making an unwarranted assumption. The assumption is that somehow each of us humans is an individual which can "own" a consciousness. Or that consciousness "belongs to" us as individuals. But if Schroedinger is right, humans don't "have" a consciousness, but instead, the most you could say is that humans share a consciousness. But even at that, it puts too much emphasis on the human. It would be better to say that the one universal consciousness "uses" each individual human. In that sense, we would view brains as simply part of the communication system that allows perceptions to flow from the organism to the one consciousness, and for intentions for willful actions to be relayed from the one consciousness to the muscles of the particular body.

So, I would say that neither you, nor I, nor a virus possesses subjectivity. The one universal consciousness possesses subjectivity and vicariously experiences each of our lives as it "drives" each body along its respective world line. The difference is that the experience of driving a virus is probably a lot dimmer and duller than that of driving a human simply because the communication channel is less sophisticated.

Personally I think [subjectivity] first starts to show with the CNS.

I'd say that the vicarious experience of driving an organism started to get interesting and vivid once the CNS was developed. But that makes an assumption that the only information the one universal consciousness receives from an organism is via its neurons. That may not necessarily be the case.

I have a rule that whatever I say about the way a universal consciousness might function has to fit some facts. The CNS and organization ideas appeal to me because nobody knows what consciousness is or its source, and nobody can explain how things got so exquisitely organized as to form a cell and all the other life forms that followed.

Not that I know what consciousness is or its source, but I have been doing a lot of thinking on the implications of a single consciousness, and I have some ideas. What facts do you have in mind that this idea needs to fit?

Paul

 

[Rade]

There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms.

Dear Les. This is an incorrect statement. I have in other threads on this forum given you books to read and peer reviewed publications to read on this topic. My words just seems to go in one of your ears and out the other. So, once again, read Bernhard Rensch (1959), Evolution above the species level, chapter 6-E, which is titled "Evolution of new structural types and new organs", subchapter "the origin of new structural types", "the origin of new organs". And, now here in 2006, we find courses such as the following at the University of North Carolina:
63 Structure and Evolution of Vertebrates (3). Prerequisites, Biology 11, 11L. A history of the human body with emphasis on evolutionary history of vertebrates and anatomical evolution of organ systems. Three lecture hours a week. Fall, spring. Feduccia.
Now it almost seems like you are repeating the false claims about theory of evolution from those involved in the intelligent design/creationism movement, and posting it here in this forum as "science" (e.g., your false statement about "lack of facts").

 

[Les Sleeth]

Dear Les. This is an incorrect statement. I have in other threads on this forum given you books to read and peer reviewed publications to read on this topic. My words just seems to go in one of your ears and out the other. So, once again, read Bernhard Rensch (1959), Evolution above the species level, chapter 6-E, which is titled "Evolution of new structural types and new organs", subchapter "the origin of new structural types", "the origin of new organs". And, now here in 2006, we find courses such as the following at the University of North Carolina:
63 Structure and Evolution of Vertebrates (3). Prerequisites, Biology 11, 11L. A history of the human body with emphasis on evolutionary history of vertebrates and anatomical evolution of organ systems. Three lecture hours a week. Fall, spring. Feduccia.
Now it almost seems like you are repeating the false claims about theory of evolution from those involved in the intelligent design/creationism movement, and posting it here in this forum as "science" (e.g., your false statement about "lack of facts").

Bull, it's all theory. Are you trying to say that I should accept theory just because a scientist proposes it, a scientist who likely already believes Darwinist evolution whether he has the facts or not? But thank you for confirming one on my complaints that Darwinist theorists sometimes act like theory is as good as fact.

C'mon, please demonstrate that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation has produced organs. Obviously genes varied as they needed to in order to form organs. What you nor anyone else knows is what caused the apparently nearly perfect variation that led to organs. Today you can't find genetic variation producing organs, so why do you think it did so 550 million years ago?

When are you going to get the point? Talk about going in one ear and out the other!

 

[selfAdjoint]

C'mon, please demonstrate that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation has produced organs. Obviously genes varied as they needed to in order to form organs. What you nor anyone else knows is what caused the apparently nearly perfect variation that led to organs. Today you can't find genetic variation producing organs, so why do you think it did so 550 million years ago?

When are you going to get the point? Talk about going in one ear and out the other!

So if we show you experimental speciation (with bacteria) that's not acceptable because it's NOT ACCIDENTAL, and if we show you species actually splitting that's not acceptable because we haven't demonstrated the gene action in that case, i.e. no experiment?

This is a carefully designed argument to accept nothing the evolutionists adduce no matter how good it is. Frankly it's unphilosophical in my opinion.

 

[alfredblase]

Quoting Les Sleeth:

the only relevant facts we have are common decent and genetic variations that either produce useless/destructive changes or which produce simple superficial beneficial changes like bigger bird beaks, longer monkey tails, new colors, etc.

There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms.

So evolution, despite the hyperbole of believers, can't be shown to have created its own programming. The programming is there, yes, but the question is still wide open as to how it got there.

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. 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.

And so we arive at beneficial programming through natural selection.

What do you make of that?

Edit:

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.

Edit 2:

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