Evolution without Creation

@xris,

xris wrote:

No probs Sav. I have to be honest , i cant see a creator that is logical or see able but i cant help finding these coincidences of nature so compelling in their apparent trail of defined intention .This formula OK it could be just what appears a fortunate mix of chemicals with the right conditions BUT put it with all these other wonderful coincidences and circumstantial becomes more and more convincing.

It doesn't necessarily become more convincing. I'd refer you to Alan's thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/3628-my-case-intelligent-design-behind-existence-20.html#post51809

We speak here how these 'coincidences' can be explained through science, different processes that have evolved to only be able to function through these "right conditions". It has nothing to do with fortune, and shows how the universe can be understood without the need for any intelligent designer.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

It doesn't necessarily become more convincing. I'd refer you to Alan's thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/3628-my-case-intelligent-design-behind-existence-20.html#post51809

We speak here how these 'coincidences' can be explained through science, different processes that have evolved to only be able to function through these "right conditions". It has nothing to do with fortune, and shows how the universe can be understood without the need for any intelligent designer.

If you dont see the possibility of engineer in this spectacle then so be it . I cant see one but i wont rule anything out, i find nature has a message in its magnificence.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

I think it's impossible. If you trace biological evolution back over the millenia you'll find it has a beginning, a moment of creation.

The same goes with geological evolution; 4.5 b years ago; it accreted from rocky planetesimals into a spherical molten ball; those planetesimals were created in the creation of our nebula; they themselves were accreted from still finer particles in the cloud; particles whose creations could (theoretically, since of course it's impossible) be traced back to their progenitor supernovae and further and further back, on to the Big Bang--the moment of creation that precipitated all evolution.

You need a moment of creation because particle size gets finer and finer--much finer than what we know they are, and I don't think they could accrete in the first place; below that size, there is no evolution, at that size, evolution: that size could be referred to as the creative horizon, then.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

If you dont see the possibility of engineer in this spectacle then so be it . I cant see one but i wont rule anything out, i find nature has a message in its magnificence.

No, I'm not ruling anything out; I'm simply showing you other possibilities that have nothing to do with an intelligent creator. And, well, I think a lot of it makes perfect sense. I also know we've been demystifying things for ages, so it lends me to believe we will eventually demystify the origin of our existence also. Some may disagree, of course. Sure, it's possible there was an intelligent creator -- for me to deny the possibility of this when I'm just one human that really isn't that intelligent to begin with would be foolish. My gut tells me it can be demystified, though.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

No, I'm not ruling anything out; I'm simply showing you other possibilities that have nothing to do with an intelligent creator. And, well, I think a lot of it makes perfect sense. I also know we've been demystifying things for ages, so it lends me to believe we will eventually demystify the origin of our existence also. Some may disagree, of course. Sure, it's possible there was an intelligent creator -- for me to deny the possibility of this when I'm just one human that really isn't that intelligent to begin with would be foolish. My gut tells me it can be demystified, though.

Great point. If there is a creator than I will thank him/her when I see him/her. Until then I will continue to study the evidence that is before me. Sooner or later it will be revealed.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;51817 wrote:

Activity describes living and a pea has no activity just potential.

That's like saying a sperm just has potential. A pea is a component of the reproductive system of a pea plant. A state of dormancy is one adaptive strategy for reproduction.

xris wrote:

science does not include this potential when describing life.

This is abundant in science -- I'm not sure what you're referring to. There is no orthodox "science" and "describing life", but there sure are a lot of scientific studies of peas, clostridial spores, bacillus spores, etc, that show up in journals of life sciences.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's like saying a sperm just has potential. A pea is a component of the reproductive system of a pea plant. A state of dormancy is one adaptive strategy for reproduction.

This is abundant in science -- I'm not sure what you're referring to. There is no orthodox "science" and "describing life", but there sure are a lot of scientific studies of peas, clostridial spores, bacillus spores, etc, that show up in journals of life sciences.

Why do keep refering to the living or dead. Sperm is not dead or dormant. I am not going to push this further as i can see your refusal to acknowledge that science does not recognise dormant as distinct from living will not get us any further.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Patty:)

Aedes summed it up nicely but however it might help to expand upon what he has said. All organisms in the here and now have the same length of evolutionary history and when you think of technology, culture and industry in general, it can all be considered extensions of human biology. Google Dawkins books, There is something about, climbing mount improbable in his book "The Selfish Gene," or Talk Origins is a wonderful source for answers to your questions about evolution vs creationism/ID.

<wonders why evolution has to be "verses" creation.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

The point of my post is generally about the complexity of "thought" and the relatively simpler concept of an "Ipod". My point is not mainly for the refutation of either of the two.

My point is that natural selection as the term "natural" means that an agent seems to act towards an end even with blind necessity, and that by having life, beings naturally act towards preserving or perfecting its existence.

Now,with that simple necessity of preserving its species or itself, how can it and evolve and come up with "thoughts as such", when at best we can only explain and observe phenomena that happens inside the brain, but not thought as such. I remembered Leibniz when he said that even if you magnify the brain to the size of a building, you wouldn't see chairs, books etc. traveling around the brain.

In the case of an Ipod, it was carefully desgined.

Now, the Ipod, its concept, came from a thought, which is far more complex and mysterious than the Ipod. But at the same time, the Ipod's reality,compostion and parts is also far more intelligible and comprehensible than the relation and composition of thought to the brain. What I'm saying here is that prodcuts of thought are simpler to comrpehend than thought itself.

Isn't it worth giving more critical examination with regard to how can the blind neccessity of stuggling for existence come up and evolve to have a "thought", when We,who already possess "thought" itself, cannot even come up with producing a "thought as such?"

3 Replies

@Patty phil,

Im not sure i fully understand your question. The thought process is a product of survival surely, its a sign of intelligence.We are trapped with lions all around us how do we defend ourselves? Not with our bodies we are weaker, we give the problem some thought. Those who think the quickest survive, its a product of evolution.This does not mean that an engineer did not know the outcome of his engineering.Sorry if i misunderstood your question.

0 Replies

@Patty phil,

Good clarifications Patty, Maybe I can add something here.

Patty wrote:

Isn't it worth giving more critical examination with regard to how can the blind neccessity of stuggling for existence come up and evolve to have a "thought", when We,who already possess "thought" itself, cannot even come up with producing a "thought as such?"

It is worth giving more examination to how thought, itself, came about sure. The object - to me - is never as revealing or important as how that object was conceived in the mind first. Sure

Patty wrote:

My point is that natural selection as the term "natural" means that an agent seems to act towards an end even with blind necessity, and that by having life, beings naturally act towards preserving or perfecting its existence.

[INDENT] I think there's a misfire here, which (if I'm right) might be at the core of your question and/or misunderstanding. Natural selection doesn't have much to do with a creature 'acting towards an end' as much as it does that creature just 'acting' from instinctual (what one might call 'genetic' knowledge).
[/INDENT]When a gazelle runs from a lion, it doesn't say "Oh crap! This guy wants to eat me! I'm going to use my superior speed and stamina to get away thereby perpetuating my species!", it just feels the need to run. Whether or not there's 'fear', per say, I'm not sure we know. The point is, you might be assuming a thought process (anthropomorphizing) to the be present for acts of instinct.

Another example of "thoughtless" natural selection. Hippos have extremely tough/thick hides. This is simply because (when viewed in the process of natural selection) over an inconceivable amount of time, those that DID HAPPEN TO HAVE thicker hides were simply more likely to survive; to mate, procreate and thereby pass on that attribute. Stack this over time, millions of generations, and you can see why we're seeing what we have now. [INDENT] When you're talking about a being "naturally act towards an end" to preserve itself; I don't think that's exactly what's happening. Take our sexual instinct: I personally don't think "Wow, if I do this I might perpetuate my species and help us all to survive!"; what I perceive/feel is quite different.
[/INDENT]So I guess what I'm saying is: Within the theory of Natural Selection, we can't really assume there's a thought process that acts to "protect oneself". For those aspects of NS that have to do with observable behavior: It's the behavior that's ingrained, not that behavior's thought or intent.

So yea, I'm hoping I understood your question and that this might give a bit of a twist towards conceptualization.

Thanks

0 Replies

@Patty phil,

Patty;53129 wrote:

natural selection as the term "natural" means that an agent seems to act towards an end even with blind necessity, and that by having life, beings naturally act towards preserving or perfecting its existence.

With apologies, Patty, that is completely inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

First, natural selection has no end in mind -- it's just a matter of what gets left over in the next generation. Second, natural selection is neither the most common nor the most important force in evolution anyway. Species can evolve in the absence of selection, simply because gene frequencies are not evenly distributed in a population, so reproduction tends to redistribute them over time.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

With apologies, Patty, that is completely inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

First, natural selection has no end in mind -- it's just a matter of what gets left over in the next generation. Second, natural selection is neither the most common nor the most important force in evolution anyway. Species can evolve in the absence of selection, simply because gene frequencies are not evenly distributed in a population, so reproduction tends to redistribute them over time.

Thanks.

What I mean is that by natural selection, an organism acts towards preserving its self, which is an end in itself, but is operating with only a blind necessity since it is not coming from a mind. We can say the natural selection is a random process, but nevertheless, there is still an end along with the process, that is to struggle for existence.

If natural selection is not the most common force, then what is it?

Another point.

I've read some parts of Darwin's work, and there is part where he mentioned that modern medicine may even be bad for the evolutionary progress since it halts the natural evolutionary progress, where the unfit should have already banished even before perpetuating another of its kind.
I believe that it can be further argued from his thoughts, that the evolution of man and his intellect is a degeneration, because man's intellect creates and decides ends for itself, which can be against natural selection which is supposedly non teleological and accidental form of fighting for existence.

1 Reply

@Patty phil,

Patty wrote:

What I mean is that by natural selection, an organism acts towards preserving its self

That is not evolution, though. That is behavior. Evolutionarily advantageous behaviors are preserved, of course, but that is genetic.

Patty wrote:

We can say the natural selection is a random process, but nevertheless, there is still an end along with the process, that is to struggle for existence.

First, it's not random. Randomness means that all probabilities are equal. But that is manifestly not the case with evolution. Just because it's not directed consciously does not mean that all possibilities are equal. Not even all genetic mutations are 100% random, some are more likely than others.

Second, "the struggle for existence" is a value that you are applying to this natural phenomenon. It's not an end-point of evolution. It's simply a matter of life being a filter; every generation the filter changes and what comes through is a little different. The end is what it is, but it's not a goal.

Patty wrote:

If natural selection is not the most common force, then what is it?

Genetic drift, nonrandom mating, and isolated populations are more common.

Patty wrote:

I've read some parts of Darwin's work, and there is part where he mentioned that modern medicine may even be bad for the evolutionary progress since it halts the natural evolutionary progress, where the unfit should have already banished even before perpetuating another of its kind.

Darwin is not the final word on evolution. He's only the first. I'd argue that 1) modern medicine is a product of evolution, it's a strategy that the human organism has devised for survival; 2) our ethical obligations to one another as humans need not take into account the rote biological fitness of person A or person B; and 3) we have a very limited ethical obligation to the evolution of our species over the next million or billion years. This is in part because we have no idea whatsoever what will be advantageous or disadvantageous traits then.

0 Replies

Evolution without Creation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know