Evolutionry/religious nonsense

What the religious types can't or won't understand is that natural selection is a completely undirected process. There is no intelligence, and no information. Calling it artificial intelligence is farcical. Every mutation, every gene expression turned on or off, either benefits reproductive success--in which case it will likely be retained; or it does not benefit reproductive success, and may or may not be retained; or, finally, interferes with reproductive success and will in effect be suicidal.

All of the religious types assume a purpose and assume a goal, and therefore consistently debate (if it deserves to be called that) from undemonstrated premises.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

se·lec·tion
/səˈlekSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.
"such men decided the selection of candidates"
2.
BIOLOGY
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.

Quote:

proc·ess1
/ˈpräˌses,ˈprōˌses/Submit
noun
1.
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
"military operations could jeopardize the peace process"
synonyms: procedure, operation, action, activity, exercise, affair, business, job, task, undertaking
"investigation is a long process"
2.
LAW
a summons or writ requiring a person to appear in court.
verb
1.
perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something) in order to change or preserve it.

"Process: A series of actions to achieve a specific end."

Natural selections sure sounds like a process with a purpose.

Quote:

pur·pose
/ˈpərpəs/Submit
noun
1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee"
synonyms: motive, motivation, grounds, cause, occasion, reason, point, basis, justification More
verbFORMAL
1.
have as one's intention or objective.
"God has allowed suffering, even purposed it"
synonyms: intend, mean, aim, plan, design, have the intention; More

Words have meaning because the meanings describe things.

1 Reply

Here is a handy little science dictionary.
http://thesciencedictionary.org/process/

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

And deceit means?* Your source definition of process is from Oxford Dictionaries. That was definition "1" that you used, but you deceitfully left out definition "1.1" which reads: A natural series of changes. Really, do you think everyone else here is stupid? Play your idiot, and inept, word games with someone else.

*From that same source, the Oxford Dictionaries, the definition of deceit: the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth. Without deceit, you'd have precious little to argue from.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

At least, though, you aren't savagely attacking the Jehovah's witness, just for being a Jehovah's witness, as so many so-called christians around here do.

I'm down with that.

Besides, I happen to agree with the JWs on who JC was. Mainstream 'Christianity' is self conflicted on too many things, the 'Trinity' being a biggie.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

Quote:

If you'll bother to watch the Joseph Campbell video I posted, you'll see that he is trying to show that myths are not intended to be taken literally but metaphorically.

As the book says, there are those who "have a form of Godliness, but deny the power thereof."

I mean it does fit the scenario in the book. Says God's opponent's best weapon is the subtle distortion of reality, the most harmful of lies. If you can't convince them there is nothing to it, tell them it's just a beautiful story but there is no harm in it and it makes life tolerable so enjoy it for what it is, but don't for a minute think it's real, people will wonder about you..

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

What the religious types can't or won't understand is that natural selection is a completely undirected process. There is no intelligence, and no information. Calling it artificial intelligence is farcical.

Artificial? Where did that come from? Did someone say it was?

FWIW, I understand the concept of Evolution (mutation & natural selection) just fine, it's not that hard a concept and it does plausibly explain 'life' as we see it.

A difference between us is that one of us is open to other possible explanations and the other is not.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your source definition of process is from Oxford Dictionaries. That was definition "1" that you used, but you deceitfully left out definition "1.1" which reads: A natural series of changes.

Quote:

nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"

Quote:

se·ries
/ˈsirēz/Submit
noun
1.
a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
"the explosion was the latest in a series of accidents"
synonyms: succession, sequence, string, chain, run, round; spate, wave, rash; set, course, cycle; row, line; formalconcatenation

Quote:

Really, do you think everyone else here is stupid? Play your idiot, and inept, word games with someone else.

I mever claimed God was human when He created the system we view as Nature" so. my assumptions fit your definition and are still logical. Especially, when series implies the order of events are important, and at times required. That requirement implies a system created for the purpose to meet that requirement. I would hardly consider my discussion of the interpretation of all the scientific and historical data as "word games", deceitful, idiotic, inept,or stupid.

I find your use of these words to describe my interpretations as a way to avoid the discussion especially when you use them to avoid discussing the hard questions.

Why don't you just respond in a civil way to my questions?

Is there any reason the following question (that I asked in my previous post) is not a logical one?

Quote:

If, there is no actual "intelligence" involved in biological evolution, what you are describing is:

1. a very complex system of artificial intelligence,
2. that introduces new information into the system in such a complex way,
3. that it cannot be explained in any coherent way that can be imagined as a step by step biological process let alone be replicated.

But, to show us you understand or somebody else understands it, could you please go over the step by step process (or sight a scholarly paper) describing how a one celled a sexually reproducing animal to evolved to an sexually reproducing wholly mammoth?

And to avoid sounding "dull-witted", if you use the words "could have", "might have", "may have", etc. . . in your explanation could you show some proof that the process is understood, (and really could have happened) beyond giving the process a name like these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Other_explanations

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Theological nit-picking and maundering is a matter of indifference to me.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

You don't know what I'm open to, so keep your snide characterizations to yourself. Come up with something which is plausible, and doesn't entail the intervention of supernatural agency, and I'll be happy to consider it.

As for what someone wrote (rather than said):

brianjakub wrote:

If, there is no actual "intelligence" involved in biological evolution, what you are describing is:

1. a very complex system of artificial intelligence,
2. that introduces new information into the system in such a complex way,
3. that it cannot be explained in any coherent way that can be imagined as a step by step biological process let alone be replicated.

(Emphasis has been added, and the context provided)

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

You shot yourself in the foot immediately. Who is "god?" What evidence do you have for this "god's" agency? There is nothing at all logical in introducing unsubstantiated claims about entities and agency. When people claim to be logical, while throwing around references to supernatural entities, the existence of which is unsubstantiated, and sneering at me for my incredulity, I see no obligation to be civil. You insult my intelligence and the intelligence of everyone reading here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

There is nothing at all logical in introducing unsubstantiated claims about entities and agency. When people claim to be logical, while throwing around references to supernatural entities, the existence of which is unsubstantiated. . .

I believe introducing an intelligent author for the information we observe in the systems constructed by the atoms of nature is logical because we replicate that pattern of authorship every time we create a complex system that does something.

Quote:

. . ., and sneering at me for my incredulity, I see no obligation to be civil. . .

I didn't intend to come off as sneering. Could you show me a quote from my last couple of posts where I did that so I can learn from it?

Quote:

You insult my intelligence and the intelligence of everyone reading here.

Could you explain why the following question is sneering or insults your intelligence?

Quote:

If, there is no actual "intelligence" involved in biological evolution, what you are describing is:

1. a very complex system of artificial intelligence,
2. that introduces new information into the system in such a complex way,
3. that it cannot be explained in any coherent way that can be imagined as a step by step biological process let alone be replicated.

But, to show us you understand or somebody else understands it, could you please go over the step by step process (or sight a scholarly paper) describing how a one celled a sexually reproducing animal to evolved to an sexually reproducing wholly mammoth?

And to avoid sounding "dull-witted", if you use the words "could have", "might have", "may have", etc. . . in your explanation could you show some proof that the process is understood, (and really could have happened) beyond giving the process a name like these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Other_explanations

I am not asking this question to insult you. I am asking you to back up your claim that there is a logical explanation for how the systems we observe in Nature originated without an intelligent author. Because, as you said yourself in your last post:

"There is nothing at all logical in introducing unsubstantiated claims about entities and agency."

So, if "Natural Means" as an agency explains why the following question, "If, there is no actual "intelligence" involved in biological evolution, I think it is logical to assume, that what you are describing is:

1. a very complex system of artificial intelligence,
2. that introduces new information into the system in such a complex way,
3. that it cannot be explained in any coherent way that can be imagined as a step by step biological process let alone be replicated.

Then, if my assumption isn't logical then you should be able to provide one of the following so as to end this debate:

1. An answer to the following question

But, to show us you understand or somebody else understands it, could you please go over the step by step process (or sight a scholarly paper) describing how a one celled a sexually reproducing animal to evolved to an sexually reproducing wholly mammoth?

And to avoid sounding "dull-witted", if you use the words "could have", "might have", "may have", etc. . . in your explanation could you show some proof that the process is understood, (and really could have happened) beyond giving the process a name like these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Other_explanation

or
2. provide a logical explanation to back up your assertion that I am not logical in believing that the universe and the complex systems (like life and natural selection) contain so much complexity, while operating under such tight tolerances, that those facts alone imply intelligence.

But, on top of that we have the patterns we established (on a much smaller scale of course) when we as humans understand nature and then use that understanding to create physical things that we could use to compare when determining how something that we didn't create (mainly because we don't have the capability, today anyway)actually came into existence.

And finally, we do have one candidate (who might be recollected and called by different names by different cultures unlike, cicerone's claim that we have many candidates) that has the characteristics and the capability to organize such a vast and complex system over eons of time.

And to make it easier to understand this candidate He entered the universe 2,000 years ago as a person. And to make it easier to believe it was predicted and documented He was coming, where he would arrive, how He would arrive and for what purpose.

For that reason, I will gladly go into detail (and to guarantee unbiased and honest analysis I will do it in conversation with you of course) and start systematically providing all the information to support that assertion and discuss it.

So, can we begin with you commenting and asking questions on my basic assertions above while answering the questions I posted of your assertions for the purpose of better understanding each others point of view.

Especially since the topic of this discussion is "Evolutionry/religious nonsense".

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

"....an intelligent author for the information we observe in the systems constructed by the atoms of nature."

. Did you know you just contradicted yourself. "intelligent author and by the atoms of nature." Now, prove with evidence the "intelligent author?" You can't, because it's only in your imagination. That's not reality.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I see that you have completely side-stepped the question about your boy "god." Apart from that, the rest of your response here is another litany of a
priori assumptions and word games for which you provide no substantiation. That insults the intelligence of everyone reading and posting here.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

and Setanta

Quote:

Did you know you just contradicted yourself. "intelligent author and by the atoms of nature."

Yes I caught that too. But, you are sharp and I appreciate you taking the time to bring it up.

I would like to rephrase the following sentence.

Quote:

I believe introducing an intelligent author for the information we observe in the systems constructed by the atoms of nature is logical because we replicate that pattern of authorship every time we create a complex system that does something.

To say,"I believe introducing an intelligent author for the information we observe in the systems we observe as nature which, are constructed of the atoms that are are embedded in, and interact with, the higgs field, is logical because, "we" replicate that pattern of authorship from intelligence, every time "we" create a complex system that does something.

Quote:

Now, prove with evidence the "intelligent author?"

One way to prove a scientific hypothesis is a good one is to replicate the processes represented in the hypothesis. Unfortunately we do not have the ability to organize quarks into matter, or the ability to organize non living matter into a living biological system. (But, I would argue, that if we used our intelligence to do those things, we would be modeling God and providing evidence supporting my hypothesis). But, we are able to model on a smaller scale over shorter time scales, organizing matter into complex systems in ways that are similar to the way an IDer might have done billions of years ago, over billions of years of time, and on a scale as vast as our universe.

My question to you is,"Why isn't this human model of intelligent design evidence enough to assume an Intelligent Designer arranged the complex systems we observe in nature?"

Quote:

You can't, because it's only in your imagination.

It is only in my imagination because the Intelligent Designer is not present and interacting in the universe in the same way we are with our human bodies. To create the entire universe this Intelligence must be able to exist outside of it while He created it. This means there must be a multiverse as suggested by:
1. The "Many worlds" Interpretation of physics and String Theory.
2. The multiverse of heaven and earth in the bible.

If this multiverse is true and the IDer exists outside the universe we live in, that would explain why we have a hard time physically detecting His existence.

But if He is interacting with the universe as some people suggest why can't we detect him? How do His ideas enter the universe. I would suggest from the center of atoms (which are universes themselves embedded in the universe of the higgs field as stated earlier in The "Many worlds" Interpretation of physics and String Theory and The multiverse of heaven and earth in the bible.) including those atoms which are in human bodies. And since we only can detect what is happening at the surface of atoms this intelligent Entity will be hard to detect (which is also true when they try to detect where a creative idea comes from when we think of one.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hn8behG3-g At the end of that video they admit that the brain reveals an idea but, does not reveal where an idea comes from.

So, we accept the fact that we as intelligent beings, create ideas from some process we cannot explain that is exhibited on a small scale in the matter in our brains. Like wise it would be logical to hypothesize that the information at a larger scale in the universe entered the universe in a larger scale in a way similar to the way an idea enters our mind. Which is "From some (up till now but maybe not always) undetectable place in the center of the atoms in the neurons in our mind." That is a process we can model and imagine happening.

Why isn't that scientific enough for you?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I see that you have completely side-stepped the question about your boy "god." Apart from that, the rest of your response here is another litany of a
priori assumptions and word games for which you provide no substantiation. That insults the intelligence of everyone reading and posting here.

I hope I helped with my last post to cicerone. If not please show my why I didn't. Now would you do the same and answer the following question without a litany of a priori assumptions and word games for which you provide no substantiation.

If, there is no actual "intelligence" involved in biological evolution, what you are describing is:

1. a very complex system of artificial intelligence,
2. that introduces new information into the system in such a complex way,
3. that it cannot be explained in any coherent way that can be imagined as a step by step biological process let alone be replicated.

But, to show us you understand or somebody else understands it, could you please go over the step by step process (or sight a scholarly paper) describing how a one celled a sexually reproducing animal to evolved to an sexually reproducing wholly mammoth?

And to avoid sounding "dull-witted", if you use the words "could have", "might have", "may have", etc. . . in your explanation could you show some proof that the process is understood, (and really could have happened) beyond giving the process a name like these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Other_explanations

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

My question to you is,"Why isn't this human model of intelligent design evidence enough to assume an Intelligent Designer arranged the complex systems we observe in nature?"

Fair question. Let me try to answer you from the standpoint of science. 1. There is no evidence of an "intelligent designer." Intelligent designer is based on religion and faith, not evidence. 2. According to science, humans evolved. 3. In science, you must be able to observe what we conclude is evidence of its existence. 4. Most things that cannot be observed is "inferred." It's only a premise. Everything in earth's environment is the result of nature.

2 Replies

It is a primitive assumption of unsophisticated humans that as humans make things, everything around them must have been made. That is the origin of the concept of a creator. It shows a lack of imagination, ignorance and superstitious fear. It is not to be wondered at in primitive people--it is pathetic in educated, contemporary adults.

It is dull-witted.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

The reality is that many educated people believe in their god. I wouldn't call my siblings "dull witted." They have very good education, and practice in the professions. I'm the "dull witted" one in our family with only a BS degree. I'm the only atheist. My older brother is an Attorney, my younger brother is a Doctor (Ophthalmologist), and my sister is an RN. I graduated with a BS in Accounting with a minor in Philosophy (better grade in Philosophy, but did fairy well with my Accounting degree). Mean IQ score of persons in various occupations, taken from a variety of Western studies

Professors and researchers.......131, 134
Physicians and surgeons............128
Lawyers........................................128
Accountants..................................119, 128

0 Replies

Dull-witted means slow to understand. There can be a variety of reasons for that condition, one of which from a conflict with what someone wishes to believe. That is what makes the creationists/IDer's dull-witted, an unwillingness to abandon the concept of a guiding intelligence, despite a complete lack of evidence for their point of view.

IQ testing tests enculturation far more than it tests intelligence--intelligence being a subjective quantity in the first place. A highly intelligent person from another culture very likely would not score as highly as a person from the culture in which the test is administered. So, for example, Issei in North and South America will predictably not score as highly as Nisei, Sansei and Yonsei. The subsequent generations are increasingly familiar with the culture in which the test was designed. Furthermore, the IQ tests only certain types of intelligence--it does not, for example, test for musical ability or artistic ability, rapid mental calculation, hand-eye coordination or understanding of spatial relationships. Finally, psychometric researchers of the 1950s accepted the contention that intelligence quotient testing should yield a bell curve, and therefore tests have been constantly refined to achieve that result.

Many brilliant mathematicians do not blend well into cultures--any cultures. The brilliant Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan originally had no training in advanced mathematics, and was a clerk in Madras during the Raj in India. Just as was to be the case with Alan Turing, having initially had no training in advanced mathematics, he simply developed his own methods and systems of notation, and actually accomplished incredibly abstract understandings of obscure mathematical principles, and problems. Both Ramanujan and Turing solved or disproved accepted mathematical ideas, while neither were "normal" members of the societies of which they were members. Had they been subjected to the effectively tyrannical regime of IQ testing, it is doubtful that either of them would have ended up at Cambridge, which in the first half of the 20th century was the heart of the human mathematical universe.

I have scored well on IQ tests--but the proves only that I have fitted well into the society and culture which tested me. One major flaw of IQ testing is that it does not test memory--and people like Ramanujan and Turing were able to do enormous and complex equations in their heads in a few tens of seconds. It is not just mathematicians, either. Arturo Toscanini apparently kept hundreds of musical scores in his head. An oboe player came to him distraught one evening just before a performance, and showed him that one of the keys on his instrument had been damaged when he dropped it. Toscanini stared off into space for about half a minute, and then told him not to worry, because he would not play any notes that required that key that evening. Toscanini and Einstein both were the types of people who should not be allowed out in society on their own, and they were both brilliant.

As you might guess, IQ does not impress me.

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know