Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Everything springs from this since ancient people who invented agriculture through changing species didn't believe in Evolution either.

Beavers, termites, and all the other species which practice agriculture would agree Darwin was wrong if they could understand abstractions. But they can't because only modern humans think, believe or have taxonomies and abstractions. Only modern humans obey Zipf's Law.

And only I can be wrong. Every other homo omnisciencis is right.

 

[gnostic]

As usual, you’re wrong and confused yet you think you know.

Didn’t I already explain to you in #1351 that both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are related in the sense that both assumed that life may arose on its own from nonliving matter?

In fact, both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation share the same roots. abiogenesis itself as a term initially used to refer to spontaneous generation but this older understanding of abiogenesis was replaced by the modern hypothesis that relatively simpler, earliest forms of life arose from non-living matter.

The term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) to refer to the process of spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter whereas the term biogenesis, to refer to the process where life arises from similar life. See the link below.

Abiogenesis

View attachment 64586


View attachment 64587

Didn’t I show you that Evolutionary biologists believed that a kind of spontaneous generation must have worked for the emergence of life?

Here it is again
Primordial soup - Wikipedia

View attachment 64591



False, you have no clue what are you talking about, do you? Spontaneous generation was considered as a scientific theory/fact for a long time till it was finally falsified/disproved.

On the other hand, Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory but rather a field of study that aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life. How abiogenesis may have occurred is still an unknown mystery (see screenshot above with red highlight), hence it’s not a scientific theory, it was neither proved nor falsified. It’s just a felid of study based on the wishful thinking that answers will be found in the future. It would never happen, yet many ignorants claim that abiogenesis is a confirmed theory.



Again, spontaneous generation was a scientific theory that got superseded/discredited.

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia
View attachment 64592

View attachment 64593

Not only you don’t understand Abiogenesis, you don’t understand spontaneous generation.

The concept of spontaneous generation is that life (eg rats, maggots, flies) would pop into existence from dead carcass of animal.

That’s not what Abiogenesis is studying. Nothing just pop into existence, certainly not flys, maggots or rats.

We don’t need to know what life exist earliest, because we already know that prebiotic species of unicellular organisms, from bacteria, have been around for billions of years before multicellular organisms.

Primitive microorganisms exist as early as 3.6 billion years ago, from microfossil evidence found in Precambrian rocks in Canada and Western Australia. Animals didn’t exist until 600 million years ago (eg invertebrates like the primitive sponges), plants even later still after the Cambrian period.

Abiogenesis is the study of origin of the cell, and the origins of organic matters, which make up the cells, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, etc.

So Abiogenesis is also about the origins of these biological compounds or macromolecules, the origins of proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates and other organic matters.

So a lot of Abiogenesis concern with chemistry, chemical reactions that turn inorganic molecules into biological or organic molecules, such as the Miller-Urey experiment that convert a number of chemicals into amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins, or Jan Oró’s experiment which was able to produce organic adenine, one of four nucleobases that make up nucleotide of DNA.

This is not the same as spontaneous generation. The experiments didn’t produce life, but they do show how it is probable that biological molecules can exist in the early stage of earth formation.

Abiogenesis is about the interactions between chemistry and biochemistry, and about how biological molecules formed before the existence of cells.

 

[gnostic]

Beavers, termites, and all the other species which practice agriculture would agree Darwin was wrong if they could understand abstractions.

What an absurd belief.

Beavers and termites don't grow their own food. That you believe that they would practice agriculture would seem that you are living in cartoon reality.

I am amaze at beavers ability to build dams and what the beavers do, with dams are important for the ecosystem, but they don't actually plant seeds to grow their own crops and then harvest them. Nor do they domesticate other animals as food sources, especially when they are herbivorous.

 

[cladking]

Beavers and termites don't grow their own food. That you believe that they would practice agriculture would seem that you are living in cartoon reality.

I am amaze at beavers ability to build dams and what the beavers do, with dams are important for the ecosystem, but they don't actually plant seeds to grow their own crops and then harvest them. Nor do they domesticate other animals as food sources, especially when they are herbivorous.

Don't tell the termites.

So... ...beaver dams create beaver habitat and beaver food supplies through what... ...coincidence?

Carpenter ants farm as well.

In a very real sense even bees farm. Who knows what all they're talking about in those waggle dances?

 

[gnostic]

Don't tell the termites.

So... ...beaver dams create beaver habitat and beaver food supplies through what... ...coincidence?

No the vegetation already exist.

When you talk about "agriculture" you should be thinking of actively growing their food.

You are talking about storing food, which is different from agriculture.

In livestock, you are actually raising animals, feeding them and so on, before they are slaughtered and prepared. Beavers don't do that.

And when you thinking about farming in the sense of growing crops, farmers have to plough the field, seed the field, water it, then harvest it. That's not what beavers are doing.

You are putting too much meaning into agriculture that are not there. But I shouldn't be surprise that you take a single word (eg agriculture) out of context, you redefine word that have only meaning to you and your warped brelief.

 

[Valjean]

If we are not cognizant of the domain of science (its limits/boundaries). If we try to apply the scientific method within the wrong domain, if we adapt the illogical axiom that whatever beyond our ability to see cannot exist, if we deny the logical necessity that all relative entities must be grounded in the absolute, then this biased mindset inevitably distorts our understanding of reality, especially if we are not even cognizant that we’re being under the influence of such cognitive bias.

Most scientists are pretty aware of their investigative limits. Their domain ends where observable phenomena end. Beyond that, there's nothing to investigate or test.
Science is forced to stay within its limits by its methodology. Step over the line and science can't work.

"Whatever's beyond our ability so see can't exist?" Nobody says this. It's not an axiom, and not logical. Science is always discovering new, previously unseen things.
"Entities must be grounded in the absolute?" "Logical necessity?" This doesn't follow. You're presupposing the absolute, and your conclusion doesn't follow.

How can you avoid bias, if you start with a biased axiom and build on it? Nothing that follows from a biased axiom can be considered unbiased.

What biased axiom?

If your axiom is that the scientific domain has no boundaries or no existence is possible beyond our capacity to observe/comprehend, then the basis that you’re building on to understand the structure of reality is false.

What scientist says this?
Science's boundaries are dictated by what can be directly or indirectly observed and tested, and lots of previously undreamed of things have been discovered by science.

Our inquiry into the structure of reality should utilize appropriate means/approach relative to the specific domain of our search.

Exactly. Science, of course, is forced by its methodology to use appropriate means. Religion, on the other hand, has always felt free to trample on science's domain, opining on biology, physics,geology, &c.
Religion's not an investigative modality. It doesn't test. In fact, it actively resists testing and criticism, which science demands.

There is no logical basis to deny God (the absolute). Also, there is no scientific refutation for the existence of God, yes, there is indeed scientific inability to understand the NATURE of God but that cannot be used as the basis to deny his existence.

It is logical and reasonable to withhold belief in God, just as it is reasonable to withhold belief in leprechauns and unicorns -- because there is no empirical evidence that they exist. This doesn't mean we declare them impossible, we just withhold belief pending evidence. I have seen no concrete evidence for a god.

Einstein believed in the need for God as the lawgiver for every law that exists, he said, “I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver" (see #1273). He acknowledged that the nature of God is the most difficult problem. He said, “But how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified”. He said, "I am not an Atheist…. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.”.

You've taken the comments out of context. Einstein was, at best, a pantheist or agnostic. Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

We can only understand the attributes of God through the manifestations of his being in the physical realm, but we cannot understand God's nature, simply because God’s nature is neither physical nor subject to any natural law. See #490 and #1450

People have been "understanding God's attributes through his manifestations" for millennia: Earthquakes, tides, plagues, comets, seasons.... They were wrong. They were trespassing onto science's domain.
Science has been explaining the unintentional, undirected mechanisms of such "proofs of God" for hundreds of years. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't "explain," it just attributes. It doesn't posit any mechanism, so infers magic.

 

[Valjean]

False, if the effect did take place, then the cause must exist.

This seems reasonable, but is no longer assumed by theoretical physics.

Magic is simply a category of causes/mechanisms that are not known/understood but nonetheless must exist.

Magic never posits a mechanism, and "goddidit" is not a cause.,

The notion that what is beyond the domain of science (physical realm) cannot exist is illogical.

Science doesn't make this claim.

It’s not logical to insist to search for an explanation in the wrong domain merely because you cannot search anywhere else.

Religion's domain is value, purpose, meaning, &c. How would science study or test these? You'll never find an "explanation" in these areas. Even religion posits no explanation or mechanism.
Science is not trespassing on these domains. Religion, on the other hand, is always making claims that are testable or explainable -- science's domain. Yet religion never tests or explains.

The domain of science ends at the first physical effect (BB).

Huh????

Beyond the BB, nothing physical has any meaning.

Meaning? Science doesn't deal in meaning.

We cannot insist to search for a physical explanation beyond the physical domain.

???? -- When does science do this?

Yet a cause of an unknown nature/unknown mechanism (non-physical) must exist simply because the universe itself is a contingent entity.

Is it? Physics hasn't established it. If God is somehow involved in the BB, it's an extraordinary and entirely unevidenced claim. It's a false dilemma conclusion.
The fact is neither the initial singularity is physical nor the cause of the instantiation of the universe in reality is physical. Being non-physical, the cause is necessarily beyond the domain of science.The cause, if any -- physical, non physical, other -- is unknown. Whether we're capable of figuring it out remains unknown, as well. We're still data-gathering. But unknown ≠ God. Again: a false dilemma.

The utilization of the wrong means in the wrong domain is illogical (cannot provide any logical explanation). Different domains necessitate different means/approach of search. See #1450

Illogical? Silly, useless, foolish, perhaps.
The big bang describes the evolution/expansion of the universe from an initial state. Any causal mechanisms are, as yet, unknown and may well remain so. Asserting the magical will of an invisible, intentional personage as a cause, however, is wild speculation.[/quote]

 

[cladking]

It is logical and reasonable to withhold belief in God, just as it is reasonable to withhold belief in leprechauns and unicorns -- because there is no empirical evidence that they exist. This doesn't mean we declare them impossible, we just withhold belief pending evidence. I have seen no concrete evidence for a god.

Yet you believe in the laws of nature.

You believe enough is known to equate an "Original Cause" with "unicorns"!

 

[Valjean]

Yet you believe in the laws of nature.

You believe enough is known to equate an "Original Cause" with "unicorns"!

It was an analogy, and I think you missed it. It was about credence and evidence.
I was pointing out that belief in God and in unicorns are equally credible -- or not -- inasmuch as both have equal evidentiary support.
I don't believe in an intentional "first cause" for the same reason you don't believe in unicorns.

 

[cladking]

It was an analogy, and I think you missed it. It was about credence and evidence.
I was pointing out that belief in God and in unicorns are equally credible -- or not -- inasmuch as both have equal evidentiary support.
I don't believe in an intentional "first cause" for the same reason you don't believe in unicorns.

OK, I see your point.

But a belief in God and unicorns are not equivalent for several reasons. There is no reason to suppose unicorns ever existed but there is every reason to suppose time, space, or matter each had origins and in each case there is no known process by which they might have arisen. Reality exists, unicorns (most probably) do not. An argument that reality exists as we understand it therefore unicorns and God never existed is a non sequitur.

Of course the elephant in the room is life itself and what it is. It might have arisen "naturally", organically, and with nothing more than space, time, and matter but this doesn't explain the nature of consciousness and how it originated.

 

[Jose Fly]

Before I begin replying to your latest posts, I'm going to note up front that much of your latest replies are little more than "Nuh uh" and simple repetition of your assertions. For those, I will just note what they are and leave it at that, since such simplistic argumentation isn't worth spending time on.

Again, all these quotes are by Eldredge and Gould and all of it are concerning the same fact that the fossil record offers no support for gradual change.

Except I showed you examples of gradual change in the fossil record. In science, data beats quotes every time.

Science cannot achieve absolute certainty, statistical proof plays an important role to support the likelihood of a hypothesis, if the theory predicts numerous transitional forms (gradualism) for every single species alive or ever lived on earth, but hardly any was found and with significant challenges. Then the theory has to be discredited. Gradualism is absent in the fossil record. Challenged exception do not prove a rule. Statistical evidence of the real world are against the theory.

This is merely "Nuh uh". You were provided examples of gradual change in the fossil record.

Stasis, Gaps, lack of transitional forms and non-existence of the alleged gradualism in the fossil record are all facts. You may verify for yourself, or you may stay in denial. It’s up to you.

Another "Nuh uh" reply.

You didn’t get it; you can’t ignore the statistical significance of evidence to support the likelihood of a theory. EXAMPLES don’t help if the prediction is NUMEROUS transitional forms that must exist for every single species ever lived and more importantly, we should find not only the numerous transitional forms of those gradual advantageous mutations that passed the test of selection, but also for every single one of the successful transitional forms, we should find endless other random live forms that didn’t pass the test and got filtered out by selection. We don’t see that in nature. It’s beyond ridiculous.

Another "Nuh uh" and repetition of your assertions.

It’s not my claim see the YouTube video below 27:48

(114) Music of Life Lecture - Denis Noble - YouTube

“There wouldn't be enough material in the whole universe for nature to tried out all the possible interactions, even over the long period of billions of years of the evolutionary process.” It’s a mathematical impossibility.

Empty assertion. YT videos are irrelevant in science.

Possible random interactions are simply the calculated number of permutations based on the number of genes in a genome and possible random combination. You may search it and verify it for yourself. The numbers are beyond unimaginable. It’s simply a mathematical impossibility for nature to try out all these random combinations. There are not enough material or time in the entire universe for the alleged random process.

Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You made the assertion, so it falls on you to back it up. You don't get to make an empty assertion and then tell others to "verify it for themselves".

Mayr proposed that evolutionary biology is “unique” / “Autonomous” and as such is allowed set its own rules. He beyond doubt acknowledged the reliance of evolutionary biology on historical narrative to fill the voids where actual evidence neither exist nor possible to find. Didn’t he?

This is just mere repetition of your assertion.

You don’t get it. The experiment is not concerned with either random or directed mutation; it’s about documenting an observed mutational behavior of the bacteria (as it responds to a threat to its survival). Nothing about this observed behavior is random. It’s a directed adaptation behavior.

Again, mere repetition of your assertions.

Dawkins criticized PE and argued that evolution must have happened gradually elsewhere. Regardless, no evidence was ever found to prove his “elsewhere” assumption.

Again, mere repetition. You were provided examples of gradualism in the fossil record.

No, gradualism is a fundamental assumption of the theory, if such gradualism is proved to be **NONEXISTENT** in the fossil record, the theory is false. Gradualism didn’t simply happen “elsewhere”. It’s a ridiculous fairytale not science.

Another "Nuh uh" response.

So you acknowledged the negative impact of the ToE on humanity (agreed) but you attribute it to misinterpretation (false). Except that it was not misinterpretation. This is directly what the selection of the fittest entails if you apply it on humans.

The Nazi embraced the course of nature to eliminate the unfit. The Nazi designated these people as "life unworthy of life".

Really? Do you believe Jews are less fit?

This help or benefit has nothing to do with evolution but rather the advancement of other fields.

Completely false.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics | PLOS Computational Biology

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.​

It's right there in the name of the model....Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships.

It's important to differentiate between “Micro Adaptation” which is evident through observations as a function of directed mutation and “Macro Evolution” which is nothing, but an imaginary historical narrative (fairytale) based on ridiculously endless number of random mutations that would have easily filled the universe with some malformed junk. We don’t see any of this nonsense.

Every form of live that is successfully capable of growing/reproducing is perfection. We see perfection everywhere and in every single form of life whether alive or extinct (see # 424). We don’t see such ridiculous chaos as assumed by the ToE.

Another series of empty assertions.

False, evolution is supposed to be random, very slow/gradual. Nothing about the adaptation of bacteria (as seen in the experiment of Harvard university) is random or gradual. If the behavior is random, we wouldn’t be able to predict how the bacteria will behave. The fact is quite the opposite. Not only we can predict the behavior but also the timeframe for the directed mutation process to take place. It’s totally non-random.

Another "Nuh uh" reply followed by repetition of the same empty assertions.

You forgot that it's not my claim. You don’t even question the credibility of those who made the claim, so what is your problem then?

Where did anyone (besides you) claim that support for EES is a majority position in evolutionary biology?

Nobel as the president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), he was presenting the latest in the felid. It’s neither his claim nor a personal view. The fact that Noble was the president of IUPS and that the lecture is published by the Physiological Society should give you a hint about its credibility.

So you're saying that because he's an expert in his field (biology) we should all take whatever he says on the subject as true?

No, we’re not. It’s your wishful thinking. Whether you don’t understand or simply in denial, It’s a mathematical impossibility. The claim of randomness and what it really entails, is beyond ridiculous.

Another repetition of the same empty assertions.

You don’t get it. The article is not concerned with random or directed mutation; the article is about documenting an observation of a behavior. Nothing about this very behavior is random. Is that clear?

Why, because you say so? The scientists who actually did the study didn't say that.

I believe nothing in the observed behavior of bacteria is random, the bacteria are intelligently designed to function and behave in a very specific manner that has nothing to do with alleged randomness.

You didn't answer the question. You believe mutations are "directed". The question is....by whom?

Sure, these journals have some credibility with respect to what they publish; yet I’m not asking anyone to follow it blindly. Verify the facts for yourself.

Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Valjean]

OK, I see your point.

But a belief in God and unicorns are not equivalent for several reasons. There is no reason to suppose unicorns ever existed but there is every reason to suppose time, space, or matter each had origins and in each case there is no known process by which they might have arisen.

So? Till recently there was no known process to account for seasons, night and day, tides, volcanoes, earthquakes, typhoons, comets, disease, &al. They too, were once cited as evidence for God.
Your reasoning seems to be: no current explanation, therefore, God!
This is a false dilemma, as I've pointed out before. https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-dilemma/

Reality exists, unicorns (most probably) do not. An argument that reality exists as we understand it therefore unicorns and God never existed is a non sequitur.

Again, noöne is arguing this. We're deferring belief, pending evidence.

Of course the elephant in the room is life itself and what it is. It might have arisen "naturally", organically, and with nothing more than space, time, and matter but this doesn't explain the nature of consciousness and how it originated.

True, consciousness is mysterious. Again, so? Are you arguing "consciousness, therefore, God!"
You must realize that this doesn't follow, logically.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[gnostic]

Of course the elephant in the room is life itself and what it is. It might have arisen "naturally", organically, and with nothing more than space, time, and matter but this doesn't explain the nature of consciousness and how it originated.

You still haven’t that “ALL LIFE” have consciousness.

Consciousness have only been demonstrated and tested on organisms that have central nervous system, especially those with brains. And most of those tests were on human consciousness.

Particularly microorganisms of the Bacteria and Archaea domain, algae and plants and fungi, cannot be demonstrated of being “consciousness”.

And even some animals, particularly some invertebrate species, such as sponges and corals, have not been demonstrated to have “consciousness”.

What all life “do have” are cells, some are unicellular organisms, other multicellular organisms.

These cells come of two main types, prokaryotic cell for all species of bacteria and of archaea, and eukaryotic cell for all other organisms (eukaryotes) that are multicellular organisms, eg fungi, plants, animals (invertebrates and vertebrates), while there are some unicellular eukaryotes, eg protists and protozoans.

I am not going to explain in details of what prokaryotic cell and what eukaryotic cell are, except to say that prokaryotic cells have no cellular “nucleus” and no organelles, which eukaryotic cells do have, and that’s the difference between the two types of cells. So if you want to know more about prokaryotic cell and eukaryotic cell, then I would suggest that you look them up.

That is all about what all organisms “do have” in common, they have cells.

What are others things that “all life” have in common in what they “can do” are:

1. The ability to convert certain matters into energy to sustain their own life. For examples, to turn carbohydrates into energy, sugars and glucose for animals and starch for plants.
2. The ability to reproduce in some ways, in which they pass on their genetic traits to “offspring”.

Animals tends to feed on other organisms, and they have digestive systems that can convert what they feed on into sugars, which are their energy source, to keep organs and cells functioning.

Plants relied on starch (carbohydrates) as their energy sources, and this is achieved with their cells having chloroplasts, which contain chlorophyll. And chlorophyll is what all plant use to use sunlight or more precisely ultraviolet light to convert the intakes of water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and convert them (through chemical reactions) into starch and oxygen. Oxygen (O2) are waste product for plants, but are air for animals. This process is called “photosynthesis”, and some other organisms are capable of photosynthesis, eg green algae, and species of bacteria, called Cyanobacteria.

The points being that animals and plants get their energy in certain certain ways, and fungi, bacteria and archaea get their energies from other ways, but I know less about how they acquire their carbohydrates.

Likewise, different organisms have different ways to reproduce. Plants used either spores or seeds to reproduce new plants. While animals either lay their eggs in water (eg fishes, amphibians) or they lay their eggs on land (eg reptiles and birds) or the embryos/fetus stay in female wombs for period before giving live birth (eg “most” mammals).

If you notice I quoted “most” with mammals, because there are very few exceptions. Echidna and platypus are the only mammals I know of, that lay their eggs, instead of giving live births.

Bacteria reproduce though binary fission. Don’t ask me about how fungi and archaea “reproduce”; research it yourself.

Those are the three things that all life have in common -

(A) have cells,

(B) require carbohydrates as energy sources to sustain life,

(C) and be capable of reproducing in some ways​

- and consciousness isn’t one of those requirements for life, as consciousness are not required for many organisms.

And btw, virion and viruses are not living organisms as they don’t have cells. Viruses are infecting agents, capable of infecting cells of living organisms.

 

[cladking]

So? Till recently there was no known process to account for seasons, night and day, tides, volcanoes, earthquakes, typhoons, comets, disease, &al. They too, were once cited as evidence for God.
Your reasoning seems to be: no current explanation, therefore, God!
This is a false dilemma, as I've pointed out before. https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-dilemma/

I'm sorry but you can define reality as space, time, matter, and consciousness. Are you seriously suggesting that not knowing the nature of reality is proof there is no God!!!!!!

Again, noöne is arguing this. We're deferring belief, pending evidence.

No. that's what I'm doing. Everyone else seems convinced that despite every observation being that change is sudden that Darwin was right anyway. I believe he was wrong and the inventors of agriculture were right. If they hadn't been right they could not have invented agriculture.

True, consciousness is mysterious. Again, so? Are you arguing "consciousness, therefore, God!"

No! I am not.

All I said was our ignorance is no reason to exclude the concept of "God" and I said this after someone else brought it up.

Frankly, and I shouldn't say this, my feeling is that consciousness is such a unique, mysterious, and magical thing that it would seem to either diminish the concept of "God" or prove it. It seems improbable consciousness could arise except from life or through design so could not be the initiating event. If there is a God then perhaps He is not conscious. It is far above my pay grade to know such a thing. But unlike most people I'm satisfied being almost perfectly ignorant. Expectations are lower when you are ignorant and the range of possibilities endless.

 

[cladking]

Consciousness have only been demonstrated and tested on organisms that have central nervous system, especially those with brains. And most of those tests were on human consciousness.

And again... ...your definition of "consciousness" is flawed.

You believe humans are "intelligent" and that any organism that doesn't exhibit recognizable intelligence is not conscious.

I don't believe intelligence as we define it exists at all anywhere. "Intelligence" is a mirage created by the way homo omniscience thinks.

I'm confident most animals "believe" we are sleep walking idiots.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry but you can define reality as space, time, matter, and consciousness. Are you seriously suggesting that not knowing the nature of reality is proof there is no God!!!!!!



No. that's what I'm doing. Everyone else seems convinced that despite every observation being that change is sudden that Darwin was right anyway. I believe he was wrong and the inventors of agriculture were right. If they hadn't been right they could not have invented agriculture.



No! I am not.

All I said was our ignorance is no reason to exclude the concept of "God" and I said this after someone else brought it up.

Nor is it any reason to exclude hyper-intelligent, trans dimensional, super mice.
At least we know mice exist, and that they act intentionally.

Frankly, and I shouldn't say this, my feeling is that consciousness is such a unique, mysterious, and magical thing that it would seem to either diminish the concept of "God" or prove it. It seems improbable consciousness could arise except from life or through design so could not be the initiating event.

We know neither the origin or nature of consciousness. Who knows how probable or magical it is, or how easily it's produced? Yet it seems improbable it would have arisen without God? Goddidit isn't either an 'explanation' or a mechanism.
We see physics and chemistry operating every day, yet you conjure up magic and an invisible man as a serious possibility.

If there is a God then perhaps He is not conscious. It is far above my pay grade to know such a thing. But unlike most people I'm satisfied being almost perfectly ignorant. Expectations are lower when you are ignorant and the range of possibilities endless.

An unconscious god is nature.

 

[gnostic]

And again... ...your definition of "consciousness" is flawed.

You believe humans are "intelligent" and that any organism that doesn't exhibit recognizable intelligence is not conscious.

I don't believe intelligence as we define it exists at all anywhere. "Intelligence" is a mirage created by the way homo omniscience thinks.

I'm confident most animals "believe" we are sleep walking idiots.

Again with the straw man.

I didn’t bring up “intelligence”.

my reply to you were in regards to “consciousness”, not “intelligence”, because you were the one who kept bringing up “consciousness”, in regards to the subject of evolution.

you need to have your eyes checked and replace your glasses.

Not “all life” have consciousness because some organisms don’t require consciousness to live. There are no evidence to support species of plants, fungi, bacteria and fungi having consciousness, and you definitely have demonstrated they do have them.

I wasn’t talking of intelligence at all in last couple of replies.

 

[cladking]

I didn’t bring up “intelligence”.

I'd say it lies behind everything you say but you'd take it wrong.

Science works by metaphysics and you don't know what that is so you do believe in intelligence, eh?

Not “all life” have consciousness because some organisms don’t require consciousness to live.

Something like honey bees, right? How smart does a bee need to be?

What word would you choose to explain why a slime mold goes around an area that it has already tried to get passage and failed? Use any word you want and I say that is "consciousness".


You believe individual consciousness is irrelevant to life and its changes. I think this will be seen as obviously false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science works by metaphysics and you don't know what that is so you do believe in intelligence, eh?

No, science works by evidence. Philosophy, and you may call that "metaphysics" was instrumental in setting up the scientific method but once that was up and going there was no need to constantly refer back to it.

Metaphysics is just another term that you abuse and seem to have your own personal definition of that no one else uses.

 

[gnostic]

No, science works by evidence. Philosophy, and you may call that "metaphysics" was instrumental in setting up the scientific method but once that was up and going there was no need to constantly refer back to it.

Metaphysics is just another term that you abuse and seem to have your own personal definition of that no one else uses.

And metaphysics is the only thing he redefine to his warped reality.

examples: evidence, experiment, observation, consciousness, etc.