Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But that's not the same thing as saying something produced something other than what it is. Elephants and snakes are both variations on living organisms that came before them.

A variation of what, exactly. You can theorize all you want to, but what is the evidence??? You say "elephants and snakes are both variations on living organisms that came before them", which is the same thing as saying "living organisms that ere neither elephants or snakes gave rise to elephants and snakes". That is pure speculation...I only see elephants producing elephants, so why do I need to conclude that the elephants of today came from a non-elephant of yesterday?

Why why why???

Now, for once, I'd like you to actually answer a question I ask rather than dodging it: do you understand the difference between "reproducing a variation of what you are" and "producing something other than what you are"?

The difference is "reproducing a variation of what you are" would be why there are so many varieties within the dog "kind". That is an example of "reproducing a variation of what you are". You seem to think that the common ancestor of the snake and elephant is an example of the organism which produced both of those "kinds" would be an example of "reproducing a variation of what you are". I object to that faulty reasoning, since it CONTRADICTS experiment and every day observation, which is no matter how many experiments you want to conduct involving animal reproduction, and no matter how many observations you observe after an animal gives birth, it will always be limited to its own kind...and I see absolutely no reason to think otherwise, not in a million years, or not in a billion years.

The bible says that God said God made all animals and they all reproduced "within their kind"......which simply means that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, turtles produce turtles. There hasnt been one exception to this rule as of yet, yet you believe that million of years ago when no one was around to see it, and a million years from now when no one living today will be around to see it, that this kind of crap happens.

Sorry, Charlie...but I ain't buying it.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Being all powerful doesn't mean you can do what is logically incoherent, like make married bachelors or squared circles.

Those are illogical by definition. A square, by definition, isn't a circle. A bachelor, by definition, isn't married.

It's a contradiction in semantics and language. Nothing more.

Regardless, you said you have a problem infinity in all forms. Qualitatively infinite still counts as a type of infinity.

Events are constantly coming in to existence, and out of existence.

Or we're simply moving past events in time. No one can prove if events already exist in the future and that we simply haven't gotten to them yet.

I am typing right now, that is an event that is currently happening

What's "current" isn't absolute. It's simply current to you.

When I stop typing, that particular event would have been traversed into the next event that I partake in.

Traversed by YOU! You traversed the event. But you didn't traverse 13.7 billion years to get to your birth.

It is obvious that you are stalling...which is quite amusing, actually. But again, I understand how difficult the problem is for you to find a solution to the infinity problem.

There's no problem. You're the only one who thinks there's a problem. Maybe you're the problem.

It is relevant..because in that particular case, infinity-infinity = infinity, which only adds to the absurdity for you.

I never said infinite - infinity doesn't equal infinity.

See above. You are stalling. Prior events had to be traversed to get to any present event. Keep stalling.

Traversed by what? I didn't traverse any events that happened before my birth. They already "came to pass" when I was born.

Makes no sense.

I'm gonna assume every time you say this, it means you've ran out of an argument.

You can have time in a universe where nothing CONTINUES to happen, meaning if everything became motionless, time would continue...but in order to have time at all, SOMETHING had to happen initially.

Not if time is infinite

If there is no past-boundary regarding time, for any given event that comes to pass, an infinite number of events preceded it. Point blank, period.

I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm simply saying that no particular thing has to traverse those events in the infinite past to get to any particular point. You haven't proved otherwise.

That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

There it is again!

Irrelevant

.

You're really dense. It means time repeating.

I am trying to figure out how someting can have no starting point, and no ending point, and be considered "finite".

As in, before the Big Bang, it could mean the universe went through the exact same events as it did now, for example.

Cyclical infinity.

You can't reach infinity if you started from an initial point, nor can you reach it if you were traveling/counting forever. Doesn't matter.

No one is saying infinity can be reached. For one, it's not even a position.

A variation of what, exactly.

Amniotes. They're both amniotes.... variations of them. This is an example of "reproducing a variation of what they are", which would be why there are so many varieties within the amniote "kind".

Evidence is in the DNA, erv markers, fossils etc...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A variation of what, exactly.

I really don't see what's difficult to understand about the sentence: "everything produces a variation of what IT IS". The answer to your question is LITERALLY in the statement. IT. IT produces variations on what IT is, IT being the living organism that reproduces.

You can theorize all you want to, but what is the evidence???

The fact that living organisms reproduce variations of themselves is pretty conclusive proof that living things reproduction variations of themselves. Pretty cut and dried, really. Do you contest that?

You say "elephants and snakes are both variations on living organisms that came before them", which is the same thing as saying "living organisms that ere neither elephants or snakes gave rise to elephants and snakes".

Actually, no it isn't. It is more accurate to say "living things that weren't elephants or snakes - but belonged to a phenotype in which both elephants and snakes are variations within (i.e: vertebrates) - gave rise to snakes and elephants that were a variation on what it was".

That is pure speculation...I only see elephants producing elephants, so why do I need to conclude that the elephants of today came from a non-elephant of yesterday?

Why why why???

Because it's where every piece of available evidence indicates. Here are the facts of the case:

1) All living things on earth are the result of reproduction. No other known mechanism exists which can produce living organisms currently, although abiogenesis may explain how the initial life formed this has little bearing on what we observe in nature today - which is natural reproduction only.
2) All living things that reproduce do so with natural variations and mutations. These mutations can vary from producing subtle to significant changes in offspring in a seemingly endless variety of ways.
3) These mutations are naturally selected for or against depending on environmental attrition, and over time and through countless generational propagation this can and does result in significant changes in populations over time - even to the extent of two populations of the same species diverging over time until they can no longer interbreed, as in ring species.
4) No known mechanism exists which prevents these mutations from occuring or building up beyond a certain level.
5) The fossil record shows a clear pattern of divergence over time from simple life forms to more complex life forms as we ascend the geological strata. We see, in the fossil record, species diversifying and transitional fossils being dated in such a way that fit perfectly with evolutionary predictions. If evolution weren't true, we simply would not (or, in fact, COULD not) see this kind of pattern forming in the fossil record. It simply makes no sense to see this kind of formation otherwise.
6) Analysis of human and animal DNA show tremendous similarities that diverge as we get further from our genetic ancestors as predicted by evolutionary theory. That is, our genes are closer to our supposed evolutionary relatives than they are to our further evolutionary relatives. Not to mention ERVs which reoccur in very specific regions in human and ape DNA, for which the only reasonable explanation can be that humans and apes share a common genetic ancestor.

Like them or not, those are the FACTS as relate to evolution. So far, all I have seen you do is dismiss them offhand without any appeal to facts or any understanding of the findings themselves. Denial does not change what these facts are or what they indicate. If you don't accept them, fine, but you do not do so because you are more informed or honest or any of the other reasons you delude yourself into accepting. You do it because your prior assumptions about human ancestry are more important to you than the reality, and your inability to reconcile your beliefs with these facts means that you cannot allow yourself to objectively verify them or understand them for yourself. That's your problem - not the problem of science.

The difference is "reproducing a variation of what you are" would be why there are so many varieties within the dog "kind". That is an example of "reproducing a variation of what you are". You seem to think that the common ancestor of the snake and elephant is an example of the organism which produced both of those "kinds" would be an example of "reproducing a variation of what you are".

Because it is. Both elephants and snakes are vertebrates, ergo the common ancestor of both was a vertebrate producing vertebrates.

I object to that faulty reasoning, since it CONTRADICTS experiment and every day observation, which is no matter how many experiments you want to conduct involving animal reproduction, and no matter how many observations you observe after an animal gives birth, it will always be limited to its own kind...and I see absolutely no reason to think otherwise, not in a million years, or not in a billion years.

I've explained this to you countless times, and you still don't understand it. You're unable to define "kind" so you cannot make any claims whatsoever about "kind" being the reproductive limit. If "vertebrates" can be said to be a kind, then a vertebrate producing more vertebrates is perfectly sound, and that is all that is required for evolution to occur. Both snakes and elephants are variations within the "vertebrate" kind. Problem solved.

The bible says that God said God made all animals and they all reproduced "within their kind"......which simply means that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, turtles produce turtles. There hasnt been one exception to this rule as of yet, yet you believe that million of years ago when no one was around to see it, and a million years from now when no one living today will be around to see it, that this kind of crap happens.

Sorry, Charlie...but I ain't buying it.

The fact that, despite having it explained to you on so many occaisions, you still don't understand why "dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats" ISN'T a successful refutation of evolutionary biology really indicates that the only reason you "aren't buying it" is because you lack the required intellectual purchase.

Also, you failed to answer my question yet again. Is it really so difficult to type "yes" or "no"?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Those are illogical by definition. A square, by definition, isn't a circle. A bachelor, by definition, isn't married.

It's a contradiction in semantics and language. Nothing more.

You just keep missing the point, don't you? My point was, you would have to find a logical contradiction based on the mere concept of God in order to demonstrate that such a being's existence isn't possible...if the concept is logically coherent, then it is possible.

Regardless, you said you have a problem infinity in all forms. Qualitatively infinite still counts as a type of infinity.

In all forms on a quantitive level, which is why I gave the example of marbles, baseball cards, etc. Remember that?

When we say that God is infinite, it has nothing to do with quantity, but it has everything to do with quality, meaning that God is the greatest conceivable being imagine, with his attributes completely maxed out to the highest degree.

Or we're simply moving past events in time. No one can prove if events already exist in the future and that we simply haven't gotten to them yet.

Irrelvant.

What's "current" isn't absolute. It's simply current to you.

Irrelevant.

Traversed by YOU! You traversed the event. But you didn't traverse 13.7 billion years to get to your birth.

You just don't get it, do you? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said or implied.

There's no problem. You're the only one who thinks there's a problem. Maybe you're the problem.

LOL

I never said infinite - infinity doesn't equal infinity.

The point was, the mere concept of an actual infinity is an irrational concept which would lead to real life absurdities should it exist in the real world, such as infinity-infinity= infinity.

Traversed by what? I didn't traverse any events that happened before my birth. They already "came to pass" when I was born.

No one said you traversed anything. What is funny is the fact that you keep saying this as if I said or implied it, which I never did...but yet, you keep mentioning it. Why?

I'm gonna assume every time you say this, it means you've ran out of an argument.

When something doesn't make sense to me, I say "Makes no sense".

Not if time is infinite

Then you've got problems. If time was infinite, "today" would never arrive.

I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm simply saying that no particular thing has to traverse those events in the infinite past to get to any particular point. You haven't proved otherwise.

I am at work right now, and we have this giant calendar here, and every day that goes by, we mark a giant X on that day. The remaining days in the month are not X'd, because, of course, those days have yet to come to pass. But there are 21 days on the calendar that are X'd out.

If time was infinite, we would never have been able to X out yesterday, if an infinite number of days preceded it. Now you can dance/play around with this all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is what it is, it is valid and can/has been demonstrated..which is why I have such a difficult time getting an answer to the analogy..instead I get all of this technical babble, stalling, and quite frankly, nonsensical comments...and even straw man.

Must mean that the argument is dang good :beach:

There it is again!

If the shoe fits...

As in, before the Big Bang, it could mean the universe went through the exact same events as it did now, for example.

Cyclical infinity.

Same events? Oh, so how many times was JFK shot, resurrected, and shot again?

No one is saying infinity can be reached. For one, it's not even a position.

Makes no sense. If I asked you how many seconds lead up to this present day, you would not be able to give a finite number as your answer, would you? Yet, that is the only answer that you can give, yet, the answer is basically, infinity!!!

Amniotes. They're both amniotes.... variations of them. This is an example of "reproducing a variation of what they are", which would be why there are so many varieties within the amniote "kind".

That is the theory, I want evidence for the theory.

Evidence is in the DNA

Common designer.

erv markers

Common designer

, fossils etc...

Fossils are not proof of anything other than "this once living thing has died".

 

[Riverwolf]

Common designer.

There's no evidence for a common designer (and philosophical arguments do not count as evidence), but if there was a "common designer", then that common designer did the designing of a single common ancestor to all life, after which evolution by natural selection proceeded to operate on its own.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There's no evidence for a common designer (and philosophical arguments do not count as evidence), but if there was a "common designer", then that common designer did the designing of a single common ancestor to all life, after which evolution by natural selection proceeded to operate on its own.

Or the common designer created all things according to their kinds, like Genesis 1 indicates.

 

[Riverwolf]

Or the common designer created all things according to their kinds, like Genesis 1 indicates.

Which isn't scientifically probable, because of two reasons that have been explained to you dozens of times over.

1. "Kind" is useless in categorization of life, and so should be discarded when speaking scientifically.
2. It's not at all what's observed, and there's no indication whatsoever, either directly or implicitly, that it's what happened. Genesis 1 is not an indication, it's just some random text from a random part of the world from a random period in history.

 

[Sapiens]

Or the common designer created all things according to their kinds, like Genesis 1 indicates.

No your suggestion is philosophically inefficient. Were there an omni-everything designer the efficient (smart) thing to do would be design a single common ancestor to all life, after which evolution by natural selection (as foreseen by the omni-everything designer) proceeded to operate on its own. Advocating anything else is blasphemous besmirching of the omni-everything great designer.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Which isn't scientifically probable, because of two reasons that have been explained to you dozens of times over.

I have a hard time accepting bio-babble.

1. "Kind" is useless in categorization of life, and so should be discarded when speaking scientifically.

Scientifically speaking, there are "kinds" of animals. If "kinds" should be discarded in categorization, then when you go to a pet store and ask for the "dog" section and the clerk takes you to the "turtle" section, you would accept this, because according to you, "kinds" should be discarded.

However, if you DON'T accept this, then you would recognize that the "kind" that you asked for would be different than the "kind" that you were taken too. It is really just as simple as that. No voodoo, no bio-babble, no lab coat guru sermons needed.

2. It's not at all what's observed, and there's no indication whatsoever, either directly or implicitly, that it's what happened.

There is no indication that reptiles came from birds either, neither directly nor implicitly, and you have no problem believing that.

Genesis 1 is not an indication, it's just some random text from a random part of the world from a random period in history.

It says that animals will bring for after their "kinds", which is synanmous for dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, birds producing birds, snakes producing snakes. That is what was said, and that is what we see.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No your suggestion is philosophically inefficient. Were there an omni-everything designer the efficient (smart) thing to do would be design a single common ancestor to all life, after which evolution by natural selection (as foreseen by the omni-everything designer) proceeded to operate on its own. Advocating anything else is blasphemous besmirching of the omni-everything great designer.

That is part of the problem right there...even if you posit a Intelligent Designer, somehow, someway, you have to throw evolution in the mix. Why would a omni-everything (i like the term) need a trial and error process (evolution) as a mean to carry out his creation?

 

[Sapiens]

I have a hard time accepting bio-babble.

That's because at your level of knowledge it is babble. If you understood it ... well, that would be a very different story.

Scientifically speaking, there are "kinds" of animals. If "kinds" should be discarded in categorization, then when you go to a pet store and ask for the "dog" section and the clerk takes you to the "turtle" section, you would accept this, because according to you, "kinds" should be discarded.

No, scientifically "kinds" do not exist. In fact, within science, we are really dropping the entire concept of "species" and/or "kinds" except as a convenient way to talk about things. It is recognized that the concept has just about outlived it's usefulness.

However, if you DON'T accept this, then you would recognize that the "kind" that you asked for would be different than the "kind" that you were taken too. It is really just as simple as that. No voodoo, no bio-babble, no lab coat guru sermons needed.

No, it is not "as simple as that." You may think that it is, but that is because you lack the training and knowledge. The only organisms that you can really talk about as being the same "kind" are clones, and even that is open to issues of extra-cellular genetics.

There is no indication that reptiles came from birds either, neither directly nor implicitly, and you have no problem believing that.

But there is clear evidence that birds came from reptiles, in fact many biologists classify birds as a special kind of reptile. link: reptile-bird

It says that animals will bring for after their "kinds", which is synanmous for dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, birds producing birds, snakes producing snakes. That is what was said, and that is what we see.

That is what it said, that is wrong, and if that is what you see ... well that is because you are not seeing even skin deep. When you look up in the sky do you see a star, a cold point of light, or do you see a continuous raging thermonuclear reaction?

Without debating the idiocy of the concept and the possible powers of an omni-everything, I'd suggest efficiency and elegance, you see Evolution is not (as you suggest) a trail and error process, it is a beautiful system through which organisms and the environment are able to exchange information. But your answer and my digression beg the question.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have a hard time accepting bio-babble.

So discard the conception that it's babble, and actually take the time to learn what we're talking about. Regarding it as babble tells me that you're probably not reading our responses very carefully, by which I mean looking up words you don't understand, taking the time to do quick research on subjects unfamiliar with you, and so forth.

Bio-babble is the stuff of bad Star Trek episodes like Genesis or Threshold.

Scientifically speaking, there are "kinds" of animals. If "kinds" should be discarded in categorization, then when you go to a pet store and ask for the "dog" section and the clerk takes you to the "turtle" section, you would accept this, because according to you, "kinds" should be discarded.

However, if you DON'T accept this, then you would recognize that the "kind" that you asked for would be different than the "kind" that you were taken too. It is really just as simple as that. No voodoo, no bio-babble, no lab coat guru sermons needed.

I didn't say it should be discarded from an every-day perspective, which is the pet store situation. There, it's fine to use "kind". I meant scientifically, which requires far more precision.

After all, what "kinds" are there, and how are they categorized? How do they explain that there ARE very small genetic similarities between dogs and turtles: similarities shared by ALL mammals and reptiles?

There's no Voodoo, bio-babble, gurus, or sermons of any kind here. My own observations and independent fact-checking are sufficient for me.

There is no indication that reptiles came from birds either, neither directly nor implicitly, and you have no problem believing that.

Uh, no I don't. I don't believe that, and nobody even remotely educated on the Tree of Life does. Reptiles don't come from birds at all. It's almost the other way around. I say almost, because dinosaurs are not reptiles. There's every indication that they did, from genetics to the fossil record. All of these point to birds sharing a common ancestor with reptiles.

It says that animals will bring for after their "kinds", which is synanmous for dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, birds producing birds, snakes producing snakes. That is what was said, and that is what we see.

It's what the author of Genesis 1 saw, and what he saw is perfectly compatible with evolution.

There's recently been some discussion that some feathered dinosaurs might have been able to fly. Where's the line, now, between dinosaur and bird? (You can't say teeth; there are some birds still alive today that have them). Like I said before: there are no such hard and fast lines in reality; we create those distinguishing lines for ourselves because humans naturally categorize things.

Besides, break away from animals for a moment. All other forms of life also undergo natural selection: plants, fungus, and so forth. In single-celled organisms, it happens so fast that new species develop from older ones within a few years, and our medicines have to account for that in order to be any good.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is part of the problem right there...even if you posit a Intelligent Designer, somehow, someway, you have to throw evolution in the mix. Why would a omni-everything (i like the term) need a trial and error process (evolution) as a mean to carry out his creation?

Evolution is not trial-and-error. Not even remotely.

 

[Sapiens]

Point of information: Dinosaurs were (are) or were not (are not) reptiles depending on the classification system used, some have dinosaurs as their own family, others do not, if you're a cladist (like I am) and use a phylogenetic taxonomy, xon then all dinosaurs are reptiles, but for that matter so are all birds and all mammals (the parent group always includes all the offspring, so we are also amphibians, fish, etc.).

 

[Riverwolf]

Point of information: Dinosaurs were (are) or were not (are not) reptiles depending on the classification system used, some have dinosaurs as their own family, others do not, if you're a cladist (like I am) and use a phylogenetic taxonomy, xon then all dinosaurs are reptiles, but for that matter so are all birds and all mammals (the parent group always includes all the offspring, so we are also amphibians, fish, etc.).

Well and good, and likely quite accurate.

An example of my own bias comes in, that even though we might technically be all those things, I feel like there's enough differences that we can have our own names, with identities distinct from the earlier ones.

I'm certainly not aware of any reptile that has social or parental instincts, like many dinosaurs certainly had.

 

[Sapiens]

Well and good, and likely quite accurate.

An example of my own bias comes in, that even though we might technically be all those things, I feel like there's enough differences that we can have our own names, with identities distinct from the earlier ones.

I'm certainly not aware of any reptile that has parental instincts, like many dinosaurs certainly had.

Alligators do, there are likely others.

 

[Riverwolf]

Alligators do, there are likely others.

Well, now I am aware of a reptile that does have parental instincts. I did edit in "social", however, which I still don't know about.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You just keep missing the point, don't you? My point was, you would have to find a logical contradiction based on the mere concept of God in order to demonstrate that such a being's existence isn't possible...if the concept is logically coherent, then it is possible.

I don't necessarily find a contradiction in God, apart from the contradiction you make on infinity and making God the exception. Saying he's qualitatively infinite doesn't even make sense and sounds like a way to make it sound valid.

I simply see no evidence for God.

In all forms on a quantitive level, which is why I gave the example of marbles, baseball cards, etc. Remember that?

Yeah, I remember that. Doesn't make God the exception.

Irrelvant.

You said events come into existence. I said no one can prove that they don't already exist, but are simply in the future. How is that irrelevant?

Irrelevant.

You just don't get it, do you? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said or implied.

It has everything to do with what you said. We're talking about traversing events.

The point was, the mere concept of an actual infinity is an irrational concept which would lead to real life absurdities should it exist in the real world, such as infinity-infinity= infinity.

So then an infinite God is absurd.

No one said you traversed anything. What is funny is the fact that you keep saying this as if I said or implied it, which I never did...but yet, you keep mentioning it. Why?

You keep talking about traversing time but won't specify what even has to do the traversing and simply respond with "irrelevant".

When something doesn't make sense to me, I say "Makes no sense".

You mean when you lack knowledge in something, it doesn't make sense to you.

Then you've got problems. If time was infinite, "today" would never arrive.

It doesn't arrive. We arrive at it. You even said time isn't the thing that's moving.

I am at work right now, and we have this giant calendar here, and every day that goes by, we mark a giant X on that day. The remaining days in the month are not X'd, because, of course, those days have yet to come to pass. But there are 21 days on the calendar that are X'd out.

The days don't come pass. You come passed it. If you took a near light speed trip, you would approach the days dramatically faster due to time dilation.

If time was infinite, we would never have been able to X out yesterday, if an infinite number of days preceded it. Now you can dance/play around with this all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is what it is, it is valid and can/has been demonstrated..which is why I have such a difficult time getting an answer to the analogy..instead I get all of this technical babble, stalling, and quite frankly, nonsensical comments...and even straw man.

Who the heck has demonstrated this?! You got an example of an infinite universe that someone used to demonstrate this?

Must mean that the argument is dang good :beach:

If it makes you feel that good to tell yourself that...

Same events? Oh, so how many times was JFK shot, resurrected, and shot again?

At least once. Could be more.... an infinite more. Who knows?

Makes no sense. If I asked you how many seconds lead up to this present day, you would not be able to give a finite number as your answer, would you? Yet, that is the only answer that you can give, yet, the answer is basically, infinity!!!

You've said that already. And I've already said that I don't have to traverse an infinite amount of days to get to the day, regardless if the Universe is infinite or not.

Common designer.

Do you even know what ERV markers are?

Fossils are not proof of anything other than "this once living thing has died".

So prehistoric whales with tiny hindlegs that are too small to support it's weight, but has all the feet of the bones, like the toes completely intact, mean nothing to you?

Look how similar basilosaurus and ambulocetus are in skeletal structure. Their skeletons are exactly the same, with the same exact kind of teeth too. Yet ambulocetus' hindlimbs are proportionately longer, indicating that it's a precursor to basilosaurus that walked on land. There's many intermediate forms between these creatures too.

Question is, why would God lay out the fossil record to make it look like Evolution happened?

 

[Sapiens]

To fool you you fool.<G>

He's a tricky guy!

 

[Riverwolf]

To fool you you fool.<G>

He's a tricky guy!

I have always felt that the very concept of a self-proclaimed Supreme Creator God sounded by default less like the genuine article, and more like the antics of a Trickster God. ^_^