Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Dan From Smithville]

Just click on Amazing Admission.

I do not see the quote of Lewontin's is an admission so much as admonishing scientists from letting belief enter into science and leading to confusion. If what a person believes is used to make or support scientific claims and their are millions of scientists with millions of beliefs, then what value is their in maintaining an objective pursuit of reality? At some point, it would all fall apart. Probably, rather quickly if the intelligent design movement is any example. It is not held together on evidence or preponderance of theory, but by ideology alone. When put up against objective review, it has not held up except in the minds of some very poorly educated and limited people.

Lewontin is a great scientist, but his personal opinion is not itself evidence against the theory of evolution nor does it invalidate scientific education. It may illustrate problems that exist in our system, but they are not problems of teaching lies, but rather how do you teach people without resorting to rote memorization of volumes of facts that are continuing to grow. How can you both, teach critical thinking while demanding that students just learn all of these facts verbatim, because there is not time to review every topic critically. We do have ways around that, but in my education, I had to absorb a lot of material and be able to repeat it back accurately. It was existing knowledge and not lies, but some of it was taught knowing it was contingent on some new fact coming in that could change it all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What these guys like him do is they get loaded up
with the same same same oldy moldy creosite
garbage, and, energized like someone fresh
from one of those motivational speaker rallies
they charge in to slay the evil evos left and right.

With god on their side, they are incapable of being
wrong about anything. You'd not get a concession
of the least error in anything they say. Why would they?
They are on gods side, they are right, you are,well,
not.

When you spot one of those, people, it is best to
just ignore them. Especially as there will be no
actual response to anything said to them.

Now, we have a few who are at least
vaguely worth engaging. There is the incredibly
rare such who might even see some
enlightenment come their way.

Usually, though, it is more like a game to
see just how far into lunacy and denial they
will go to try to uphold some absurd notion.
Among my fav. such are the "flash frozen mammoths
in much" people. (they always use the word
"muck" which shows they all get it from the same
woo woo site)


Some few of these creos have been able to
buttenhole a paleontologist or other scientist.

Of course, the researcher will get shut of them
as quickly as human decency will allow. And
then creo will interpret that as what was that,
"pressure tested"?

I expect the archaeologists who work in Egypt
are equally pleased to be gone-after by one of
those pyramid freaks.

It would be a horrible thing to see one of those
people (lets pick one who is not actually insane)
and have him try to do a thesis defense

The slaughter would be, yes, horrible indeed.

Watching one of these folks defend a thesis would be worth the price of admission. I would love to catch that show. It would be hilarious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not clear on your reference to the University of Texas and Texas Tech divide on you picture. Then you make references to computers and evolution which are separate subjects. You connect Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution together without realizing how separate these fields are. Your argument is too incoherent. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Either you have no concept of how science works or you are just creating a fantasy argument. Creating incoherent connections is not logical argument at all.

I think you have it nailed. He has no concept of science and has replaced one with his own set of fantasy assertions.

 

[Audie]

Watching one of these folks defend a thesis would be worth the price of admission. I would love to catch that show. It would be hilarious.

Those of us who have been grilled know just
what a show it would be!

 

[Audie]

I think you have it nailed. He has no concept of science and has replaced one with his own set of fantasy assertions.

Nah. None of it is original. I could half way
respect someone who is original, but it is just
copy paste.
He sure has not actually studied science, and
come to deeper conclusions than any actual
scientist on earth!

 

[sooda]

I do not see the quote of Lewontin's is an admission so much as admonishing scientists from letting belief enter into science and leading to confusion. If what a person believes is used to make or support scientific claims and their are millions of scientists with millions of beliefs, then what value is their in maintaining an objective pursuit of reality? At some point, it would all fall apart. Probably, rather quickly if the intelligent design movement is any example. It is not held together on evidence or preponderance of theory, but by ideology alone. When put up against objective review, it has not held up except in the minds of some very poorly educated and limited people.

Lewontin is a great scientist, but his personal opinion is not itself evidence against the theory of evolution nor does it invalidate scientific education. It may illustrate problems that exist in our system, but they are not problems of teaching lies, but rather how do you teach people without resorting to rote memorization of volumes of facts that are continuing to grow.

How can you both, teach critical thinking while demanding that students just learn all of these facts verbatim, because there is not time to review every topic critically. We do have ways around that, but in my education, I had to absorb a lot of material and be able to repeat it back accurately.

It was existing knowledge and not lies, but some of it was taught knowing it was contingent on some new fact coming in that could change it all.

Yeah.. Adults reserve the right to change their minds when newer, better information comes available.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nah. None of it is original. I could half way
respect someone who is original, but it is just
copy paste.
He sure has not actually studied science, and
come to deeper conclusions than any actual
scientist on earth!

Not original, but still fantasy. But you have a point, there are very few original ideas in the creationist movement. I can think of some rather disgusting metaphors to describe their recycling skills, but I will refrain.

No. His claims alluding to discussions with scientists and education in science are fabrications.

I would still love to see him run this by a committee to defend it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah.. Adults reserve the right to change their minds when newer, better information comes available.

Knowing your knowledge and interest in history, I figured you would understand.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I do not see the quote of Lewontin's is an admission so much as admonishing scientists from letting belief enter into science and leading to confusion. If what a person believes is used to make or support scientific claims and their are millions of scientists with millions of beliefs, then what value is their in maintaining an objective pursuit of reality? At some point, it would all fall apart. Probably, rather quickly if the intelligent design movement is any example. It is not held together on evidence or preponderance of theory, but by ideology alone. When put up against objective review, it has not held up except in the minds of some very poorly educated and limited people.

Lewontin is a great scientist, but his personal opinion is not itself evidence against the theory of evolution nor does it invalidate scientific education. It may illustrate problems that exist in our system, but they are not problems of teaching lies, but rather how do you teach people without resorting to rote memorization of volumes of facts that are continuing to grow. How can you both, teach critical thinking while demanding that students just learn all of these facts verbatim, because there is not time to review every topic critically. We do have ways around that, but in my education, I had to absorb a lot of material and be able to repeat it back accurately. It was existing knowledge and not lies, but some of it was taught knowing it was contingent on some new fact coming in that could change it all.

Imagine the sort of world, that our descendants would create, if first we taught them the formal definitions of Logic, and what Logical Fallacies are?

Imagine how Politics would have to adapt, to a new generation of folk who actually understood what is wrong with Argument From Incredulity, Argument From (dubious) Authority, and Straw Man was?

Imagine how Advertising would shift?

I can Dream, can't I? They would likely look back on this period of history, as the Crazy Years...

 

[sooda]

Knowing your knowledge and interest in history, I figured you would understand.

Thank you.. I had a pretty good education and then I went back to school in 1986.. Holy cats.. I got a crash course in critical thinking.. and was it ever tough.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yeah.. Adults reserve the right to change their minds when newer, better information comes available.

The willingness (and ability) to change one's mind, in the face of new information?

Is the very hallmark of Adulting Done Right, IMO.

"Are We Adulting Yet?"

"I don't know: When was the last time you changed your mind, when faced with new information?"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you.. I had a pretty good education and then I went back to school in 1986.. Holy cats.. I got a crash course in critical thinking.. and was it ever tough.

You are welcome.

Knowing the difficulties of returning to school later in life, you have my respect for doing it. My mother did this when she was in her 50's and still had children at home and a husband with failing health. He did everything he could to support her despite that. She was inspiring. So was he for helping her carry it out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The willingness (and ability) to change one's mind, in the face of new information?

Is the very hallmark of Adulting Done Right, IMO.

"Are We Adulting Yet?"

"I don't know: When was the last time you changed your mind, when faced with new information?"

I am still trying to backtrack to a post you made about not being able to impart a body of knowledge to some would be expert that knows there was no evolution or supports any other science denial you can think of. I like how you put it and wanted to commit it to memory.

I do my best to Adult, even when it is difficult. I cannot think of anything recent, but I do my best to leave the option open to compelling evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Imagine the sort of world, that our descendants would create, if first we taught them the formal definitions of Logic, and what Logical Fallacies are?

Imagine how Politics would have to adapt, to a new generation of folk who actually understood what is wrong with Argument From Incredulity, Argument From (dubious) Authority, and Straw Man was?

Imagine how Advertising would shift?

I can Dream, can't I? They would likely look back on this period of history, as the Crazy Years...

To skip hot spots of dark ages mentality is a great dream.

That is one of the reasons that I consider important in addressing these nonsense assertions. Even if I do not see it having any impact on the person I direct my responses to, though it could. My hope is that it helps others on the periphery that have questions and are not aware that creationists do not have answers. Or as a second voice that provides fresh insight and perspective to those who already understand and agree. That certainly helps me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Imagine the sort of world, that our descendants would create, if first we taught them the formal definitions of Logic, and what Logical Fallacies are?

Imagine how Politics would have to adapt, to a new generation of folk who actually understood what is wrong with Argument From Incredulity, Argument From (dubious) Authority, and Straw Man was?

Imagine how Advertising would shift?

I can Dream, can't I? They would likely look back on this period of history, as the Crazy Years...

I am reminded of something from my youth. When I was younger, I new a girl that swore that her mother got sick from drinking well water that was contaminated with black rat snake eggs. These hatched and the living snakes had caused her a great deal of misery before they were extracted. Having been educated about nature, both at home and school, I knew this story was BS. What your dream reminds me is that there is a lot of nonsense belief out there that forms the basis of how people interact in the world and with the world. Not all of it is religious in nature. Certainly, we would be better off without it.

Can you imagine in the 20th Century, with everything that has been accomplished, there were people perpetuating such nonsense with their children? Sure. Because we both know that it still happens, even though we have moved on into the next Century.

Still, I appreciate your dream.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am still trying to backtrack to a post you made about not being able to impart a body of knowledge to some would be expert that knows there was no evolution or supports any other science denial you can think of. I like how you put it and wanted to commit it to memory.

I do my best to Adult, even when it is difficult. I cannot think of anything recent, but I do my best to leave the option open to compelling evidence.

Here it is again. I think David McCaffee said it first, but he may have been quoting too.

"Do you ever have a problem where you just don't know how to reply to an argument, not because you don't know the answer, but you just don't know where to begin? Like, the foundation of knowledge you'd need to impart to this person before you could even begin to drag them out of their sinkhole of ignorance would cost thousands of dollars if it were coming from a university?"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here it is again. I think David McCaffee said it first, but he may have been quoting too.

"Do you ever have a problem where you just don't know how to reply to an argument, not because you don't know the answer, but you just don't know where to begin? Like, the foundation of knowledge you'd need to impart to this person before you could even begin to drag them out of their sinkhole of ignorance would cost thousands of dollars if it were coming from a university?"

That is the one. Thanks Bob.

I did not remember it being a quote, but thanks also making me aware of that.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Sorry for the long delay getting back. As I've said I'm on disability. So I have rough days at times. As all of us married folks know. Sometimes our lovely spouses give us a list of honey does. Well with me that take pacing with recovery time. So despite my pain I'm trying to reply as is deserved.

I'll try to address certain things. Yet I feel like some of you say you do. It's pointless because of agenda not good answers.

Here's where I see that statement differently. Maybe instead of using Faith & Supernatural I should use logic & common sense vs illogical & non sense.

Yes if you look up laws of science you will see that biogenesis is proven because other than evolution using just so stories w/o actual science proven demonstration to prove otherwise. Life has never been proven to come from NON LIFE. Whether you admit it or not. Evolution depends on that occurring to be true. Why? In evolutions telling of Origins you start with Big Bang & inanimate objects. Then you get to chemicals in a primordial soup.

Problem with evolution is you want to dictate everything on your terms & pick where you start to avoid problem you can't handle. Honest academic doesn't allow that.

Science laws work by establishing by lab experiments or other experiments that when done continually they always produce the exact same result. Science learns by observation of that constant repetiveness it can count on. Then it can call it a law & then even go to describing each phase, in the order they occur & describe in detail each phase or stage & in the exact order. I could list numerous ones on here & we would all agree they are correct. Photosynthesis & on & on.

Ironically what I find is evolution tries to start from primordial soup & go forward with evolution to mankind. Yet even though you refuse to acknowledge the link. In HS & University textbooks I've bought & read. Teaching starts from Big Bang to primordial soup to life to life from evolution through stages to mankind. Plus Darwin's "Origins" which is the start of the playbook per se although I've already explained why it's a problem & evolutionist conveniently ignore. Same as the article I quoted validated.

Despite the excruiting pain I find myself in tonight. After 21+ surgeries due to old football surgeries starting in 1970 & 3 non at fault car wrecks finally putting me on permanent disability & limits, esp due to pain magmt that I must endure daily. I read constantly & have a BS & 2 Masters all with academic honors. So despite the attacks on my knowledge & research work. I'm not uneducated nor uninformed as the 2 Dr man I worked out with clearly found out much to his surprise after his debate challenge.

Besides life coming from NON LIFE which isn't possible & can't nor hasn't been done in a lab. If it was possible & had been it would be all over the media & shown & done in labs in science classes everywhere. Evolution infers it by just so stories etc as I've said.

I'm curious have any of you ever actually read the counter points by scientist? I mean esp those that were as is only possible today. Taught to be evolutionist but later became non evolutionist. I'm not talking about becoming Christian. I'm just saying they changed due to bad science of evolution. Thus Sciencist Dissent List. This Dr. Jonathan Wells "Icons of Evolutions" exposing of the major tenets used to teach evolution are all fraud & not only that. There has been plenty of time to correct the textbooks but they won't due to the agenda

I find it incredibly sad that the scopes trial was to teach both. Not religion but the good & bad of each side. Let the students decide. Don't brainwash by one side teaching due to agenda. As my quotes show.

Common sense is shown that in a trial you get to see both sides. If you didn't get to see but one side then the decision would always be one way for the side presented.

Nowadays the advancement in science, which has really caused 1000+ to sign Scientist Dissent List plus to want both sides, ie problems with evolution shown & there are many.

Isn't it interesting that there are so many theories in evolution & offshoot theories. Plus every time another problem is exposed. Evolutions answer is just add more time. That's funny. As if time is a vehicle of evolutionary change. Time is nothing more than a measuring device.


Common sense shows us in every case that it takes Intelligence to have a Functional Design. It's not just appearance because it's FUNCTIONAL. Same with computer programming. DNA/RNA is still by far the most complex program that makes life work & man can't match it much less beat it.

Ironically it took lots of INTELLIGENCE to discover it. Yet evolution wants to sell me that a non functioning brain of nature did it.

Dawkins writes a book called The Blind. Watchmaker. Wow was that funny. It was so obvious what he avoided. See a blind man could in fact design a watch due to having a brain. He could conceptualize it & the pieces needed & how the pieces needed to fit together & work independently & cooperately together to make a watch that worked. What couldn't happen is a baby, mentally handicapped etc person that has no thinking, reasoning, conceptual etc ability. Dawkins intentionally avoids the obvious.

That's what Fred Hoyle recognizes & admits but you guys refuse to admit that common sense & use non sense & illogical
thinking to defend what can't be defended.

There is so much more. But until you're willing to even admit these are real issues & problems & even moreso actually read the studies & points on non evolutionist.

Until someone can scientifically show me how life comes from non life & computer program can write itself by itself much less show me the logic. I've yet to have an Engineer, even one with 2 Dr degrees explain or show me how Functional Design can occur by itself on its own w/o Intelligence. Then add Computer Programming which Engineer well aware of & used plus all that I know. Not one has even come close to being able to do so.

Go ahead & give your best shot.

May be awhile before I'm back. I'm in bad pain & have lots to do tomorrow which will put me in pain too. But I shall return & see if you can do academically with common sense & logic what my Engineer with 2 Dr degrees couldn't. I doubt it. You'll have to use Faith & Supernatural which evolution doesn't allow and common sense & logic sure doesn't allow it.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes if you look up laws of science you will see that biogenesis is proven because other than evolution using just so stories w/o actual science proven demonstration to prove otherwise. Life has never been proven to come from NON LIFE. Whether you admit it or not. Evolution depends on that occurring to be true. Why? In evolutions telling of Origins you start with Big Bang & inanimate objects. Then you get to chemicals in a primordial soup.

You keep making this false assertion and you will keep getting corrected on it. Evolutionary theory doesn’t not depend on any specific origin theory, for life in general and certainly not for the universe. It is perfectly possible to believe in a “supernatural” creator of the universe and/or life but that evolution then allowed It to develop.

Nobody has claimed biogenesis has been proven to have happened. It’s a viable hypothesis (several different ones in fact) based on known chemistry and evidence of the state of ancient Earth. Nobody claims to definitively know exactly how life came to exist outside the religious though.

Problem with evolution is you want to dictate everything on your terms & pick where you start to avoid problem you can't handle. Honest academic doesn't allow that.

Actually breaking down the big picture in to individual problems and addressing them on the basis of reasonable assumptions is exactly how academic science can and does work. There is no “theory of everything” so literally any in science you care to mention is based on some underlying element of assumption. There is absolutely nothing wrong with addressing the question of how life develops and changes over time without having the establish how it came to exist in the first place.

Yet even though you refuse to acknowledge the link. In HS & University textbooks I've bought & read. Teaching starts from Big Bang to primordial soup to life to life from evolution through stages to mankind. Plus Darwin's "Origins" which is the start of the playbook per se although I've already explained why it's a problem & evolutionist conveniently ignore. Same as the article I quoted validated.

Nobody is denying these theories and hypotheses are linked, each offering a most likely explanation of a step in a wider process. That doesn’t mean it is impossible or undesirable to sometimes consider each entirely independently, nor is it a valid reason to dismiss them all out of hand unless every single one of them is definitively proven.

Besides life coming from NON LIFE which isn't possible & can't nor hasn't been done in a lab.

Just because we’ve not been able to replicate something doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It clearly is possible for life to come to exist since it does exist. The only question is how that happened and we don’t know the answer to that. Proposing the existence of random magical beings doesn’t help in any way.

Until someone can scientifically show me how life comes from non life…

Bio-chemistry isn’t my field of expertise either but I gather the hypothesis of how it could happen are well developed, certainly a lot further than any “supernatural” alterative ever has been. I suspect it would require a lot of in-depth study and learning to properly understand though. There are lots of references to follow up here; Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes if you look up laws of science you will see that biogenesis is proven because other than evolution using just so stories w/o actual science proven demonstration to prove otherwise. Life has never been proven to come from NON LIFE. Whether you admit it or not. Evolution depends on that occurring to be true. Why? In evolutions telling of Origins you start with Big Bang & inanimate objects. Then you get to chemicals in a primordial soup.

This is false on multiple levels.

1) Every time a living thing reproduces, it produces life from non-life. Life from non-life is observed every time an organism becomes pregnant.

2) Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the big bang or abiogenesis. They are unrelated fields. Any one could be true or false and it would say absolutely nothing about the remaining two. In other words, even if you proved that the big bang and abiogenesis were false, it wouldn't mean that life doesn't evolve.

Problem with evolution is you want to dictate everything on your terms & pick where you start to avoid problem you can't handle. Honest academic doesn't allow that.

Then please explain what problems evolutionary theory can't handle.

Science laws work by establishing by lab experiments or other experiments that when done continually they always produce the exact same result. Science learns by observation of that constant repetiveness it can count on. Then it can call it a law & then even go to describing each phase, in the order they occur & describe in detail each phase or stage & in the exact order. I could list numerous ones on here & we would all agree they are correct. Photosynthesis & on & on.

You seem confused by what constitutes a scientific law. Things don't become "laws" just because they're repeatable. In science, a law is a description of a Universal constant that is so predictable that it can be written as a mathematical formula. For example, the law of gravity is a mathematical description of a Universal constant related to gravity, but the THEORY of gravity is the actual explanatory framework of how and why gravity works. In science, theory is as high as an explanatory framework can be.

Ironically what I find is evolution tries to start from primordial soup & go forward with evolution to mankind. Yet even though you refuse to acknowledge the link. In HS & University textbooks I've bought & read. Teaching starts from Big Bang to primordial soup to life to life from evolution through stages to mankind. Plus Darwin's "Origins" which is the start of the playbook per se although I've already explained why it's a problem & evolutionist conveniently ignore. Same as the article I quoted validated.

No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it is still a falsehood. It's not all that surprising that textbooks cover multiple theories, but that doesn't mean that the theories are mutually exclusive.

Despite the excruiting pain I find myself in tonight. After 21+ surgeries due to old football surgeries starting in 1970 & 3 non at fault car wrecks finally putting me on permanent disability & limits, esp due to pain magmt that I must endure daily. I read constantly & have a BS & 2 Masters all with academic honors. So despite the attacks on my knowledge & research work. I'm not uneducated nor uninformed as the 2 Dr man I worked out with clearly found out much to his surprise after his debate challenge.

I doubt you'll be able to convince people of your academic prowess if you continue to assert that evolutionary theory, big bang theory and abiogenesis are exclusively related. They are categorically not.

Besides life coming from NON LIFE which isn't possible & can't nor hasn't been done in a lab.

Ignoring the fact that life from non-life is literally how all living things reproduce, please demonstrate that it is impossible.

If it was possible & had been it would be all over the media & shown & done in labs in science classes everywhere. Evolution infers it by just so stories etc as I've said.

This is a fallacious argument. Just because something has yet to be done doesn't mean it is IMPOSSIBLE. That's something you have to demonstrate.

I'm curious have any of you ever actually read the counter points by scientist? I mean esp those that were as is only possible today. Taught to be evolutionist but later became non evolutionist. I'm not talking about becoming Christian. I'm just saying they changed due to bad science of evolution. Thus Sciencist Dissent List. This Dr. Jonathan Wells "Icons of Evolutions" exposing of the major tenets used to teach evolution are all fraud & not only that. There has been plenty of time to correct the textbooks but they won't due to the agenda

Would you care to give any examples?

I find it incredibly sad that the scopes trial was to teach both. Not religion but the good & bad of each side. Let the students decide. Don't brainwash by one side teaching due to agenda. As my quotes show.

This is dishonest. Creationism is not "one side" of biology any more than alchemy is "one side" of chemistry. The science concludes evolution, so evolution is taught as science. There is no need to teach any "alternative" because no such alternative has ever been able to become valid science.

Common sense is shown that in a trial you get to see both sides. If you didn't get to see but one side then the decision would always be one way for the side presented.

When it comes to science, it is the scientific method that determines which of two competing hypotheses are correct - and science has determined the truth of evolution, and has determined ID hasn't met its burden of proof. Both sides have already been judged, and one side won.

Nowadays the advancement in science, which has really caused 1000+ to sign Scientist Dissent List plus to want both sides, ie problems with evolution shown & there are many.

Which scientist dissent list?

Isn't it interesting that there are so many theories in evolution & offshoot theories.

Not really. It's how literally all scientific theories work.

Plus every time another problem is exposed. Evolutions answer is just add more time. That's funny. As if time is a vehicle of evolutionary change. Time is nothing more than a measuring device.

Again, please give an example.

Common sense shows us in every case that it takes Intelligence to have a Functional Design.

False. Nature is functional, and life doesn't have inherent design.

It's not just appearance because it's FUNCTIONAL.

Please demonstrate how you can quantify "function". A rock works wonderfully as a paperweight. Does that mean that's it's function?

Same with computer programming. DNA/RNA is still by far the most complex program that makes life work & man can't match it much less beat it.

Complexity is not an indicator of design.

Ironically it took lots of INTELLIGENCE to discover it. Yet evolution wants to sell me that a non functioning brain of nature did it.

DNA is an acid, acids occur in nature.

Dawkins writes a book called The Blind. Watchmaker. Wow was that funny. It was so obvious what he avoided. See a blind man could in fact design a watch due to having a brain. He could conceptualize it & the pieces needed & how the pieces needed to fit together & work independently & cooperately together to make a watch that worked. What couldn't happen is a baby, mentally handicapped etc person that has no thinking, reasoning, conceptual etc ability. Dawkins intentionally avoids the obvious.

Have you actually read The Blind Watchmaker? Do you actually understand what the actual arguments he makes about biology are?

Until someone can scientifically show me how life comes from non life & computer program can write itself by itself much less show me the logic. I've yet to have an Engineer, even one with 2 Dr degrees explain or show me how Functional Design can occur by itself on its own w/o Intelligence.

You've yet to see a tree? Or literally any living thing?