Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[Subduction Zone]

So, an Infrared light District.

Whew! I asked a question, but it may have been missed. I thought that binary systems could not have had planets, but that does not seem to be the case. The good news is that I was wrong. Binary systems have been observed to have planets. The interstellar search for green "strange" continues.

Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia

Remembering the Green Girl from Star Trek - TGDaily

 

[Valjean]

Well... "always" has to do with perception, as does "mechanism".
Our father is in heaven. Perception appears to be rather individual though. I do wish I understood the nature of "individual".

So all the life forms were poofed into existence at one time, and most of them subsequently killed off?

Have you ever noticed how most scientific evidence seems to be begging the question?

I have not. How so?

 

[Milton Platt]

.

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIRST CAUSE

IT . . . DOESN'T . . . CARE!

​

The science of biological evolution only concerns itself with change. How an organism changes from one form into another, whether the change is large or small.

" Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
Source: Wikipedia

​

Note, there is no mention of first cause, be it the hand of a god, abiogenesis, panspermia, chance, or Santa's elves. So, if you want to appear at least moderately well informed don't bringing it up and waste anyone's time.

.

.

6
You have been incredibly patient and long-suffering with this topic......I salute you!!!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not the kind of function I am talking about. Specific, sophisticated, and efficient function is the kind I am talking about.

Paperweights are specific, sophisticated and efficient.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I do infer that intelligence is responsible for intelligence,

That ends up in an infinite regression, which makes no sense.

and to me no one has ever successfully refuted that.

Your statement isn't accurate or valid, just because it can't be refuted. Eventhough it seems to me that I just did exactly that, by pointing out the inevitable infinite regression your statements ends up in, when looking for the origins of intelligence...

You actually need to demonstrate / support your statement. Can you?

And it is far more plausible than that we occured mindlessly.

An infinite regression is not at all more "plausible" then a gradual increase of intelligent capacity of a species through demonstrably evolutionary processes.

On the one hand, we have an infinite regression.
On the other hand, we have a viable, sufficient and demonstrable process of biological development.

It doesn't take an Einstein to see which of these two is "more plausible".

I don't even question it anymore.

Maybe you should.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Novelty that functions efficiently is evidence enough for me. The body isn't a senseless instrument, it serves its purposes. Everything functions for a reason. It's far from perfect intelligence though.

The body functions like it has evolved to function.

No intelligence required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree. They will have a bias to explain away the intelligence of an ingenious, intelligent instrument.

What biologist book do you recommend though?

The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins is a great book for people who aren't all that knowledgeable on biology and the evidence for evolution. It is actually written with a creationistic audience in mind, to educate them and make clear the solidness of the evidence for the theory.

I am positive that they will try to explain away the simple evidence with an elaborate narrative.

1. survive
2. reproduce and pass on genes to off spring with some modification
3. repeat


Doesn't seem that elaborate to me.

Using gradualism over extremely long periods of time to make it seem like nothing goal oriented happened.

Evolution is pretty goal oriented.
The goals being:
- survive in whatever environment you find yourself in
- outperform the competition
- pass on your genes to the next generation.

The simple fact is that the body is well organized for functioning in its environment.

Because it evolved for functioning in its environment.
It's literally what the evolutionary process does. It optimizes species to be succesfull in surviving and reproducing in a given environment.

It's not surprising that we find ourselves on a planet on which we can survive.
The earth wasn't made for us. Instead, we evolved to fit the earth.

Memory is a tool, and everything the body does is a tool.

Whatever you wish to call it.
Doesn't have any impact on how it body developed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You would have to show that the complexity in nature does not function, does not operate and can't achieve any goals.

No clue what this is supposed to mean.
You're invoking "complexity" as if it is an entity that "does" things. Which is, off course, ridiculous.
Complexity is just a (subjective) description of something. It doesn't "do" anything. It's not a noun. It's an adjective. It's a word used to describe something concerning an actual entity or system.

If I am wrong you have won a lot of lotteries in a long succession of sequences without fail

How would that prove or disprove that "intelligence comes from intelligence"?
How is it even related?

And there would be no function, nor any efficiency nor sophistication.

Why? Because you say so? Which part of your bare statement predicts this, why and how?

Mutations would only be senseless with no functional success rate. And successes would not be able to build off of prior successes.

Why? Because you say so? Which part of your bare statement predicts this, why and how?

​

The intelligence is experimental, and adaptive. There will be nothing ideal nor perfect about what it makes. So the fail rate at functionality would have to squarely land at 0 percent functionality.

Why? Because you say so? Which part of your bare statement predicts this, why and how?​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no burden of proof. It's self evident. Nor do I desire someone's homework on the matter.

Ha....

It doesn't seem to be "self evident" for just about any working scientist.
And also, even "self-evident" positive claims, have a burden of proof.

In fact, if it's so "self evident" you should have no problem pointing out the extremely solid, obvious and independent verifiable evidence that makes it "self evident".

 

[Skwim]

6
You have been incredibly patient and long-suffering with this topic......I salute you!!!

I've read just about all of it before. So

.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you probably have no test to falsify intelligence in nature?

We'ld first require a falsifiable hypothesis for "intelligence in nature" before we can come up with a test to falsify it.

In fact, that's exactly what @Subduction Zone asked you: a falsifiable hypothesis and a test which could falsify or confirm it.

You're asking him to do your homework again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you are saying that you do not know, and as of yet have no rational basis to believe in such a thing as intelligence in nature. You are not even claiming there is no intelligence. Therefore you don't have a burden of proof either way.

Correct.

Have you not observed your own bodily presence? Isn't that test enough for anyone.

In order for our "bodily presence" to be evidence, you'ld have to have a testable hypothesis and show how our "bodily presence" matches the predictions of such exclusively.

As it stands, our "bodily presence" is sufficiently explained by the natural process of evolution.
I know of no other hypothesis or theory that can match, let alone surpass, the explanatory power of evolution.

You are trying to claim that there is such a model. But you seem completely unwilling to share this model. You haven't gotten any further then merely and baselessly asserting such a model exists.

At the very least the human body would compel me to seek out an intelligence in nature if I were in that field.

Then it's quite curious that just about all people that actually ARE in that field, seem to think otherwise.

You simply reject my evidence!

Nobody rejected anything, because you didn't share anything ...

Because you are unable. Incredulity perhaps.

Classic case of projection, because your entire argument seems to be nothing but incredulity:
"I can't imagine / understand how it's possible without intelligence, so I'll believe it's because of intelligence".

I really have no idea what would satisfy a naturalist on the matter.

"naturalist"?

All we ask is for you to demonstrate your claims. You seem to expect us to "just believe" you.
If you can demonstrate your claims, we'll happily accept them. Natural or otherwise. It doesn't actually matter to us. Well, to me anyway -can't speak for others, but I'm pretty positive they'll agree.

Probably nothing! I would probably have to discover a factory and an agent to convince a naturalist.

Well, you sure are going to have to come up with something a little more convincing then "it's obvious!"

As for those endless processes without intelligence, that is an assumption you make.

No. There is no intelligent ingredient found in the process of evolution for example. It's just physics and chemistry.

Your claim is I don't know with a large dose of not likely.

We are discussing YOUR claim here, remember?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok




ok so where it the evidence for that?, can you show a single peer reviewd article that concludes that the statement is true beyond reasonable doubt?

There are +300.000 peer reviewed papers on the topic of evolution, each disclosing plenty of evidence.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry I missed this post yesterday.

ok so where it the evidence for that?

In small part:

can you show a single peer reviewd article that concludes that the statement is true beyond reasonable doubt?

Nope. Does that mean that taken together many peer reviewed articles don't? Nope.

.

 

[leroy]

This is a rather strange question. With millions of pieces of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and none supporting other beliefs one needs to ask why would anyone accept anything else?

The fact that none of you can show a single PR article that shows/conclude that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt, shows that evolution is still a controvertial idea

To say that there is no evidence supporting other beliefs is simply wrong...... Alternative models are discussed all the time in PR literature

 

[leroy]

Sorry I missed this post yesterday.



In small part:

Nope. Does that mean that taken together many peer reviewed articles don't? Nope.

.

OK so what is the evidence that shows that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The fact that none of you can show a single PR article that shows/conclude that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt, shows that evolution is still a controvertial idea

Are you serious?

Evolution is the most widely accepted theory in modern science. Asking this is like asking for PR article that shows/concludes that gravity is true beyond reasonable doubt.

To say that there is no evidence supporting other beliefs is simply wrong...... Alternative models are discussed all the time in PR literature

Such as...?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK so what is the evidence that shows that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt?

We've directly observed it. Multiple times.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR

 

[leroy]

We've directly observed it. Multiple times.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR

In the context of this thread every time I use the term evolution I mean what was defined as evolution in the first post of this thread. (Unless I clarify otherwise)

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules

The articles that you provided show at most that the process of random mutations and natural selection is responsible for some of the diversity that we observe, but none of then show that this process is responsible for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe.

Which is not a big deal, even the most extremist irrational and fanatic YEC accept that this process is responsible for some of the diversity of life

Where is the evidence that shows that the process of random mutations and natural selection are responsible for all (or most) of the diversity of life ?

 

[leroy]

Are you serious?

Evolution is the most widely accepted theory in modern science. Asking this is like asking for PR article that shows/concludes that gravity is true beyond reasonable doubt.


Such as...?

Evolution as defined in the first post of this thread is controversial, while it is true that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for some of the diversity of life, scientist debate on whether if there are other relevant mechanisms, and some even suggest that other mechanisms are more relevant. _(for example James Shapiro would argue that natural genetic engineering is the main driving force) and his work has been published in PR articles

all I am saying is that there is controversy in the scientific community,

Perhaps Neo-Darwinists are correct, perhaps shapiro is correct, perhaps some other model is correct. To suggests that there is no controversy is just “ Propaganda from atheists youtubers ” that is not supported by scientists, (not even Richard Dawkins would deny that such controversy excists.)