• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

gnostic

The Lost One
It is possible everything comes from the "ground."

You have heard of reproduction?

Nothing come from the ground..not even plants. Plants come from either seeds or spores, not directly from the soil.

Humans, including animals come from reproduction, sexual or asexual...not from soil.

Soil are made mostly of inorganic matters, that weathered from igneous rocks.

And the weathering processes often reduced rocks into minerals, particularly silicon-based minerals, such as silicate (eg mica, hence clay soil, or feldspar, hence silt or clay soil) or silica (eg quartz, hence sand or silt soil). There might be other minerals that weathered from rocks, like calcite, aragonite, etc.

In the topsoil, the uppermost layer of soil, it is usually comprised of 45%-50% of silicates, with only 4%-5% organic matters (), while the rest are pores filled with air or water. Much of living organisms, that lived in this soil, are species of bacteria and species of archaea. Earthworms can lived only live in topsoil.

The soil below the topsoil, is called subsoil, which are more compact, so less pores in the soil, and there are even less organic matters in the subsoil. Below that is the soil base, with the bedrock below the soil base.

I may not be a farmer, but I did learn during my civil engineering days, in soil studies and geology.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You have heard of reproduction?

Nothing come from the ground..not even plants. Plants come from either seeds or spores, not directly from the soil.

Humans, including animals come from reproduction, sexual or asexual...not from soil.

Soil are made mostly of inorganic matters, that weathered from igneous rocks.

And the weathering processes often reduced rocks into minerals, particularly silicon-based minerals, such as silicate (eg mica, hence clay soil, or feldspar, hence silt or clay soil) or silica (eg quartz, hence sand or silt soil). There might be other minerals that weathered from rocks, like calcite, aragonite, etc.

In the topsoil, the uppermost layer of soil, it is usually comprised of 45%-50% of silicates, with only 4%-5% organic matters (), while the rest are pores filled with air or water. Much of living organisms, that lived in this soil, are species of bacteria and species of archaea. Earthworms can lived only live in topsoil.

The soil below the topsoil, is called subsoil, which are more compact, so less pores in the soil, and there are even less organic matters in the subsoil. Below that is the soil base, with the bedrock below the soil base.

I may not be a farmer, but I did learn during my civil engineering days, in soil studies and geology.
I was alluding to the very first cell.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
It's funny, this all started about 2 years ago on a thread about demons. I asked a simply question. How do you know that a person is possessed by a demon and not simply experiencing mental health issues? Instead of answering that question, these allegedly devout and spiritually superior people tried to turn it around and demanded know how I, as a Christian didn't believe in demons. I never said that. That doesn't seem to matter to them. I asked a question that they clearly couldn't be answer. After repeating my question several times and receiving the same types of non-responses, I gave up. But someone seems to have made it their mission in life to harass and persecute me at every opportunity apparently. Punishment for my honest question perhaps.

I have come to view it as an accolade of my success. I rather enjoy pointing that out on occasion. I find it pleasing.

I can't understand why it's thought by some to be a great mystery that must be questioned at every opportunity. You explained your beliefs to me not long after we met in a thread on this forum so it's no secret :shrug:
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Do you really think scientists will find the answer?

Why not?
Do you really think they won't? Why?

How can they possibly emulate the early beginnings of the earth?

In controlled conditions. :shrug:

Not saying they should halt. (I don't control scientists, I have my own problems.) But I wonder what might be a useful reason other than man's curiosity to think they could reproduce it.
To find answers to questions and thus expand knowledge. Expanding knowledge is always a good thing. And chances are that further down the line, we will find use for it some way or another.

You know, of every major invention of the last decades / centuries, people asked the same question of "what use is it?"

When they discovered electrons or quantum physics for example... "what use is it?".
Well, at the time of its discovery, nobody really had a good answer to that.

Today, it is literally the driver of computational devices, of the energy grid, the internet, satellites, etc.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Why not?
Do you really think they won't? Why?

Sure, science might someday learn the answers. It will be many centuries and with current "Evolution" it's more likely we'll be extinct within a century. There is a great deal of groundwork to be laid just to study the issue.

I'm guessing that if we ever find out the most likely means of how life arose it will be wholly natural but we will never know if come "Consciousness" guided or invented the process of providing inanimate chemicals and compounds with the consciousness that causes change in species.

It's a real wonder how nothing was or is known but every individual has every answer in advance because we all know what 'mustta been".
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Sure, science might someday learn the answers. It will be many centuries

Why do you think it will be "many centuries"?

and with current "Evolution" it's more likely we'll be extinct within a century.

What does that have to do with "current evolution"?


There is a great deal of groundwork to be laid just to study the issue.

I'ld say that a lot of that groundwork is already there and more is added every day.

I'm guessing that if we ever find out the most likely means of how life arose it will be wholly natural but we will never know if come "Consciousness" guided or invented the process of providing inanimate chemicals and compounds with the consciousness that causes change in species.

If the process works naturally, wouldn't it then be correct to say that some "guiding consciousness" is at least not necessary / obsolete.
Not sure what the point is of even mentioning it in that case.

It's like saying that if you win the lottery, we will never know if some "undetectable pixies" guided the balls to fall in the precise winning order you required them to be in order to win. And it's true, we would never know that and would have no ability to find out. But the real question is: why even suggest it?

It's a real wonder how nothing was or is known but every individual has every answer in advance because we all know what 'mustta been".
You mean like how you have the answer in advance of this obsolete mysterious undetectable "guiding consciousness"?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
If I were seriously interested in a greater understanding of consciousness and the study of it, I would see what has been done in the field and what is currently understood by reviewing the available literature to find out.

Introspection may help form questions, but I have doubts about the soundness of individual findings to wider application. Observation of others might also lead down the same path and subject to the same sort of bias. I see that too as a tool for raising questions to ask or seek answers for.

To me, some bloke (and I'm not referring to you, by the way) on this forum making claims about consciousness without any clear indication of expertise isn't providing or looking for answers, but they too could stimulate an interest to find what is known.

We have at our fingertips, access to information that has not been previously available to such a wide and diverse audience. Use that access. Learn the basics. Expand into more complex information and research as you learn. Perhaps start with review articles that seek to distill down what is known.

I don't see that happening much with the lay public that seems to go more with what they believe and much less with what is demonstrated knowledge.
I already, did what you suggested, when I first began to take an interest in consciousness, decades ago. I learned about brain anatomy and consciousness experimentation. However, I noticed there was a limit to what you can learn from the outside, in the third person; philosophy of science. I am now more of an expert of the inside data, which is why I am more of a writer than reader, now. I am an old guy with the creativity of a young man. This is an acquired skill learned from inside.

As a simple example of the difference of internal versus external data, is pain and medication for pain. Doctors and nurses still have to ask the patient, to tell them their pain level. Outside observation is not good enough, even for this simple consciousness task. The doctors do not wish to guess by trial and error, and will use the internal data from the patient, some of which can be a con job to get pain medicine. There is other stuff going on insider, that you cannot seen from the outside. A complete picture would need both. There were plenty of people working the outside angles,, but few using the inside approaches, and I saw a pioneer niche for myself.

My approach was to treat my consciousness as the subject of a study, while staying as objective, as possible, like a scientist. I was a trained applied scientist by profession; R&D Chemical Engineer. I tend to believe in human nature being common to all humans, so what I would learn, should be applicable for all, as long as I stay objective.

This research was done initially, by simply recording my dreams and trying to translate. Dreams are a natural output to consciousness and cannot be viewed from the outside. Each morning, as soon as I awoken, I would write down my dreams, in as much detail, as I could remember, while it was fresh. Throughout the day, when I had time, I would work the dream, analyzing symbols, observing how it makes me feel, and noting any active imagination triggered; parallel consciousness tracks. This was added to my consciousness analysis.

I was also looking for symbolism of the archetypes, which are the personality firmware common to all humans. The more I would record my dreams; over two years, and analyze them, the better became the dream experience. It was like I was doing justice to dreaming and was rewarded by my unconscious mind with dreams that become more collective human. I could at times even become fully conscious in my dreams and control the dream scape, which were dreams I did not wish to awaken from. I would see collective human symbolism that I never saw before but could find in research books of symbolism. I became an expert in collective human symbolism.

After about two years, I had isolated a wide range symbolism connected to all the key pieces of my brain's firmware, but this led to my mind becoming dissociated, from wading in the left brain weeds/detail for so long. I had been the scientist and the experiment, with the experiment starting to dissociate me to much, due to it always being on; day and night. This created an urge to re-integrate my consciousness, but how?

This procedure was explained to me, by my unconscious mind; inner self, in a dream/nightmare. In this dream, I saw a rotating ring of light and fire levitating in the air. Then I saw a man; prince, and woman; princess, jump into the ring of light and fire and merge. That was cool. But then I sensed a shadowy presence, who said to me in a booming voice, when you have entered the ring it shall be completed.

That request triggered shear panic in me, so I tried to wake myself from the dream, only to awaken and see the walls of my bedroom breathing and the shadowy presence about to enter my room. Part of me was trying to stay objective, to this unusual data, but another part of me was in shear panic. It was at that time, I remembered the power of prayer and said a few Our Fathers and few Hail Marys and my fear departed me and the shadowy presence, left. At that point in realize I had a shield; prayer, and sword; objectivity and was no longer afraid to proceed.

This ring symbolism amounted to the unconscious mind generating healing scenarios, that affected my mind and heart; man and woman merging with the ring. I would allow this to happen, and then I would consciously merge into the scenario. It was a puzzle to be solved, and if I did, I got a dose of endorphins for a reward, which gave me this timeless feeling. I could come down and another scenario would appear. Eventually the reward stopped and it was all work and no play.

An interesting synchronicity that occurred, the morning of the dream, was large colorful beetle landed over the front door of my apartment and stayed there for three days, until I recovered from the shattering effect on my mind and personality, caused by the dream. On the third day, I was feeling better and when I went outside, the beetle flapped his wings and flew away. In dream symbol he would a symbol of protection. The weird thing was the dream state was outside me, impacting reality. Once I understood the symbolism and synchronicity, I was no longer afraid. The shadowy presence was the fear of going insane. But I got past it and never saw its again.

In Alchemy symbolism, there is what was called the 1000-fold distillation. They appeared to have triggered the same unconscious effects, but not all made it out. The scenarios got harder and harder, was Amy as seven archetypes on at the same time. Eventually scenarios even occurred in my dreams. I had to endure and stay objective. After a few months I was back to normal; integrated, but exhausted; eternal vigilance was the price of liberty.

After resting a few weeks, I noticed that the reintegration process had created an interactive wiring to the inner self, which caused my creativity to become enhanced. I had gain more access to the main frame parts of the brain due to the ring of light and fire rewiring. This research is not easy to talk about, since, it is not common experience. I was able to go much farther than I had ever expected.

Th ring or light and fire would be only the beginning. Even more complex experiences were in my future; mystical psychosis that led to amnesia and an ego reboot, so my ego could be reformed from scratch. I am still a work in progress, but I like to report what I have learned, as well as my creative output from the inner self within science.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Why do you think it will be "many centuries"?

If you can't even define the defining characteristic of life are you to understand how it arose much less duplicate it?

What does that have to do with "current evolution"?

We are racing to make things ever worse. Our leaders now want to reward those who created or invented global warming by giving them money to make things worse and you see no problem?

We can't communicate so much that dueling lobbyists build skyscrapers in DC to bribe leaders to give them more money based on purchased science.

We reward greed and pay taxpayer money for babies that most people either can't afford or don't want.

The list is endless and starts with a failed educational system that most get nothing from except that science knows everything.

I'ld say that a lot of that groundwork is already there and more is added every day.

Then you're wrong.

There is no formatting for understanding consciousness and no experiment to prove gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. It could take decades to get to square one.

If the process works naturally, wouldn't it then be correct to say that some "guiding consciousness" is at least not necessary / obsolete.
Not sure what the point is of even mentioning it in that case.

You are simply assuming that the "laws" of reality are not predetermined. You are further assuming enough of these "laws" are known that the formatting of reality is known. Both of these beliefs are utterly baseless.

You mean like how you have the answer in advance of this obsolete mysterious undetectable "guiding consciousness"?

For all I know the "Guiding Consciousness" isn't even conscious in any way we could recognize even if we had a definition for "consciousness".

I'm just stymied by not knowing everything like many people.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
"Adaptation" involves very minor change that makes the difference between life and death for many individuals. moths will change their color very rapidly. It can not suddenly grow another set of wings or begin feeding wood by this means.
Ok. The change of colour can happen so rapidly because the variation was already present in the population.

The process of becoming a winged creature in the first place seems to have taken place many times and appears to have involved many small changes over a great number of generations each time.

Big differences in species are found at the beginnings of eras. Small changes are noted within eras.
Can you point me toward what you mean by this?

I agree that it could happen. But I believe this is the exception to the rule. Rather than species calving off new species what we see is one species ending and a different beginning. I believe this is caused by something that kills almost every individual leaving only a few that are very different and survived BECAUSE of this difference. These different individuals create a new species in a few generations
I see. You're perfectly entitled to your views, but I'd be lying if I said I could understand where you're coming from on this. As far as I can tell most population bottlenecks don't produce new species.

They don't all do it at once and similar creatures, as you said, are spread far and wide. Where are the whales that didn't move into the water? How did they all die out at once?
Why did they all have to die out at once?

Species can evolve just as Darwin imagined it. But, I believe that this is not at all common in speciation because forces are keeping the species the same to best utilize its niche which changes only in a random walk. Certainly this random walk has cycles and changes but species tend to quickly adapt to changes. This is another of Darwin's assumptions that is problematical; that populations tend to be stable. It is the instability that creates the diversity that allows adaptation and speciation. You could probably create a computer program to model the evolution of whales. But it would be chock full of unnatural forces and conditions that mandate the evolution. It's surprising someone hasn't done it already to prove survival of the fittest not only works but has been proven as settled science.
Darwin seemed to have been pretty clear that populations were inherently variable, rather than stable.

You've mentioned random walks a couple of times now, and maybe there is a connection there that might help us. Environments might change in a random(ish) walk like you say.

Species could also be viewed as moving through a space; one of genetic combinations.

The changes required to get from the first whales (land dwelling furry things) to modern whales require a large difference in genetics. Every generation the dice are rolled and you get a bunch of individuals with slight variations on a common theme. If mathematics is your thing you could think of the genetics of these individuals as vectors in a massive dimensional space and the common theme as a kind of average or centre of mass.
Individual members of successive generations move through the genetic space from the space where the genetics produces land-dwelling furry bodies to a places where the genetics produces water borne hairless bodies.

Do you follow me so far?

Modern science is far more experiment and fact based than Darwin. I can't really understand why Darwin and survival of the fittest are still taught and still held as being real. It might largely be inertia.
Natural selection is the feature of biological evolution that is easiest to understand and probably the most effective. In your example of a species beginning as another ends, due to some important difference in individuals you were describing natural selection.

So where on the continuum of evolution did consciousness arise?
Maybe it was always there in small amounts.
 

Dan From Smithville

These are not the droids you're looking for. O-WK
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't understand why it's thought by some to be a great mystery that must be questioned at every opportunity. You explained your beliefs to me not long after we met in a thread on this forum so it's no secret :shrug:
I think you found the answer in that website you found. It promotes a bunch of nonsense as science using logical fallacies. It's no wonder that we see this sort of thing repeated here. It seems they are not fond or fair with Christians that accept science and don't get in lockstep with the ideology as they see it should be.

Education makes a big difference.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Why not?
Do you really think they won't? Why?



In controlled conditions. :shrug:


To find answers to questions and thus expand knowledge. Expanding knowledge is always a good thing. And chances are that further down the line, we will find use for it some way or another.

You know, of every major invention of the last decades / centuries, people asked the same question of "what use is it?"

When they discovered electrons or quantum physics for example... "what use is it?".
Well, at the time of its discovery, nobody really had a good answer to that.

Today, it is literally the driver of computational devices, of the energy grid, the internet, satellites, etc.
From what I understand scientists do not really know for sure what the early conditions were just before the first life began on earth.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

Dimi95

Χριστός ἀνέστη
It's funny, this all started about 2 years ago on a thread about demons. I asked a simple question. How do you know that a person is possessed by a demon and not simply experiencing mental health issues? Instead of answering that question, these allegedly devout and spiritually superior people tried to turn it around and demanded to know how I, as a Christian, didn't believe in demons. I never said that. That doesn't seem to matter to them. I asked a question that they clearly couldn't be answered. After repeating my question several times and receiving the same types of non-responses, I gave up. But someone seems to have made it their mission in life to harass and persecute me at every opportunity apparently. Punishment for my honest question perhaps.

I have come to view it as an accolade of my success. I rather enjoy pointing that out on occasion. I find it pleasing.
Can i say something ?

We should not belive in demons , demons can just mean 'evil' spirit , which means just 'evil' energy or 'evil' thought

We are taught to belive the good , not the bad.

It's the same for hell.

There is no official doctrine about this things for 2000 years(well not that i know of) , people just invent them and use them as they fit into their understanding.

"Bishop Innocent was visiting his brother Stephen in the village of Lesnov, and after lunch one day a certain Deacon Nicholas asked why, if God was infinitely merciful, he would deprive anyone of his heavenly kingdom. Bishop Innocent asked in return why the deacon kept twisting his head from side to side. "Because the sun keeps hitting me right in the eye and just won't leave me in peace", the deacon replied. "There, you've just answered your own question," the bishop laughed. "God doesn't deprive of his heavenly kingdom sinners who don't repent. They themselves simply can't bear its light - any more than you can bear the light of the sun."

So Hell might be also eternity spent within the Light which exudes from God.

Don't bother with these things.

They don't understand that your beliefs are your own personal thing , and your relationship with the divine its just your own and nobody elses.

It's not a matter of questioning , it's a matter of privacy.

Let me give you an example:
I was asked , do you belive in the Judgment Day.
I said yes,but not as you do.

I don't belive that it will be some form of rally where we will all stand in line and wait for our turn.
I belive that each of us will have his Judgment day , and that ofc is the day when our soul leaves this body.
And then this is what i was answeres 'Ok , but Christ is comming again , don't you know that he is comming again to Judge'?
And i just said:
"Look i don't know what you are being taught of , but i will tell you what i have learned by studying it as a whole.
Christ is not comming back , Christ is here within us, every day in his teachings that we want to pass to others as a living tradition.
He came once as a man , then he came back ressurected.
He is not comming back , have you not read that in the Gospels?
"
His face went red and he run away...

That's what people do , they find ones that maybe know only what is neccessary to them in religious sense , and they abuse that to spread awful agendas.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The article from University of Chicago is about what was early Earth environment. Scientists really cannot say. The origin of life on Earth, explained.
Which is why with the Miller-Urey experiment they reran it and reran it with various different models of the early Earth atmosphere. They kept getting positive results. Meanwhile many abiogenesis hypotheses are done in known environments. For example deep sea environments at hot spots would be almost the same today as they were back then. The surface environment may have varied a bit, but that does not mean that all environments were different.
 
Top