How do you detect "design"?

[McBell]

I guess first we'd have to define what crime is. Which brings me back to evolutionary theory. But then again--what do you think humans think the word crime means and how is it applied?

An action punishable by law.

No idea what evolution has to do with it.

an action punishable by law. you break a law (I.E. commit a crime) you get punished.

 

[YoursTrue]

An action punishable by law.

No idea what evolution has to do with it.

an action punishable by law. you break a law (I.E. commit a crime) you get punished.

Well would you say evolution has anything to do with conscience?

 

[McBell]

Well would you say evolution has anything to do with conscience?

I do say that I do not know enough about the evolution of the conscience to give you an honest meaningful answer to that question.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do say that I do not know enough about the evolution of the conscience to give you an honest meaningful answer to that question.

I honestly appreciate your honest answers (sometimes). Perhaps someone more educated in these matters on the board can offer their thoughts about this.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do say that I do not know enough about the evolution of the conscience to give you an honest meaningful answer to that question.

OK, perhaps @It Aint Necessarily So can offer an answer about the conscience and evolution. Or @shunyadragon .

 

[McBell]

I honestly appreciate your honest answers (sometimes).

is this saying you sometimes appreciate my honest answers or are you claiming I only sometimes give honest answers?

 

[YoursTrue]

is this saying you sometimes appreciate my honest answers or are you claiming I only sometimes give honest answers?

I like it when a person is upfront in terms of why, yes or no. I don't always understand everyone's answers and therefore when a person answers simply and directly as possible, I appreciate that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I guess first we'd have to define what crime is.

I'm going with violating the law.

what do you think humans think the word crime means

Also violating the law.

how is it applied?

When someone violates the law, we call it crime.

perhaps @It Aint Necessarily So can offer an answer about the conscience and evolution.

I believe that the conscience evolved naturalistically in man.

How am I doing keeping my answers short? Is this what you were looking for?

when a person answers simply and directly as possible, I appreciate that.

OK.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm going with violating the law.

Also violating the law.

Different areas have different laws, right? I just want to clarify.

 

[Copernicus]

I do not refer to Discovery Institute for answers. The situation, however, with DNA or RNA is that it is very complex and from what I have researched scientists really do not know how it all began.

When it comes to scientists, it is better to trust their research rather than yours.

 

[Pogo]

I do not refer to Discovery Institute for answers. The situation, however, with DNA or RNA is that it is very complex and from what I have researched scientists really do not know how it all began.

No you do not refer to the Discotute directly but neither do you refer to any sort of primary research. From our observation of the greater field, it is obvious that the sources you do reference are nothing more than recapitulations of creationist websites. While you may not know why ATP is suddenly a subject, all we have to do is go back to Creation.com or some other similar site to find that they have written about it recently (last year) and that we can expect numerous What-About questions that the asker's will have no knowledge of beyond that they have heard that this is "proof" of the falsity of evolution and thus God.

Bottom line, been there, done that, got the T-shirt, wore it out years ago.
At this point, some of the posters learned to recognize these arguments from their grandparents and the ATP article has already joined the list of laughably debunked.

You are being lied to, not about God, there are plenty of biologists who believe that God did it.

The liars are the ones who are telling you that evolution is false when even the majority of God believers understand that the reality is this is how your God did it.

Sorry if this is too long for your attention span, but you might want to think about that as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm going with violating the law.

Also violating the law.

When someone violates the law, we call it crime.

I believe that the conscience evolved naturalistically in man.

How am I doing keeping my answers short? Is this what you were looking for?

OK.

Very good in terms of keeping your answers short and simple to understand. So back to conscience. When you say you believe the conscience evolved naturalistically in man, do you mean in comparison to gorillas and chimpanzees? I mean how are you applying naturalistic evolution to this? Let me put it another way: microbiologic evolution usually (I am not sure what scientists think yet) entails mutation and "survival of the fittest." Would you agree? So in order for us to be on the same page, would you agree that humans evolved differently from the so-called common ancestor of gorillas, monkeys, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans, hoping you understand the question. To clarify, humans have set up court systems, lawyers, subpoenas and things like that while gorillas, etc. have not.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, perhaps @It Aint Necessarily So can offer an answer about the conscience and evolution. Or @shunyadragon .

First, All animals with a central nervous system experience consciousness to a degree. The more evolutionary advanced the more complex the consciousness.

Insects and Other Animals Have Consciousness, Experts Declare | Quanta Magazine

A group of prominent biologists and philosophers announced a new consensus: There’s “a realistic possibility” that insects, octopuses, crustaceans, fish and other overlooked animals experience consciousness.

www.quantamagazine.org

n 2022, researchers at the Bee Sensory and Behavioral Ecology Lab at Queen Mary University of London observed bumblebees doing something remarkable: The diminutive, fuzzy creatures were engaging in activity that could only be described as play. Given small wooden balls, the bees pushed them around and rotated them. The behavior had no obvious connection to mating or survival, nor was it rewarded by the scientists. It was, apparently, just for fun.

The study on playful bees is part of a body of research that a group of prominent scholars of animal minds cited today, buttressing a new declaration that extends scientific support for consciousness to a wider suite of animals than has been formally acknowledged before. For decades, there’s been a broad agreement among scientists that animals similar to us — the great apes, for example — have conscious experience, even if their consciousness differs from our own. In recent years, however, researchers have begun to acknowledge that consciousness may also be widespread among animals that are very different from us, including invertebrates with completely different and far simpler nervous systems.

The new declaration, signed by biologists and philosophers, formally embraces that view. It reads, in part: “The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects).” Inspired by recent research findings that describe complex cognitive behaviors in these and other animals, the document represents a new consensus and suggests that researchers may have overestimated the degree of neural complexity required for consciousness.

The four-paragraph New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness was unveiled today, April 19, at a one-day conference called “The Emerging Science of Animal Consciousness” being held at New York University. Spearheaded by the philosopher and cognitive scientist Kristin Andrews of York University in Ontario, the philosopher and environmental scientist Jeff Sebo of New York University, and the philosopher Jonathan Birch of the London School of Economics and Political Science, the declaration has so far been signed by 39 researchers, including the psychologists Nicola Clayton and Irene Pepperberg, the neuroscientists Anil Seth and Christof Koch, the zoologist Lars Chittka, and the philosophers David Chalmers and Peter Godfrey-Smith.

We have much more in common with other animals than we do with things like ChatGPT.

Anil Seth, University of Sussex
The declaration focuses on the most basic kind of consciousness, known as phenomenal consciousness. Roughly put, if a creature has phenomenal consciousness, then it is “like something” to be that creature — an idea enunciated by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in his influential 1974 essay, “What is it like to be a bat?” Even if a creature is very different from us, Nagel wrote, “fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism. … We may call this the subjective character of experience.” If a creature is phenomenally conscious, it has the capacity to experience feelings such as pain or pleasure or hunger, but not necessarily more complex mental states such as self-awareness.

“I hope the declaration [draws] greater attention to the issues of nonhuman consciousness, and to the ethical challenges that accompany the possibility of conscious experiences far beyond the human,” wrote Seth, a neuroscientist at the University of Sussex, in an email. “I hope it sparks discussion, informs policy and practice in animal welfare, and galvanizes an understanding and appreciation that we have much more in common with other animals than we do with things like ChatGPT.”

Continues in reference . . .

 

[Pogo]

Very good in terms of keeping your answers short and simple to understand. So back to conscience. When you say you believe the conscience evolved naturalistically in man, do you mean in comparison to gorillas and chimpanzees? I mean how are you applying naturalistic evolution to this? Let me put it another way: microbiologic evolution usually (I am not sure what scientists think yet) entails mutation and "survival of the fittest." Would you agree? So in order for us to be on the same page, would you agree that humans evolved differently from the so-called common ancestor of gorillas, monkeys, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans, hoping you understand the question. To clarify, humans have set up court systems, lawyers, subpoenas and things like that while gorillas, etc. have not.

We are all equally evolved, evolution does not have a goal but favors solutions to suit the local environment. Chimpanzees are way stronger than we are, Whales can hold their breath much longer than we can and so forth. That we have specific abilities is not about a goal.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not refer to Discovery Institute for answers. The situation, however, with DNA or RNA is that it is very complex and from what I have researched scientists really do not know how it all began.

This view requires a lack of research or knowledge in science, and conclusions based on your religious agenda.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Very good in terms of keeping your answers short and simple to understand.

Thank you. I'm glad I found a format that works for you.

So back to conscience. When you say you believe the conscience evolved naturalistically in man, do you mean in comparison to gorillas and chimpanzees? I mean how are you applying naturalistic evolution to this? Let me put it another way: microbiologic evolution usually (I am not sure what scientists think yet) entails mutation and "survival of the fittest." Would you agree? So in order for us to be on the same page, would you agree that humans evolved differently from the so-called common ancestor of gorillas, monkeys, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans, hoping you understand the question. To clarify, humans have set up court systems, lawyers, subpoenas and things like that while gorillas, etc. have not.

Unfortunately, none of that can be addressed properly except in paragraphs, so I'll have to decline answering with more than a yes.

 

[leroy]

How would you determine this 5th order (pentanary? condition?

no idea on what are you talking about

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's really just one of the 2 possibilities. Are you suggesting that there is only one possibility, that everything came about without a designer?

There is evidence that life got to its present state on its own. Believers in ID cannot even properly define their terminology much less find any evidence for their beliefs. That is why it is only pseudoscience at best. You still have not learned why the DI lost in the Dover Trial.

Science follows and can only follow some of the data and forms conclusions based on that limited data and based on the rules of science and what it is able to do and conclude.

Yes, we can never have all of the data. But it has to explain all of the existing data. That is infinitely better than an idea that is without any support at all.

One of the reason that people like Behe are properly called IDiots is that they know how to make a proper scientific hypothesis. They know how to form an idea so that it is testable. In fact when Behe first presented his idea he did so in a testable manner. Unfortunately for him it failed that test. So why don't these people that have the ability to put an idea into a scientific form do what they have the training to do?

Science does not assume supervision or design or creators or gods or pixies. These are things that science is not able to study. Some people seem to think that because they are not assumed, that means that science has shown that they do not exist.

No, that is inaccurate. The claims of IDiots such as Behe should be testable. You are implying something else now. You are implying that gods are very sneaky and try to hide their existence. How much sense does that make?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL It's a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's a comedy movie.

He seems to lack a sense of humor. That he did not recognize Monty Python is very telling.

 

[YoursTrue]

When it comes to scientists, it is better to trust their research rather than yours.

I'm going by what I see scientists say. Although I do believe God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Scientists don't know for sure how DNA or RNA came about. They think that it happened from a chaotic soup. Do you think that means they are sure that's how it happened?