Intelligent design, my version.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why are there so many varieties of plants? Well the theory of evolution explains that very well. Small variations acted upon by environmental feedback over 3.7 billion years or so would be expected to produce a vast diversity.

I don't know about "very well". Certainly it explains it and certainly it explains it better than any god in the gaps argument. But "vast diversity" means "vastly unfit for most environments" whereas most of the oldest species and the simplest species are the most abundant and from an evolutionary standpoint the "fittest". Variation is only explained well once it is assumed. Not that this lends any credence to any anti-evolutionary argument, simply something I have been working on as long as I have fitness functions (mostly as a curiosity).

 

[FearGod]

What of variations and mutations that affect the aforementioned?

Not all males have the same disposition nor the physiology, not to mention females as well that affect compatibility for procreation.

One would think if such was by a universal design, than it would follow a set unwavering pattern by which its designed for and remain so.

While I wouldn't refer to everything as being an accident per say in light that collective cells are pretty capable within their respective functions in development of complex organisms, still one cannot take it as design through a controlling divinity as it cannot be regarded as being accident proof.

Sometimes such accidents (hence mutations) benefit and sometimes not, pointing out that a random nature is actually at play as opposed to a controlled deliberate creation through design, by which accidents don't or shouldn't happen I would think.

What prevents bad mutations of happening every second to eliminate life on earth.
Is it due to luck ?

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know about "very well". Certainly it explains it and certainly it explains it better than any god in the gaps argument. But "vast diversity" means "vastly unfit for most environments"

I think that you must have either misread my post, or the science here. This vast diversity of plants fits perfectly into an equally diverse suite of environmental niches. Sure - unfit for most environments, as a whale is unfit for an arboreal existence for example - but well fit for their own niche.

whereas most of the oldest species and the simplest species are the most abundant and from an evolutionary standpoint the "fittest".

Sure, bacteria are the most sucessful organisms on earth, but what is the problem there? How is that an issue?

Variation is only explained well once it is assumed.

Varuation is observed, not assumed. It is what is observed. The theory is derived from the observations, as opposed to ID in which the explanation predates the observations.

Not that this lends any credence to any anti-evolutionary argument, simply something I have been working on as long as I have fitness functions (mostly as a curiosity).

Can you expand on that idea?

 

[Bunyip]

What prevents bad mutations of happening every second to eliminate life on earth.
Is it due to luck ?

Well a mutation that kills the organism is not likely to be passed on to descendants is it?

 

[FearGod]

Monkeys think better than us in some ways, pattern recognition and social perception for example. We are better than them at some things - but sure, it is due to the influence of environmental feedback acting upon small variations over time.

I have made it very clear that evolution works by environmental feedback acting upon small variations (mutation) over time, but you keep reducing that to just 'random mutations' and drop the important ENVIRONMENTAL FEEDBACK part, please stop doing that - it smacks of dishonesty.

Can a monkey read a book ?

How the environmental feedback has its effect in our ability to think & speak better than other animals ?

 

[Bunyip]

Can a monkey read a book ?

Well human monkeys can, we are still primates ,monkeys, apes etc. Many humans can not read books, many have been taught to do so. Other primates can read, chimps, gorillas etc can be taught to read. One gorilla was taught some 2000 words of sign language, a feat that I doubt I could equal.

How the environmental feedback has its effect in our ability to think & speak better than other animals ?

Can you rephrase that question please?

 

[FearGod]

Well a mutation that kills the organism is not likely to be passed on to descendants is it?

Thats my question!
Is it due to luck that such mutations didn't happen and end life on earth.

 

[Bunyip]

Thats my question!
Is it due to luck that such mutations didn't happen and end life on earth.

What has luck got to do with it? Why do you keep going back to luck? Did you miss the bit about feedback again, even though I keep reinforcing it? Are you going to keep just going back to luck and ignoring the rest no matter what I say anyway? If so - please just say so, so that I don't waste my time trying to talk to you.

 

[FearGod]

Well human monkeys can, we are still primates ,monkeys, apes etc. Many humans can not read books, many have been taught to do so. Other primates can read, chimps, gorillas etc can be taught to read. One gorilla was taught some 2000 words of sign language, a feat that I doubt I could equal.

Can you rephrase that question please?

Couldn't make it simpler than this.

How the environmental feedback made us better than other animals ?

 

[Bunyip]

Couldn't make it simpler than this.

How the environmental feedback made us better than other animals ?

It didn't. We are not better than animals. Eagles have better eyes, fish can swim faster, elephants are stronger, bonobos more peaceful, bacteria more populous. We are different from other animals, but not 'better', not more evolved.
We are primates with delusions of grandeur.

 

[FearGod]

What has luck got to do with it? Why do you keep going back to luck? Did you miss the bit about feedback again, even though I keep reinforcing it? Are you going to keep just going back to luck and ignoring the rest no matter what I say anyway? If so - please just say so, so that I don't waste my time trying to talk to you.

You believe that the environmental feedback isn't designed by a designer, so do you have other alternatives than luck.

 

[FearGod]

It didn't. We are not better than animals. Eagles have better eyes, fish can swim faster, elephants are stronger, bonobos more peaceful, bacteria more populous. We are different from other animals, but not 'better', not more evolved.
We are primates with delusions of grandeur.

I'm speaking about the ability to speak and think better than other animals.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think that you must have either misread my post, or the science here. This vast diversity of plants fits perfectly into an equally diverse suite of environmental niches.

This assumes that varying environments requires varying the fitness function. The most abundant species are those that are the oldest (i.e., they haven't varied) and comparatively simple. Darwin originally imagined some "microbial soup" whence life arose, which we now know is wrong (but as the guy was writing over a century ago I think we can forgive him). However, once life did arise it seems to have arisen in a form not unlike this "soup" and not unlike that which exist today all over the earth as it has in all kinds of environments over millions upon millions of years while 99% of species die out. Take, for example, Deinococcus radiodurans. Like so many of the Early-Mid Archean organisms it is highly resistant to just about everything and can survive just about anywhere. That's the norm for much of early life: general resistance to extremes, not variability. Evolutionary processes have ensured the death of most species, yet those that were around at the beginning and those like them remain and are the most abundant. I find that curious. Nothing more. Just curious.

 

[Bunyip]

You believe that the environmental feedback isn't designed by a designer, so do you have other alternatives than luck.

Why would a environmental feedback need a designer?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm speaking about the ability to speak and think better than other animals.

Yes i know. Why do eagles see better than humans?

 

[Bunyip]

This assumes that varying environments requires varying the fitness function.

What do you mean?

The most abundant species are those that are the oldest (i.e., they haven't varied)

Sure they have varied, they are incredibly diverse.

and comparatively simple. Darwin originally imagined some "microbial soup" whence life arose, which we now know is wrong (but as the guy was writing over a century ago I think we can forgive him).

Darwin never actually published on the origins of life, just the origins of species (evolution, not abiogensis). He did refer to the origins of life in private correspondance. Nor has the primordial soup notion been disproven, it is just an archaic term.

However, once life did arise it seems to have arisen in a form not unlike this "soup" and not unlike that which exist today all over the earth as it has in all kinds of environments over millions upon millions of years while 99% of species die out. Take, for example, Deinococcus radiodurans. Like so many of the Early-Mid Archean organisms it is highly resistant to just about everything and can survive just about anywhere. That's the norm for much of early life: general resistance to extremes, not variability. Evolutionary processes have ensured the death of most species, yet those that were around at the beginning and those like them remain and are the most abundant. I find that curious. Nothing more. Just curious.

Extremophiles were a focus of several units I did some years ago - sure, they persist, but are diversifying all the time. The abundant extremophiles and archaea are still evolving and diversifying - into all life on earth. I am not sure what it is you find problematic about the survival of mm simple primitive organisms into the present day in terms of our understanding of evolution.

 

[FearGod]

Yes i know. Why do eagles see better than humans?

Because it's designed to be so.

 

[Bunyip]

Because it's designed to be so.

Other than your faith, what makes you think so?

 

[FearGod]

Why would a environmental feedback need a designer?

And why it doesn't need a designer ?

 

[FearGod]

Other than your faith, what makes you think so?

Not my faith but the mind that i posses.