Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[Robert.Evans]

My mistake. I just love Churchill (and England to tell you the truth ... but not as much as the USA!!!). In regards to England, you are still incorrect. Brittain did declare war on Germany, but Germany certainly "started the war," as it was already under way before Brittain "declared" it. Brittain joined the war officially, but Germany had already invaded Poland and had begun to invade France.

But they had not invaded England nor declared war on it. That is what Churchill did, as far as I know. The fact it had started somewhere else has nothing to do withit.

 

[leibowde84]

....and they apparently run big companies.

But my point is that it stills acts like an artificial intelligence; it is part of what is needed. You don't agree?

Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but I don't think that intelligence is necessary to drive evolution. It seems to be what happens naturally when you have life + will to survive/procreate + billions of years. What aspect of it do you think requires intelligent design?

 

[bmk2416]

For the record I'm not going to be able to reply for a couple hours after this (I will probably get lost in the pace of the thread)

 

[Robert.Evans]

Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but I don't think that intelligence is necessary to drive evolution. It seems to be what happens naturally when you have life + will to survive/procreate + billions of years. What aspect of it do you think requires intelligent design?

I see it a little like a car with no driver. It needs a driver. I wonder what drives it? And it is interesting that you used that word ''natural'' which everyone seems to use almost like saying ''divine'' or ''God did it''. I wonder what you mean by it? If there was no G-d, then what would ''natural'' be? Everything ultimately would be ''natural'' so the word would lose all meaning. If you think there is a God, then how is this ''natural'' separate to him? If it is not, then he might also be ''natural'', so what then does that mean?

 

[leibowde84]

Sure, (this wont be all the evidence but it the general road map)

First, the universe had a beginning, it seems to me more likely that something created something out of nothing as opposed to nothing created something out of nothing,

In order for a universe with time space and matter to be created it has to have been created by something that transcends time space and matter

Second we have morals and consciousness which no other creature on the planet has,

Third the fine tuning of the Universe seems to suggest that we couldn't exist unless countless variables lined up in the exact way that they are now.

Fourth the complexity of DNA which in much the same right if it were off would change everything

Fifth Jesus existed and is still without a doubt the most influential figure in the history of the world

All this points to an all powerful, moral, personal God, and then on top of that and the personal truths from the Bible for which I can never convey evidence to you of

Again all are up for debate but none are facts provide beyond a reasonable doubt, to me the most logical conclusion is a God.

Why do you think that the Universe had to have a beginning? There is a very popular theory now that the universe is merely in an eternal cycle of expanding and contracting into a singularity. It has certainly not been proven that the universe has to have had a beginning in the way we think about it.

This just isn't true. What about coco the monkey? She cried when she learned that her dead cat died. What about dolphins that are known to save humans from shark attacks? What about that cat that saved the child from a rabid dog? I'm not even sure where you get the idea that no other animals have consciousness, but it seems clear that we are not the only animals with morality.

Your third example is my favorite. It collapses on its own. Why did everything line up so perfectly so that we could come about? Because we wouldn't be here to consider the question unless it did. It is amazing, spectacular, and interesting, but there are tons of things like this that occur in nature on their own. This is not a valid reason to assume that God had to be involved.

Rationally, I don't think jumping to a supernatural conclusion is warranted yet.

 

[leibowde84]

I see it a little like a car with no driver. It needs a driver. I wonder what drives it? And it is interesting that you used that word ''natural'' which everyone seems to use almost like saying ''divine'' or ''God did it''. I wonder what you mean by it? If there was no G-d, then what would ''natural'' be? Everything ultimately would be ''natural'' so the word would lose all meaning. If you think there is a God, then how is this ''natural'' separate to him? If it is not, then he might also be ''natural'', so what then does that mean?

Natural refers to everything that is not "supernatural." Anything that is not natural (or "supernatural"), is, by definition, theoretical, and has not been actualized. So, the meaning is not lost.

 

[leibowde84]

But they had not invaded England nor declared war on it. That is what Churchill did, as far as I know. The fact it had started somewhere else has nothing to do withit.

I am merely saying that he did not "start a war" (WWII in this instance). Sure, he might have brought England into the war (which was what made him such a tremendously great man, might I add), he certainly did not "start" any war.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree, but that means that the theistic theory holds just as much weight if neither can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

That is not true, as evidence can be shown to make something more or less probable. Observation and experimentation makes scientific theories much more plausible or probable than mere theories.

 

[Kirran]

I see it a little like a car with no driver. It needs a driver. I wonder what drives it?

Well, in the ToE, a driver is unnecessary. It's a false analogy, because a car continues in a set direction, and if it veers off course it crashes. Evolution doesn't have a course, it's just a continuing set of chance events and selection based on them, resulting in continuing diversification and specialisation.

 

[bmk2416]

OK last one then I really have to go

Why do you think that the Universe had to have a beginning? There is a very popular theory now that the universe is merely in an eternal cycle of expanding and contracting into a singularity. It has certainly not been proven that the universe has to have had a beginning in the way we think about it.

It also hasn't been proven that it didn't have a beginning and there's more evidence that it did. Therefore back to my beginning point you put out theories and I put out theories, doesn't mean that yours are more valid than mine

This just isn't true. What about coco the monkey? She cried when she learned that her dead cat died. What about dolphins that are known to save humans from shark attacks? What about that cat that saved the child from a rabid dog? I'm not even sure where you get the idea that no other animals have consciousness, but it seems clear that we are not the only animals with morality.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear, higher logic, as in they don't create scientific theories or mathematical formulas. Or to be able to discuss moral ideas, not just feel emotions or be instinctual

Your third example is my favorite. It collapses on its own. Why did everything line up so perfectly so that we could come about? Because we wouldn't be here to consider the question unless it did. It is amazing, spectacular, and interesting, but there are tons of things like this that occur in nature on their own. This is not a valid reason to assume that God had to be involved.

Rationally, I don't think jumping to a supernatural conclusion is warranted yet.

I never said in and of itself it was a valid reason that God had to be involved. In conjunction it is, and I disagree that it collapses on it's own, the fact that were here to ponder it can also mean that a creator put us here to ponder it your position is by no means solid.

Rationally I don't think jumping to the conclusion that it came from natural processes is warranted any more than theistic.

Again it is theory vs theory or guess vs guess more precisely, and It is my personal belief that the ultimate proof comes from personal experience and biblical truth, but logical gets you to that point.

The metaphysical questions can be debated all day but truth is no one was there to experience it.

 

[bmk2416]

That is not true, as evidence can be shown to make something more or less probable. Observation and experimentation makes scientific theories much more plausible or probable than mere theories.

As for things such as the beginning of the Universe etc you have neither observation nor experimentation

 

[leibowde84]

As for things such as the beginning of the Universe etc you have neither observation nor experimentation

Exactly. Even the theory that astonomers could see the remninces of the Big Bang through radiation and audible static has been shown to be unreliable. Thus, we are left with the reasonable position that we just don't know yet.

 

[leibowde84]

OK last one then I really have to go



It also hasn't been proven that it didn't have a beginning and there's more evidence that it did. Therefore back to my beginning point you put out theories and I put out theories, doesn't mean that yours are more valid than mine



Sorry if I didn't make that clear, higher logic, as in they don't create scientific theories or mathematical formulas. Or to be able to discuss moral ideas, not just feel emotions or be instinctual



I never said in and of itself it was a valid reason that God had to be involved. In conjunction it is, and I disagree that it collapses on it's own, the fact that were here to ponder it can also mean that a creator put us here to ponder it your position is by no means solid.

Rationally I don't think jumping to the conclusion that it came from natural processes is warranted any more than theistic.

Again it is theory vs theory or guess vs guess more precisely, and It is my personal belief that the ultimate proof comes from personal experience and biblical truth, but logical gets you to that point.

The metaphysical questions can be debated all day but truth is no one was there to experience it.

My only theory I have presented is that the theories you have provided are based on unreliable assumptions. The only plausible position seems to be that we just don't know either way.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, in the ToE, a driver is unnecessary. It's a false analogy, because a car continues in a set direction, and if it veers off course it crashes. Evolution doesn't have a course, it's just a continuing set of chance events and selection based on them, resulting in continuing diversification and specialisation.

Well put. This is a great explanation as to why a designer is unnecessary, and even unreasonable, as it has no "goal" or "purpose." It is merely a natural mechanism for change.

 

[Kirran]

Well put. This is a great explanation as to why a designer is unnecessary, and even unreasonable, as it has no "goal" or "purpose." It is merely a natural mechanism for change.

I guess in retrospect it's easy to look at evolution and say 'this was evolving into this' as if it was trying to. Especially when we use terms like 'missing link' and so on, as if a creature existed to link the past with the future. But really, when looking at a given period, and thinking about the evolutionary biology of said time, it makes more sense to completely forget things that happened afterwards.

19 pages guys, this has been a serious thread.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Natural refers to everything that is not "supernatural." Anything that is not natural (or "supernatural"), is, by definition, theoretical, and has not been actualized. So, the meaning is not lost.

I don't think it is likely though that something supernatural will be seen in the natural world. That is not to say that there will not be things prescribed in such a way, but they will almost certainly be able to be explained in natural terms... for the simple reason that they are IN the natural world, so must therefore, by defintion, be natural.

As for WW11, Churchill brought the UK into the war, I can agree, it is perhaps the wording that is the problem. But I do recall the radio transmit which has been played at varous times which said something like, We are at war with Germany. So he started a war for us in the UK with Germany, even if the war was already going on; it was not going on with us. Hitler did not declare war on us. So perhaps we shall have to agree that he started ''a'' war rather than he started ''the'' war.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well, in the ToE, a driver is unnecessary. It's a false analogy, because a car continues in a set direction, and if it veers off course it crashes. Evolution doesn't have a course, it's just a continuing set of chance events and selection based on them, resulting in continuing diversification and specialisation.

But I asked ''what drives it'' not what course is it on.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well put. This is a great explanation as to why a designer is unnecessary, and even unreasonable, as it has no "goal" or "purpose." It is merely a natural mechanism for change.

So WHAT IS the ''natural mechanism for change''?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well, in the ToE, a driver is unnecessary.

Something must drive it or it would not move.

It's a false analogy, because a car continues in a set direction, and if it veers off course it crashes.

That depends on where it is driven. And roads do have bends in them. And you can turn round.

Evolution doesn't have a course,

How do you know?

it's just a continuing set of chance events and selection based on them,

So pure luck it happened and then the best wins.

resulting in continuing diversification and specialisation.

Which sounds like too much to ask for to me. It's the word ''specialisation'' which seems to jump off the page. Do we know of anything that changes into something better, other than the evolving universe and then evolution itself? Most things goes worse. Perhaps we have tipped over the edge of the roller coaster and are coming down the other side.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why do you think that the Universe had to have a beginning? There is a very popular theory now that the universe is merely in an eternal cycle of expanding and contracting into a singularity

But that still has a beginning. Each universe has to have that. I don't see a lot of difference myself.