Is Mankind A Fluke?

[Salty Booger]

Then why did you start a thread with a false analogy about a scientific theory? Was that a "spiritual" thing to do?

It is my view on the topic, the improbability that something complex as life can spontaneously pop into existence. But I'm listening, even though I might disagree with you...officer.

Does that mean our theories of these are implausible?

Okay... I will play. Are we missing some component of life that prevents us from repeating the process? A protocell?

 

[ratiocinator]

So you police spiritual forums?

Blatant misinformation and falsehoods about science (such as the silly, inaccurate analogy you started this thread with) should be challenged wherever they appear. Posting nonsense about science is often called "bearing false witness" in spiritual circles, I believe. The question should be, why doesn't it bother you?

 

[exchemist]

It is my view on the topic, the improbability that something complex as life can spontaneously pop into existence. But I'm listening, even though I might disagree with you...officer.


Okay... I will play. Are we missing some component of life that prevents us from repeating the process? A protocell?

I wish I believed you were "listening". Generally, creationists try as hard as they can to block their ears.

But, OK let's find out.

Do you now understand what is meant by natural selection and that this is not the same as a complex organism just coming together by chance?

 

[Salty Booger]

The question should be, why doesn't it bother you?

I enjoy all the good things science has brought to my table, but it is not my religion. Granted, religions of this world have done some harm in their path, but I award science with the worst possible evil on this planet, 3000+ nuclear warheads sitting on rockets waiting for the order to destroy millions of worlds. If you find my blasphemy disturbing, so be it. Science is nothing more than a tool for good or evil, imo.

 

[Salty Booger]

Do you now understand what is meant by natural selection and that this is not the same as a complex organism just coming together by chance?

Oh, so it's not by chance then. Are you a believer?

 

[ratiocinator]

I enjoy all the good things science has brought to my table, but it is not my religion. Granted, religions of this world have done some harm in their path, but I award science with the worst possible evil on this planet, 3000+ nuclear warheads sitting on rockets waiting for the order to destroy millions of worlds. If you find my blasphemy disturbing, so be it. Science is nothing more than a tool for good or evil, imo.

Which misses the point entirely. Of course science is a tool that can be used for good or evil. Specifically, it is a tool that allows us to understand the world we live in.

The point is, why do you think it's okay to misrepresent its conclusions about evolution?

 

[exchemist]

Oh, so it's not by chance then. Are you a believer?

Can you answer the question please? Do you now understand what natural selection is?

If not, can you please read the BBC link I provided in post 88 and then we can discuss if there is anything about it you do not understand.

 

[Salty Booger]

The point is, why do you think it's okay to misrepresent its conclusions about evolution?

How did I misrepresent your conclusions? Science dictates that life appeared from the elements of Earth. The analogy is correct as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Salty Booger]

Can you answer the question please? Do you now understand what natural selection is?

If not, can you please read the BBC link I provided in post 88 and then we can discuss if there is anything about it you do not understand.

It's late. Perhaps I will read the authoritative BBc link later.

Have a Merry Christmas. You too, @ratiocinator

 

[ratiocinator]

How did I misrepresent your conclusions?

I didn't say anything about any of my conclusions.

Science dictates that life appeared from the elements of Earth. The analogy is correct as far as I'm concerned.

Then you simply don't understand evolution, specifically natural selection. I always think it's a good idea to at least learn the basics about a subject before making public proclamations about it. Saves making a fool of oneself.

 

[exchemist]

It's late. Perhaps I will read the authoritative BBc link later.

Have a Merry Christmas. You too, @ratiocinator

I bet you never read it.

 

[blü 2]

There seems to be some direction with evolution, despite what some would say.

The following summary from evolutionary hypotheses in anthropology is from Eliezer Yudkowsky:

But human beings had four times the brain size of a chimpanzee. 20% of a human’s metabolic energy went into feeding the brain. Humans were ridiculously smarter than any other species. [...]
[The book] Chimpanzee Politics [...] described how an adult chimpanzee named Luit had confronted the aging alpha, Yeroen, with the help of a young, recently matured chimpanzee named Nikkie. Nikkie had not intervened directly in the fights between Luit and Yeroen, but had prevented Yeroen’s other supporters in the tribe from coming to his aid, distracting them whenever a confrontation developed between Luit and Yeroen. And in time Luit had won, and become the new alpha, with Nikkie as the second most powerful ...
... though it hadn’t taken very long after that for Nikkie to form an alliance with the defeated Yeroen, overthrow Luit, and become the new new alpha.
It really made you appreciate what millions of years of hominids trying to outwit each other – an evolutionary arms race without limit – had led to in the way of increased mental capacity.
’Cause, y’know, a human would have totally seen that one coming.​

Re 'intelligent design' - you could 'design' an advanced cellular system without all the clumsy effects and redundancies, ie only some cells have DNA, there's only one mitochondria, not millions etc.. but then this cell would be vulnerable. What appears to be bad design is actually quite fault tolerant.

If you're saying "intelligent design" is antiscience, then you're agreeing with (among a great deal else) the decision in the Dover case 2005.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you're saying "intelligent design" is antiscience, then you're agreeing with (among a great deal else) the decision in the Dover case 2005.

Not sure what this means. You can't argue about 'intelligent design' IMO because
you could never define the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is my view on the topic, the improbability that something complex as life can spontaneously pop into existence. But I'm listening, even though I might disagree with you...officer.


Okay... I will play. Are we missing some component of life that prevents us from repeating the process? A protocell?

We are "missing" millions of years. It is hard to run an experiment in a lab that likely took millions of years. Right now we can reproduce some of the necessary steps, but not all of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, so it's not by chance then. Are you a believer?

Oh wait . . . are you opposed to evolution? Evolution is a fact. You as much as admitted it when you debated the concept of abiogenesis.

Chance plays a role in evolution but you are ignoring natural selection. It reduces chance.

 

[Valjean]

It is my view on the topic, the improbability that something complex as life can spontaneously pop into existence. But I'm listening, even though I might disagree with you...officer.

Life spontaneously popping into existence is religion.
Biology hypothesizes life as developing incrementally, from simple molecular compounds to proto-life assemblages. At what point you'd call an assembly "alive" is arbitrary. Proto-life is a spectrum.

Okay... I will play. Are we missing some component of life that prevents us from repeating the process? A protocell?

Not following. Are you asking why abiogenesis can't occur today?

I enjoy all the good things science has brought to my table, but it is not my religion. Granted, religions of this world have done some harm in their path, but I award science with the worst possible evil on this planet, 3000+ nuclear warheads sitting on rockets waiting for the order to destroy millions of worlds. If you find my blasphemy disturbing, so be it. Science is nothing more than a tool for good or evil, imo.

Science is hardly a religion. It's just the research method that provides the most reliable understanding of how things work.

Misuse of knowledge isn't science. It could be politics, or ambition, or greed; but don't blame application on knowledge.

How did I misrepresent your conclusions? Science dictates that life appeared from the elements of Earth. The analogy is correct as far as I'm concerned.

And what does religion propose?
Complex life forms popping into existence, from dust, by no discernible mechanism -- ie: magic, -- is a lot more incredible than abiogenesis by the familiar, known, observable processes of chemistry.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If a tornado went crashing through a junkyard and left behind a Boeing 747, fully fueled and ready to go, would that be a fluke?

There is a doctor who hosts the youtube channel 'chubbyemu' who regularly explains medical things. He does one video on a body part called the 'Recurrent laryingeal nerve' which he says is strong evidence for blind evolution. This nerve seems badly designed making a long u-turn in the neck, going all the way down into the chest, around the aorta of the heart, then back up towards the chin again. In Giraffes it can be many meters long. It could be much shorter and do the same job or better.

I don't see such a thing as hard evidence of blind evolution, however at minimum the human body does seem sculpted rather than snapped together. There are many such pieces of evidence besides the recurrent laryingeal nerve which testify to a sculpted human rather than one formed from clay and animated.

 

[Straw Dog]

Mankind is closer to being fated than being a fluke. Our existence was inevitable through the causal chain of events that have happened. It’s impossible to say whether or not things could have been other than what they actually are. The long process of physical, chemical, biological, neurological, technological, and socio-cultural evolution has brought us to now.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

How did I misrepresent your conclusions? Science dictates that life appeared from the elements of Earth. The analogy is correct as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I personally agree with the atheists here. If you ask me personally, I think you are confusing abiogenesis [life arising out of non-life by natural forces] with evolution of living orgasm via natural selection.

I think your analogy is more suited to be analogous to abiogenesis rather than evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

Mankind is closer to being fated than being a fluke. Our existence was inevitable through the causal chain of events that have happened. It’s impossible to say whether or not things could have been other than what they actually are. The long process of physical, chemical, biological, neurological, technological, and socio-cultural evolution has brought us to now.

Mankind is no more a fluke than any other form of life. The same processes has shaped all life in its own unique way.