Just Accidental?

[FearGod]

I hear that the large ones are fried and eaten with relish in Thailand and other South-East Asian countries. They are supposed to be a good source of protein, just like ehite ants..
https://www.google.co.in/search?new....10.1429...0i10k1j0i30k1j0i8i30k1.btz-XtNalm4

Killing roaches to eat them still a crime.

 

[Aupmanyav]

May I ask what your concept of hell is? Does it strike you as odd that several unrelated belief systems have a place of fiery torment for the wicked...even Christendom?

The Hindu concept of hell (being an atheist, I do not subscribe to that) is more or less the same as in Abrahamic religions, torture, punishment, except that it does not last till eternity except in rare cases, like rape, incest, treachery to the nation, etc. In those cases, even Gods cannot help or would not help.

Killing roaches to eat them still a crime.

Depends on the person's tradition. If the person is from a non-vegetarian tradition (for example, Kashmiri brahmins like me), then it is OK. For a Gujarati or Maharashtrian brahmin, it will be a sin (not crime - crime relates to civil law. The two things are different).

 

[FearGod]

Depends on the person's tradition. If the person is from a non-vegetarian tradition (for example, Kashmiri brahmins like me), then it is OK. For a Gujarati or Maharashtrian brahmin, it will be a sin (not crime - crime relates to civil law. The two things are different).

But as you're an atheist then i guess you don't believe these things and you do kill roaches.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, I relish buffalo meat, pork, lamb, sheep, chicken, fish. Hunting is not allowed in India, but I did like the pickled Venison that my hostel mate once brought when we were in college. However, I do not like rabbit meat. I also do not mind squashing a roach or two.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Individually designed brains each tailored to the creature for which it was made. Brilliant, isn't it?

Now we are starting to ask the right questions!

This is to be expected from organisms of common descent, don't you think?

Compare to this:

Just by looking at the brains, which two animals do you think are more closely related to humans, Songbirds or Chimpanzees?

 

[jonathan180iq]

What is the evolutionary definition of "beautiful" in its simplified form?

Anything that is collectively accepted among a population as a desirable trait or characteristic.
It can literally be anything.

For ducks, it's webbed feet, colorful plumage, unruffled feathers, symmetrical eyes, the ability to fly, and a solidly colored bill.
It varies between species and then among populations. The origin of it lies in the history of an organism's survivability.

Why do we humans think these ducks, and many other creatures, are beautiful?

We have come to prefer symmetry and color. This was actually explained to you previously in this thread by another poster.

There's a reason that you prefer colorful ducks over darkly colored newts, for example.

I have no desire to mate with a duck.

or anything else that I find attractive. It doesn't stop me from admiring them.

You aren't a duck. Your admiration for calm and color ducks does not come the same part of your brain that tells you which human you should mate with.
Your concept of beauty based on survivability is very different from your concept of beauty based on "liking" something.

Do ducks think that geese are attractive? Do swans think that herons are beautiful?

Not normally. When in captivity, animals do things to alleviate their desire to mate - but those impossible crossbreeds are not the norm.
Given a healthy population, ducks will choose ducks to mate with. Geese will choose geese, swans will choose swans and herons will choose herons.

Why do you think that is, if not for what I've described?

Where did the 'program' for admiring beauty come from?

Survivability.
Organisms are genetically predisposed to select what they know works - this is exactly why abnormal physical characteristics are not preferred among populations.

If we couldn't see it because we had no eyes, would we still think things were beautiful?

If you had no feeling receptors on your skin, would you know what heat was?
If you had no pleasure receptors in your brain, would you feel pleasure?

Where did eyes come from?

http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail.aspx?cid=93b487b2-153a-4630-9fb2-5679a061fff7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/eyes_01
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

Chicken or egg question...which came first?

The answer is the egg, as it evolved long before birds came along.
The question seems paradoxical because it's flawed.

Eyes to see the beauty.....a brain to interpret what is seen....or the beauty itself?

The brain preceded the eyes.

If a tree falls in the wood and no creature of Earth had the ability to interpret vibrations through the air or ground, does it make a sound?

What happened before eyes were 'evolved'?

Photosensitive cells would be drawn to light sources - this would be both beneficial and problematic to primitive organisms eking out their existence. Similar organisms with similar photosenstivities would be drawn to the same sources, increasing the competition for resources. It was this very competition, however, that led to variation among the populations and eventually to you and me, and to our more complex eyes.

How does a creature who has never seen, know that sight would be beneficial?

It doesn't. That's a nonsensical question.
Sight is not beneficial in a lightless cave environment, for example. It's actually a hindrance because it serves no purpose in that setting and an organism that has grown to rely on sight will be at a huge disadvantage to those who rely on their other, more useful, senses.

Of these two fish, which do you think would fare better in an underground lake?

How did it then give itself the ability to interpret the images projected by the eye to the brain?

It didn't. You keep asking bad questions.

All just curious accidents of nature?

Yes.

..you can just throw the old "natural selection" blanket over it and pretend the question doesn't matter?

It very much matters. I'm attempting to answer those very questions - you're just pretending it was all magic, done by an invisible man who lives in a non-physical world that has never been proven to exist... Tell me how I'm wrong.

Hmmmm.....the physical traits I have were a combination of the genetic information given to me at conception. I am the product of many gene pools down through history and I had no say in any of it. But I don't believe that the multitude of interdependent systems that keep my body working were a fluke of nature, millions of years in the making. I see design in every system and the interworkings of them are nothing short of genius. It took a genius to design and manufacture them....not blind chance mutations.

That's a great philosophical position to hold - but it's not physically how you came to exist.
You have multiples indepdent systems that keep your body working, just like everything else that's alive on this planet. Your systems, and mine, are no more special than the nematode's.

Anyone with knowledge of computers, knows that there are many components working together to make the 'machine' that we use every day. If those components are not assembled in a certain way by intelligent minds and hands, would we expect the computer to work?
What if we had a fully functional computer, but no power source? How useful would that computer be?

Modern computers have predecessors, don't they? They have more primitive and less complex versions of themselves that came before them, right? Why do you think the human "machine" is any different?

If I was to roll the individual components around in a cement mixer for a couple of million years, what are the odds that a fully functioning computer would pop out at the other end? Would chance play a part in the production of even the simplest component? Can even the basic components of a mousetrap be wrongly assembled so as to render it useless? Yet you want me to believe that the human brain, vastly superior to any computer produced by man, just designed itself by natural selection and a few billion favorable mutations over millions of years?.....And you think my beliefs are fantasy?

There would be some parts that randomly fit together, yes. And some of those parts would work. Evolution only keeps what works. That's how life is. Things that don't work get thrown in the "trash". Over time, lots of small random changes accumulate and something would come out of that cement mixer. It wouldn't be a computer as you know it - no. But it would be something.

Where did their concept of beauty come from?

Survivability.

Why do we share their concept of beauty, yet have no desire to mate with them?

We don't.

Why do the majority of humans find the same things attractive?

We are all of the same species, with only mild variations among our cultural environments. It is to be expected.

Why do we love to create?

short answer, survivability.

Why do we create art or theatre or poetry?

Cultural homogeny

Are we just advanced apes...and will all the other apes eventually catch up to us?

Evolution isn't linear, so no. They'll become something different from what they currently are, but that doesn't necessarily mean like us.

We are creatures like all the rest, made of the same stuff....no one disputes that, but we humans have characteristics and traits that make us unique among all of earth's inhabitants.

Not true at all. Ask yourself we we aren't more hairy - or where skin color comes from.
Everything is a trade off.

We alone dominate all other creatures.

Except for all the creatures that dominate us...

But has our superior intellect advanced us in the important ways? I see the world at present telling me that humans are basically stupid and selfish. We are so clever that we have brought this earth and everything on it to the brink of extinction...yet still we continue on our merry way unconcerned. You really think science is worthy of praise? For every good thing science has produced, there are many more that are death dealing.

Philosophy.

Even if there is "wild variation" in anything, the ducks will remain ducks no matter how much time elapses. Adaptation within a species has never been in question. It is the ridiculous lengths that evolutionists go to incorporate the proven with the unprovable. Since no one was there to document the process, all science can do is guess what "might have" or "could have" taken place because this or that fragment "may suggest" that something happened...but that is not proof.....and that is my point.

Genetics says otherwise.

Call it a theory if you like......but to call it a "fact" is a lie and a complete deception.

Wrong.

 

[FearGod]

Now we are starting to ask the right questions!

This is to be expected from organisms of common descent, don't you think?

Compare to this:

Just by looking at the brains, which two animals do you think are more closely related to humans, Songbirds or Chimpanzees?

Yes, the Chimpanzee is more related to you

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes, the Chimpanzee is more related to you

This is the first correct thing that you've posted today. I'm proud of you.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm curious - do you think that over in the USA the majority of people genuinely don't accept evolution? This certainly isn't the case over here in the UK, where I'd say it's about 5-10%

According to the latest Gallup poll I saw, the level of fundamentalist belief in evolution in the U.S., that is, pure Darwinism with no ID whatsoever, is about 19%, decreasing with age. I was among them when I was young also.

 

[Shad]

According to the latest Gallup poll I saw, the level of fundamentalist belief in evolution in the U.S., that is, pure Darwinism with no ID whatsoever, is about 19%, decreasing with age. I was among them when I was young also.

This may only demonstrate your mental capabilities are in decline as are those of other aging citizens.

 

[Deeje]

Now we are starting to ask the right questions!

This is to be expected from organisms of common descent, don't you think?

Compare to this:

Just by looking at the brains, which two animals do you think are more closely related to humans, Songbirds or Chimpanzees?

LOL...let me guess......the one with arms and legs and opposable thumbs?

 

[Deeje]

Anything that is collectively accepted among a population as a desirable trait or characteristic.
It can literally be anything.

For ducks, it's webbed feet, colorful plumage, unruffled feathers, symmetrical eyes, the ability to fly, and a solidly colored bill.
It varies between species and then among populations. The origin of it lies in the history of an organism's survivability.


We have come to prefer symmetry and color. This was actually explained to you previously in this thread by another poster.

There's a reason that you prefer colorful ducks over darkly colored newts, for example.


You aren't a duck. Your admiration for calm and color ducks does not come the same part of your brain that tells you which human you should mate with.
Your concept of beauty based on survivability is very different from your concept of beauty based on "liking" something.


Not normally. When in captivity, animals do things to alleviate their desire to mate - but those impossible crossbreeds are not the norm.
Given a healthy population, ducks will choose ducks to mate with. Geese will choose geese, swans will choose swans and herons will choose herons.

Why do you think that is, if not for what I've described?


Survivability.
Organisms are genetically predisposed to select what they know works - this is exactly why abnormal physical characteristics are not preferred among populations.


If you had no feeling receptors on your skin, would you know what heat was?
If you had no pleasure receptors in your brain, would you feel pleasure?



http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail.aspx?cid=93b487b2-153a-4630-9fb2-5679a061fff7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/eyes_01
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

The answer is the egg, as it evolved long before birds came along.
The question seems paradoxical because it's flawed.


The brain preceded the eyes.

If a tree falls in the wood and no creature of Earth had the ability to interpret vibrations through the air or ground, does it make a sound?


Photosensitive cells would be drawn to light sources - this would be both beneficial and problematic to primitive organisms eking out their existence. Similar organisms with similar photosenstivities would be drawn to the same sources, increasing the competition for resources. It was this very competition, however, that led to variation among the populations and eventually to you and me, and to our more complex eyes.


It doesn't. That's a nonsensical question.
Sight is not beneficial in a lightless cave environment, for example. It's actually a hindrance because it serves no purpose in that setting and an organism that has grown to rely on sight will be at a huge disadvantage to those who rely on their other, more useful, senses.

Of these two fish, which do you think would fare better in an underground lake?


It didn't. You keep asking bad questions.


Yes.


It very much matters. I'm attempting to answer those very questions - you're just pretending it was all magic, done by an invisible man who lives in a non-physical world that has never been proven to exist... Tell me how I'm wrong.


That's a great philosophical position to hold - but it's not physically how you came to exist.
You have multiples indepdent systems that keep your body working, just like everything else that's alive on this planet. Your systems, and mine, are no more special than the nematode's.


Modern computers have predecessors, don't they? They have more primitive and less complex versions of themselves that came before them, right? Why do you think the human "machine" is any different?



There would be some parts that randomly fit together, yes. And some of those parts would work. Evolution only keeps what works. That's how life is. Things that don't work get thrown in the "trash". Over time, lots of small random changes accumulate and something would come out of that cement mixer. It wouldn't be a computer as you know it - no. But it would be something.


Survivability.


We don't.


We are all of the same species, with only mild variations among our cultural environments. It is to be expected.

short answer, survivability.


Cultural homogeny


Evolution isn't linear, so no. They'll become something different from what they currently are, but that doesn't necessarily mean like us.


Not true at all. Ask yourself we we aren't more hairy - or where skin color comes from.
Everything is a trade off.


Except for all the creatures that dominate us...


Philosophy.


Genetics says otherwise.


Wrong.

There is so much I could say in response to all of this, but I think it is all summed up in this simple exchange......

All just curious accidents of nature?

Yes.

Hmmmmm.

What will you do if the Creator taps you on the shoulder one day and tells you what a dill you are for believing that "curious accidents of nature", (billions of them) somehow intelligently produced all the various lifeforms on this planet, without any intelligence directing a thing?
Someone gave science an inch and they took several million miles with no road map or GPS.

 

[Deeje]

Look at these 'curious accidents of evolution'......

Works of art require an artist......an extremely talented artist, especially when these works of art are self replicating.

Its so easy to talk about evolution when there are only words or diagrams on a printed page....but when you see even a small sampling of the variety of creation and their color schemes and camouflage....how can you possibly attribute these amazing creatures to blind chance? If they all live in a similar type of habitat, what is the explanation for this kind of variety?

 

[Olinda]

There is so much I could say in response to all of this, but I think it is all summed up in this simple exchange......


Hmmmmm.

What will you do if the Creator taps you on the shoulder one day and tells you what a dill you are for believing that "curious accidents of nature", (billions of them) somehow intelligently produced all the various lifeforms on this planet, without any intelligence directing a thing?
Someone gave science an inch and they took several million miles with no road map or GPS.

Hi @Deeje, I can see your point about the many incredible, wonderful things found in nature. It is also my belief that there is a great deal more to be discovered and learned yet, we are only scratching the surface.

Science progresses by postulating theories, and then conducting experiments to verify or falsify them. Quite true, there is no roadmap or GPS. A theory remains standing so long as it is not falsified, and the theory of evolution is a good example. You can google 'evidences for macroevolution' for examples of how it can be tested. They are easy to find, but many are quite complex, so I'll just give a simple example. The TOE would need adjustment or scrapping if any one dinosaur, marsupial or mammalian species had six legs, or four legs and wings. But nothing like that has ever been found, so no falsification.

Remember, though, that even so, a theory is just that, not a 'Truth'. No-one is required to 'believe in' any theory, but to practise science the evidence uncovered by tests must be examined with an open mind.

Hope the recent wild spring weather hasn't disrupted you too much!

 

[Deeje]

I just came across this....."How do chameleons change color" (link below)

....fascinating how this little guy needed intelligent scientists and biologists to figure out his secret, yet despite the amazing nature of his ability to change color, it was all just an accident of nature......

http://veritasium.com/education/how-do-chameleons-change-color/

 

[Deeje]

Hi @Deeje, I can see your point about the many incredible, wonderful things found in nature. It is also my belief that there is a great deal more to be discovered and learned yet, we are only scratching the surface.

Indeed.

Science progresses by postulating theories, and then conducting experiments to verify or falsify them. Quite true, there is no roadmap or GPS. A theory remains standing so long as it is not falsified, and the theory of evolution is a good example. You can google 'evidences for macroevolution' for examples of how it can be tested.

Googling evidence for macroevolution yields all the same old stuff. This "might have" happened or that "could have happened" to produce what we predict might be the suggested outcome of something that no one was there to witness or document. I hear a lot about the fossil record but I think we all know that it is abysmal in its lack of any positive proof for anything they want to believe took place. Transitional forms are still missing....because they never existed.

They are easy to find, but many are quite complex, so I'll just give a simple example. The TOE would need adjustment or scrapping if any one dinosaur, marsupial or mammalian species had six legs, or four legs and wings. But nothing like that has ever been found, so no falsification.

The ToE needs scrapping period. Adaptation is clearly seen with species, but it is a massive leap to use microevolution as proof of macroevolution. That is where the "proof" disappears and imagination takes over. Science "suggests" a lot of things, but suggestions are not facts. The power of suggestion is stronger than most people imagine.

Remember, though, that even so, a theory is just that, not a 'Truth'. No-one is required to 'believe in' any theory, but to practise science the evidence uncovered by tests must be examined with an open mind.

Their minds are so open that their common sense has leaked out.

Where evidence is lacking, the gaps are filled by suggestion....assumption.....and guessing. That is not science fact...that is science fiction.

Hope the recent wild spring weather hasn't disrupted you too much!

Thank you, the wild weather has missed us, but sadly affected many others.

 

[Deeje]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os6HD-sCRn8
More amazing creatures.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os6HD-sCRn8

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Works of art require an artist......an extremely talented artist, especially when these works of art are self replicating.

Quite the contrary actually.

 

[Olinda]

Indeed.

Their minds are so open that their common sense has leaked out.

Where evidence is lacking, the gaps are filled by suggestion....assumption.....and guessing. That is not science fact...that is science fiction.

Thank you, the wild weather has missed us, but sadly affected many others.

Googling evidence for macroevolution yields all the same old stuff. This "might have" happened or that "could have happened" to produce what we predict might be the suggested outcome of something that no one was there to witness or document.

I've never seen a research paper refer to "might have" or "could have" happened. This would be more like journalistic efforts to 'explain' scientific understanding.
As another example, you wouldn't expect a serious exposition of the Bible to use words such as 'likely'.
That said, of course I agree that no-one could have witnessed changes that took place over millions of years.

I hear a lot about the fossil record but I think we all know that it is abysmal in its lack of any positive proof for anything they want to believe took place. Transitional forms are still missing....because they never existed.

Yes, the fossil record will always be incomplete. The important thing is that it has never falsified any prediction based on the ToE. And many links, such as reptile-birds, reptile-mammals and legged marine mammals have been found.

The ToE needs scrapping period. Adaptation is clearly seen with species, but it is a massive leap to use microevolution as proof of macroevolution. That is where the "proof" disappears and imagination takes over. Science "suggests" a lot of things, but suggestions are not facts.

Once again, a theory is not 'proved', but stands until predictions based on it are falsified. Some more areas where predictions based on the ToE have been verified are anatomical vestiges, molecular vestiges, developmental biology, and past and present biogeography. Not one reason to scrap the ToE yet!

Yes, scientists use imagination, but not as a substitute for experimentation and verification.

The power of suggestion is stronger than most people imagine.

Nice, we agree on this one! Also thanks for the mimic octopus link; very interesting!
We got a lovely summery day this week; hope you did too!

 

[Deeje]

I've never seen a research paper refer to "might have" or "could have" happened. This would be more like journalistic efforts to 'explain' scientific understanding.

The Science of Human Evolution

As another example, you wouldn't expect a serious exposition of the Bible to use words such as 'likely'.
That said, of course I agree that no-one could have witnessed changes that took place over millions of years.

The language of suggestion is subtle, sometime you can read right over it without even knowing that a suggestion has been planted.The devil is a master of that technique.

Yes, the fossil record will always be incomplete. The important thing is that it has never falsified any prediction based on the ToE. And many links, such as reptile-birds, reptile-mammals and legged marine mammals have been found.

Please provide these examples and the text used to describe them. Ancient species that are now extinct are very hard to study in fossil form and hard to trace back in a line of decent without the living proof and transitional stages being in evidence....it is doubly hard when those transitional forms do not exist.

I am always amused when they fine "a scull" or "a tooth" as if one specimen represents the whole species.....and then they portend to know all about how the creature that owned that scull or tooth. They speak adamantly from the silent past as if what the scientists 'suggest' about it really ever happened.....? The power of suggestion again. And the video graphic these days!....you can't tell them from actual footage.

Once again, a theory is not 'proved', but stands until predictions based on it are falsified.

Organic evolution is a bigger fantasy to me than intelligent design in direct creation. I am not sure whether this is because they don't want to have to answer to a Creator who might require something of them, or whether it is a backlash against some small minded creationists who actually argue what science can actually prove. There is a middle ground that sits very comfortably with me. I can give credit where credit is due and I have someone to thank for the way creation makes me feel. No accident I think. This earth was designed for us and we for it.

Some more areas where predictions based on the ToE have been verified are anatomical vestiges, molecular vestiges, developmental biology, and past and present biogeography. Not one reason to scrap the ToE yet!

Well, the appendix was thought to be an anatomical vestige at one stage, but they had to change their position on that one.....tonsils too. Sometimes science likes to think there are vestigal organs but the truth is, they just haven't found the reason for them yet. I readily acknowledge adaptation in all species, but to me it does not naturally translate into "the curious accidents of nature" all originally evolving from the primordial soup.....I want to know how life arose and who made the soup.

Yes, scientists use imagination, but not as a substitute for experimentation and verification.

Ah, but I have seen the evidence that they do.....a lot. There is no way to "experiment" with the past going back millions of years. It's guesswork, it can't be anything else.

Nice, we agree on this one! Also thanks for the mimic octopus link; very interesting!

I was blown a way by the cuttlefish.....this guy is 'other worldly'.....utterly amazing!.....no fluke of nature could produce that.