Just Accidental?

[Profound Realization]

Evolutionary theory is used to produce antibiotics, cultivate food and even optimize computer processes.


Can you give clear examples where this has occurred?


Could you give examples of this as well?


What on earth are you talking about? In what way has evolutionary theory hindered our understanding of bacteria?


So you think the cause of bacterial infections isn't bacteria?


You do realize that, were it not for antibiotics, billions of humans would have died of otherwise easily preventable diseases over the last century, right?


In my experience, the people who assert their own lack of bias the most tend to be the ones who are overcompensating because they have a bias.


Nothing you've written here even begins to make sense.

The evolution of intelligence is used to produce antibiotics. The particular fungus, soil bacteria's do the work. Also, fields of particular intelligent research are to those fields. Evolution theory isn't required.

Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure

Limitations and Dangers | Animals in Science / Research

Fact! Testing Drugs On Animals Does Not Work to Help Humans

Well, for one... bacteria is starting to be more appreciated and respected for the non-accident and non-intelligent organism(s) that it always was and still is claimed to be by many. Bacteria adapts(intelligence) in communities by learning, communication, adjusting in attempt to survive in populations.
This goes for good bacteria and bad bacteria, yes bacteria are altruistic. If bacteria isn't understood properly, what will happen is happening... anti-resistance, mutated diseases, a legion of chronic illnesses. Misuse, overuse, greed in society, etc.
If humans don't take proper care of their bodies, composed of trillions of living organisms, and treat them as mere machines with contempt... they will rebel. Same with proper mental care, as the two are one. But in many, the 2 are internally divided.

I realize the altruistic good in fungus, soil bacteria, other organisms and their proper use. I also realize how a good thing, can turn bad by misuse and lack of understanding of how bacteria evolves. Do you realize the contrary and all of the unnecessary deaths, mutated diseases causes from misuse, mis-prescribings, over-used in farming/foods, etc?

Now is a good time to assert your lack of bias.... if you're willing to. What bad do you see from evolution theory, antibiotics, false dichotomy? In my experience, many don't even understand or are aware of their own bias to recognize their bias, they are so enslaved and conditioned to think a certain way only.

It makes sense to me and others. In many worlds of minds, there is no mechanism/source for life yet many claim to be the speaker as to know how life adjusts and changes. In those same worlds, it already is concluded fact that intelligence doesn't come from intelligence, that life doesn't come from life, and guidance doesn't come from guidance.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to the law of cause and effect, there has to be a cause for everything....what caused "nature"?

What caused God?

Just kidding. I already know you're answer. Everything BUT God needs a cause, right? If so, please explain why there is an exception to your rule. It needs to be reason based to be acceptable.

The Bible explains it all very clearly

I have no more reason to believe the Christian Bible that either of us has to believe the Qur'an. What is your reason for rejecting the latter?

we alone were made to reflect the Creator's own qualities.

I also have no reason to believe that, either, and as far as I can tell, neither do you.

But in giving us free will, (a necessary component to our being "like God")

How can a god that is said to be omniscient have free will? If He knows the future perfectly, he is not free to change it. If He believes that I will die on a Tuesday, He is either not free to change that (i.e., no free will) or if He does, He wasn't omniscient.

I have more in common with any living thing on earth than I do with the Christian God:

Spoiler

In what sense are we created in the image of the god of the Christian Bible?

That god is invisible, immaterial, immortal, perfect, infinite, lives outside of space and precedes time.

That god is omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural and has magical power.

That god never had a spouse, never had sex, never experienced lust, divorce or a broken heart.

That god was never born, never had parents, never raised children and never had a sibling or a friend.

That god has never slept or had a nightmare, never had a headache, has never had the flu, felt hot or cold or been hungry.

That god has never had to support Himself, never had to study or learn. never been humiliated, felt guilt, blame or shame, and has never been afraid.

This god is not like me or you. I have more in common with a bird or raccoon than such a creature.​

​

 

[gnostic]

I study reality too. What are all those pictures I have posted on this thread?....look carefully and see that undirected chance could never produce even one of these, let alone all the amazing creatures that exist on earth.

.....all real creatures who live in this world today....not a few scattered bones of long extinct creatures who can basically tell us very little without science giving them a voice like puppets used by a ventriloquist.

The reason why scientists have found no evidence for an Intelligent Designer is because they can't see what is right under their noses. He will not tap anyone on the shoulder and force them to acknowledge him. He leaves us his work to study and to figure out for ourselves what sort of Creator he is. Who is not moved by these images?

These photos of animals you posted up, provided no context whatsoever that Intelligent Designer was ever involved for their existence, because you cannot provide a single shred of evidence for Designer’s existence.

Posting up pictures without context, are not evidence for anything, except you repeating the same false claims as did with the very first post at the OP.

All you are doing is conjecturing that Intelligent Designer exist, and that’s merely your personal opinion, where you use logical fallacies of circular reasoning, argument of ignorance and false equivalency.

And you really don’t understand the concept of speciation. You never have.

 

[Profound Realization]

No thank you.



The theory of evolution predicts and explains resistance to antibiotics.



Antibiotics don't cause harm or disaster. They save lives.



Ask Kirshner. I'd never heard of him before this week, so can't answer for him.



It sounds like you probably has better stay out of doctors' offices and hospitals. They're full of the disaster you warn of.

I hear that with faith, one can move mountains. Surely that power can clear a meningitis with just prayer.

Well, your choice but I will continue to point out when you go astray from what was said. Do the same for me.

The theory of evolution has never done such thing. Enlighten as to how it has.

Antibiotic bias. You can't give one example of the harm they have caused? I understand that what you perceive as "science" can likely only be understood as good and on a pedestal.

I am very diligent and aware and instructed wisely as to what to do and not to do when it comes to hospitals, and medicine. . and not of my own understanding. There are far more effective methods and cost-effective methods in most circumstances to handle unnecessary hospital visits and artificial treatments.

Well, you may be mistaken and answered with bias of faith. If you wish to place your faith in assumptive research rather than sound research...you are free to do so. On a side note, the placebo effect can be an awesome phenomena. Sure, if the mountain is meningitis that needs moved, I have strong confidence that a human being is capable of internal, interconnected energetic communication between its symbiotic bacteria and cells, and immune system to destroy undesired invaders. This also is preventable by having a strong, natural immune system rather than a half-artificial immune system. In most cases, no anti-viral drug is needed. There are also natural solutions, rather than drug solutions. Speaking of bias earlier, there are antibiotics and drugs that induce meningitis.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to Marc Kirschner (previously quoted)...."over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
What an interesting statement. The only field of science that depends on evolutionary biology is...evolutionary biology

Kirshner is not an authority. He is a single voice, and his comment makes no sense. It contradicts the evidence. Every aspect of biology is informed by evolutionary theory.

Here another opinion, one you won't like:

• "If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law." - Daniel Dennett

God has no need to be found either in a telescope or a microscope

Once again, this god ALWAYS sees to make the choice that imitates a nonexistent god. Santa also has no need to found in a telescope or a microscope. Santa also does not get in the way of the exercise of free will. Santa also doesn't intervene in the suffering of creatures that can suffer.

The reason why scientists have found no evidence for an Intelligent Designer is because they can't see what is right under their noses.

That must include the intelligent design researchers. They also can't find evidence of this god which must be right under their noses as well.

He will not tap anyone on the shoulder and force them to acknowledge him. He leaves us his work to study and to figure out for ourselves what sort of Creator he is.

Just like Santa. And the Kraken.

Shouldn't science be used to better the life of all of earth's inhabitants first, before it spend billions of dollars chasing after a fantasy?

Science betters our lives, but that is not its immediate purpose. It is to understand how the universe works. One of its greatest gifts was a science of electricity, which began as an attempt to explain lightning bolts, static cling, and shocking your finger when you touch metal. Who knew that investigating these phenomena would lead to electric light at night, assorted motors, microwave ovens, and radiofrequency based remote controls?

Let's let the scientists prioritize their efforts.

We all know that the entire macro-evolution scenario is based on faith, not evidence.

No, only the few percent of people that are creationists think that. The rest are satisfied with the evidence for Darwin's theory.

When science talks about evolution and their evidence...they can only offer adaptation as a proven model.

Still with proof? Irrelevant. It's about utility - what works, what predicts outcomes, what can be used to make better choices and effect desired outcomes.

Proof isn't your standard, so why do you invoke it with others? Is that honest? You're implying that proof matters when we know that you don't believe that.

They have no way to ascertain whether macro-evolution ever took place except in their imagination. Scientists find that galling, I know.

Scientists are content that they have a correct theory of evolution. So-called macroevolution is not an issue in science. It is a creationist meme.

If there was all this scientific proof, y'all wouldn't need to still be here arguing after 5,000 replies and 80,000 views. would you?

You don't understand why we are here. The truth of evolutionary science is not an issue. Creationist apologetics is.

I've already explained how you have undermined yourself. You reject evidence and proudly boast of it. You seem incapable of learning - you still think proof matters, or that observation in science means witnessing the past. You know virtually no science, meaning that you've never had an interest in it and are unqualified to judge it. You steadfastly evade the hard questions such as why we should throw out a working scientific theory for a sterile religious doctrine. And you have embraced an ideology that is famously hostile to evolutionary science, but not gravitational science or thermodynamics.

Do you think that others don't know why?

Your point of view is dead in the water because of any of those things. We are here because we enjoy these interactions, not because you present a compelling argument. I doubt anybody here has any misconceptions about what can be accomplished in the face of a faith based confirmation bias. I understand that there is absolutely nothing that can be said or shown that will budge a faith based thinker from his (or her) faith based beliefs.

 

[Profound Realization]

No, they are all "Advances to society because of the Theory of Evolution"



That's not my criterion for success except in business adventures and investing.



I don't understand that sentence. I am aware of no dichotomy of species, true or false.



Agreed. I'm a strong proponent of avoiding faith-based decision making.



Another odd sentence. What's an inner transformation of unity, or a symbolic relationship within?

The nature of your molecules can be found in a biochemistry text. For bacteria, consult microbiology, especially medical micro. For genes, try genetics. Intelligence and altruism are likely gifts of evolution.



That's why I don't consult holy books.



You are correct.



Faith is not a path to truth. How can it be if the opposite of what one believes in faith can also be believed by faith. At least one of the two must be wrong, but faith based thought not only won't tell you that you are wrong, it often prevents one from discovering that fact. Isn't that what a claim that no evidence could ever change one's mind means? It means that if you are wrong, there is no possible way to discover that.

How is that not a bad way to approach reality?

There is a good side and bad to side to faith, evolution theory, science, bacteria, antibiotics, many concepts and things. Discerning them without bias is very useful.

The collective intelligence that gives rise to evolution theory makes most of its assumptions and beliefs off of similarities and differences among species. When this in turn is used to be practiced in medicine... the consequences are usually not good.

You have trillions of intelligent bacteria within you working in communities for your survival and their survival. So do I. I prefer to have a unified/harmonious relationship with them, rather than a war. There is no "you" or "I" in physical form experiencing without them. There is also no experience without the mechanism/source for life/experience in the first place. The body and mind are one. One of those concepts that is difficult to explain because it does no justice until experienced/becomes known.

Faith and trust is an initial path to truth. The evolution of faith if you will. I've seen your definition of faith, and can compare it to the unjustified becoming justified. Or an unjust person becoming just. If faith gradually doesn't transform into knowing, experiencing truth... then I can understand what you mean. But still, if someone puts their faith in the wrong things, they can be subtly made aware by their inner conscience or even undesired physical and mental results. If someone puts their faith/trust in the right things, desired experienced results will follow. If they choose not to listen, so be it. The path is continuous. A path being made straight is an unbiased path. A path veering off course will lead to destruction/undesired results. And oftentimes, it takes time for someone to even become aware of what is right(righteous) and what is wrong. And sometimes no evidence is the best evidence for something else. Once someone is strongly convicted of something, it is very difficult to change their minds, and when it's a strong conviction for the right things... there is no need for change. When someone intuitively knows, they just know, all of the evidence they need has been revealed. Sound discerning has to evolve before knowing and understanding.

 

[gnostic]

Still with proof? Irrelevant. It's about utility - what works, what predicts outcomes, what can be used to make better choices and effect desired outcomes.

Proof isn't your standard, so why do you invoke it with others? Is that honest? You're implying that proof matters when we know that you don't believe that.

It is funny how she continually demand evidences and proofs from others, and when provided as requested, she would either make flimsy excuses they are not evidences, or ignore it altogether and make the same demand next week.

And she never provide either evidence or proof, when people ask this of her.

Such hypocrisy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Antibiotic bias. You can't give one example of the harm they have caused?

How would that be relevant? Doxycycline gives me nausea. So what?

I thought that we were discussing evolution's contributions to the human condition. Are you going to take the position that the discovery of antibiotics was a mistake or a net negative?

Sure, if the mountain is meningitis that needs moved, I have strong confidence that a human being is capable of internal, interconnected energetic communication between its symbiotic bacteria and cells, and immune system to destroy undesired invaders.

Good luck with that. I'm pretty sure that if you choose to treat your child's meningococcal meningitis with prayer, your child will suffer irreversible brain damage or death. From Baby's death recounted in court | CJOnline.com :

• A father's account of his baby daughter's final days, during which he prayed intensively but didn't seek a doctor's help, was heard this week in a courtroom filled with members of his controversial congregation.
  
  During a tape-recorded interview on the day Julia Wiebe died of what officials said was a treatable case of meningitis, Richard Wiebe said he and his wife had watched as she went through four hours of seizures the night before but thought her health was improving.
  
  "We weren't expecting her to die," Wiebe told San Bernardino County Sheriff's Detective Mike Gilliam last July. "It was a shock to us."
  
  Wiebe and his wife, Agnes Wiebe, are charged with one count each of manslaughter and willful cruelty to a child in connection with 11-month-old Julia's death. Their infant son, removed from the couple's home for his own protection after the death, remains with a foster family pending juvenile court proceedings.
  
  The couple, members of the Church of God Restoration, didn't seek medical attention because of their belief in divine healing, a central tenet in their church.
  
  "We choose to trust the Lord," Richard Wiebe told Gilliam during the July interview, which lasted roughly two hours.

Speaking of bias earlier, there are antibiotics and drugs that induce meningitis.

We are discussing infectious meningitis. There are chemicals that cause noninfectious (aseptic) inflammation of the meninges including some antibiotics, but that is irrelevant to the discussion of the net value of antibiotics much less the contributions of evolutionary theory to daily life. We know that all drugs are harmful to a subset of people that may be intolerant to them

Sorry, but antibiotics have been a great boon to mankind. And if we can return to where we started, antibiotic resistance is predicted by evolutionary theory and informs our choices on how to prescribe them.

I notice that so far, you have also declined to answer the question why we should throw out a successful scientific theory for a religious hypothesis that cannot be used for anything. What could possibly be the explanation for so many of you to evade that question? As I asked Guy, "Do you ever do that in your life - say divorce a wife with whom you are happy to replace her with someone that you will fight with, or quit a good paying job that is secure and makes you happy for a low paying one that is mind-numbing and soul-crushing and from which you are likely to be downsized out of?"

 

[gnostic]

Faith and trust is an initial path to truth.

Except that faith is very subjective, therefore the so-claim to the “truth” can be marred by biased.

You are a Christian. How do you know that your faith in Jesus is right, and that others’ faith, like in Judaism, to be wrong?

Because of Jesus or the NT authors say so?

 

[Profound Realization]

How would that be relevant? Doxycycline gives me nausea. So what?

I thought that we were discussing evolution's contributions to the human condition. Are you going to take the position that the discovery of antibiotics was a mistake or a net negative?



Good luck with that. I'm pretty sure that if you choose to treat your child's meningococcal meningitis with prayer, your child will suffer irreversible brain damage or death. From Baby's death recounted in court | CJOnline.com :

• A father's account of his baby daughter's final days, during which he prayed intensively but didn't seek a doctor's help, was heard this week in a courtroom filled with members of his controversial congregation.
  
  During a tape-recorded interview on the day Julia Wiebe died of what officials said was a treatable case of meningitis, Richard Wiebe said he and his wife had watched as she went through four hours of seizures the night before but thought her health was improving.
  
  "We weren't expecting her to die," Wiebe told San Bernardino County Sheriff's Detective Mike Gilliam last July. "It was a shock to us."
  
  Wiebe and his wife, Agnes Wiebe, are charged with one count each of manslaughter and willful cruelty to a child in connection with 11-month-old Julia's death. Their infant son, removed from the couple's home for his own protection after the death, remains with a foster family pending juvenile court proceedings.
  
  The couple, members of the Church of God Restoration, didn't seek medical attention because of their belief in divine healing, a central tenet in their church.
  
  "We choose to trust the Lord," Richard Wiebe told Gilliam during the July interview, which lasted roughly two hours.

We are discussing infectious meningitis. There are chemicals that cause noninfectious (aseptic) inflammation of the meninges including some antibiotics, but that is irrelevant to the discussion of the net value of antibiotics much less the contributions of evolutionary theory to daily life. We know that all drugs are harmful to a subset of people that may be intolerant to them

Sorry, but antibiotics have been a great boon to mankind. And if we can return to where we started, antibiotic resistance is predicted by evolutionary theory and informs our choices on how to prescribe them.

I notice that so far, you have also declined to answer the question why we should throw out a successful scientific theory for a religious hypothesis that cannot be used for anything. What could possibly be the explanation for so many of you to evade that question? As I asked Guy, "Do you ever do that in your life - say divorce a wife with whom you are happy to replace her with someone that you will fight with, or quit a good paying job that is secure and makes you happy for a low paying one that is mind-numbing and soul-crushing and from which you are likely to be downsized out of?"

The human condition and its human studies are guided, artificial, and intelligently designed, as you yourself acknowledged earlier. This has nothing to do with evolution theory. Essentially you are saying that evolution and natural selection have reached its limits/boundaries and human intelligence has to artificially swoop in with their guided, intelligent designs because natural selection and evolution theory no longer applies and that evolution can't proceed without human intelligent guidance and intervention. You are doing the work for me, just without being aware of it. What you're doing is misunderstanding the theory by invoking all sorts of human intelligence, guidance, designs into it and simultaneously denying them.

I can't comment much on that, I don't know what initially caused those seizures, meningitis. Vaccines, trusting in bad formulas, who knows? However, as many enjoy doing in attempt to try and win an argument... they misrepresent what people say. If my child were experiencing that, I wouldn't be praying over them.

Yes, intelligent species of fungus, soil bacteria's, etc. have done much good. Those species deserve much credit. Nothing to be sorry for, I'm however sorry that you may be struggling to see both sides. Are they an accident, have no guide/instruction/purpose, no intelligence, no altruism?

One religious hypothesis for another religious hypothesis. The contrary can be true for your comparison. If someone is biased towards one rather than being in the truthful middle. Just because you haven't experienced happiness and contentment for both, doesn't mean another hasn't. The way many speak, they are overly needy for physical evidence of nature without understanding their own nature. Not everyone is of this way. If you would like to stay true to evolution theory, I am stunned as to why you can't come to appreciate how another allegedly was naturally selected to be different than you in reasoning, contentment, beliefs, and naturally selected to trust in their "God." Appreciating the diversity of life yet belittling the diversity of life... makes sense. Perhaps many, see these flaws and are not interested in partaking.

 

[Profound Realization]

Except that faith is very subjective, therefore the so-claim to the “truth” can be marred by biased.

You are a Christian. How do you know that your faith in Jesus is right, and that others’ faith, like in Judaism, to be wrong?

Because of Jesus or the NT authors say so?

I agree that it can, is, and has been expressed that way leading to issues in society.

What is a "Christian?" How do you know what I am?

What and who is "Jesus Christ?"

What and who is a "Jew?"

 

[gnostic]

I agree that it can, is, and has been expressed that way leading to issues in society.

What is a "Christian?" How do you know what I am?

What and who is "Jesus Christ?"

What and who is a "Jew?"

Your other replies seem to point you to being a Christian.

If I am wrong with my guess, then I am sorry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The human condition and its human studies are guided, artificial, and intelligently designed, as you yourself acknowledged earlier. This has nothing to do with evolution theory.

If you mean that man is an intelligent animal, you'll get no argument from me. Evolutionary theory is one of the many ideas our intelligent species has devised, the single best according to Dennett, who I quoted on this thread yesterday. I don't agree that it is that good. For example, justice and skepticism are probably both better ideas.

Essentially you are saying that evolution and natural selection have reached its limits/boundaries and human intelligence has to artificially swoop in with their guided, intelligent designs because natural selection and evolution theory no longer applies and that evolution can't proceed without human intelligent guidance and intervention.

No, you are saying that, Natural selection will continue to have the same influence on the variation in biological populations that it always had.

In the meantime, cultural evolution has emerged and is now playing a greater role in man's world than biological evolution.

What you're doing is misunderstanding the theory by invoking all sorts of human intelligence, guidance, designs into it and simultaneously denying them.

I understand the theory perfectly. It's very simple. The fact that human beings intelligently design things is not an argument against it, nor is it an argument for an intelligent designer for the universe.

If you would like to stay true to evolution theory, I am stunned as to why you can't come to appreciate how another allegedly was naturally selected to be different than you in reasoning, contentment, beliefs, and naturally selected to trust in their "God." Appreciating the diversity of life yet belittling the diversity of life... makes sense. Perhaps many, see these flaws and are not interested in partaking.

Religion is part of cultural evolution, not biological evolution. It can be argued that religion co-opts instincts granted by evolution, such as the tendency to submit to parental figures and to assign agenticity to natural phenomena - traits we find in the beasts. When they hear a leaf or twig crunch out of view, it is safer to assume that something living was responsible and act accordingly rather than assuming otherwise. Religion was a cultural contrivance that probably exploited those proclivities.

Man's religious phase began early in his cultural journey - when he first began to wonder what was behind the phenomena that defined his life - famines, lightning, eclipses, comets, where we came from, etc.. It will end when he has his answers. For many, that time is near enough to eschew religious explanations.

 

[Profound Realization]

Your other replies seem to point you to being a Christian.

If I am wrong with my guess, then I am sorry.

No apologies necessary.

If you mean that man is an intelligent animal, you'll get no argument from me. Evolutionary theory is one of the many ideas our intelligent species has devised, the single best according to Dennett, who I quoted on this thread yesterday. I don't agree that it is that good. For example, justice and skepticism are probably both better ideas.



No, you are saying that, Natural selection will continue to have the same influence on the variation in biological populations that it always had.

In the meantime, cultural evolution has emerged and is now playing a greater role in man's world than biological evolution.



I understand the theory perfectly. It's very simple. The fact that human beings intelligently design things is not an argument against it, nor is it an argument for an intelligent designer for the universe.



Religion is part of cultural evolution, not biological evolution. It can be argued that religion co-opts instincts granted by evolution, such as the tendency to submit to parental figures and to assign agenticity to natural phenomena - traits we find in the beasts. When they hear a leaf or twig crunch out of view, it is safer to assume that something living was responsible and act accordingly rather than assuming otherwise. Religion was a cultural contrivance that probably exploited those proclivities.

Man's religious phase began early in his cultural journey - when he first began to wonder what was behind the phenomena that defined his life - famines, lightning, eclipses, comets, where we came from, etc.. It will end when he has his answers. For many, that time is near enough to eschew religious explanations.

A story of life evolving from non-life, intelligence evolving from non-intelligence, accidents evolving from accidents, altruism evolving from non-altruism, logic evolving from non-logic, is a religious explanation as well.

It seems that you're separating the evolution of living species from the evolution of intelligence.

Bio-logical: Living-logic evolving. What is the source of life and logic that this theory is founded upon?

"Granted" by evolution? When does the "scientific" version of evolution allow it to grant anything? I agree though, intelligence is evolution, which grants and guides all based upon how things and non-things can and cannot perform given their ability with the logic/information they possess and acquire.

Emerged from what exactly? An accumulation of intelligence and logic? What does throwing the word, "instinct" accomplish? Instinct: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Well, I agree then that instinct is just another word explaining a fixed innate logic/intelligence within species. What stimulates human beings for example, is of a large variety. When someone exempts variety of thoughts/beliefs from their own variety of thoughts/belief model... it is hypocritical and unifies only what it wants to, choosing to separate out of it what it wants to.

I am pointing out that it is easily observed seeing intelligence, altruism, logic, in action in all living species. When species adapt, it is intelligence. Is it a problem that someone cannot physically see "intelligence" with their own eyes? In the theory of evolution, there are no ideas of altruism, logic, intelligence amongst species. To invoke such would be invoking the alternative.

 

[ArtieE]

I am pointing out that it is easily observed seeing intelligence, altruism, logic, in action in all living species. When species adapt, it is intelligence. Is it a problem that someone cannot physically see "intelligence" with their own eyes? In the theory of evolution, there are no ideas of altruism, logic, intelligence amongst species. To invoke such would be invoking the alternative.

I don't know what you mean but in case people are interested in how altruism evolved here's an interesting article. A simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism

 

[Profound Realization]

I don't know what you mean but in case people are interested in how altruism evolved here's an interesting article. A simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism

Thanks for the response, and link. Will check it out and give some feedback. Maybe we can make an altruisic evolution thread or carry on here and discuss this link. As always, definitely interested in hearing other or any perspectives and thoughts, and reads, and communicating in decent manner.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A story of life evolving from non-life, intelligence evolving from non-intelligence, accidents evolving from accidents, altruism evolving from non-altruism, logic evolving from non-logic, is a religious explanation as well.

Not in the way that I use the word religious. Evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation. These are as radically different as faith based thought and reason and evidence based thought. Religious explanations need no empirical basis to be acceptable to the religious. They need no confirmation. They don't need to be falsifiable. They need make no useful predictions, or have any utility whatsoever.

The Genesis creation story is a religious explanation for the origins of the universe and life. It meets my definition - it is based on nothing, predicts nothing, are untestable, and is useful for nothing.

Scientific explanations are the opposite. They are based on observation, they predict outcomes, and as such can be used to make decisions to effect desired outcomes. Climate science is an example of such.

It seems that you're separating the evolution of living species from the evolution of intelligence.

No, not if you mean the emergence of intelligence on earth. If you mean the evolution of thought and ideas, yes, that is separate from biological evolution.

Of course, it is clear that we don't mean the same thing by intelligence, either, but that doesn't matter to the purpose of this point.

Bio-logical: Living-logic evolving. What is the source of life and logic that this theory is founded upon?

Biological does not mean living-logic. It means related to the scientific study of life and living things.

"Granted" by evolution? When does the "scientific" version of evolution allow it to grant anything?

I indulged the pathetic fallacy as a choice in writing style. If you prefer, substitute "emerged as a result of the evolutionary process"

I agree though, intelligence is evolution

You have a tendency to put words in my mouth preceded by the world's "I agree." You are not agreeing with me. You are speaking for me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When someone exempts variety of thoughts/beliefs from their own variety of thoughts/belief model... it is hypocritical and unifies only what it wants to, choosing to separate out of it what it wants to.

No, that is not hypocrisy. It is learning. Learning is the lifelong program of encountering ideas, assessing them for their utility, and collecting the useful ones while discarding the others.

One thing that I have learned is that believing by faith is not a good way of thinking, whereas applying reason to evidence is. Thus, when I cross the street, I look both ways. I could just close my eyes and cross believing by faith that I will make it, or I can collect a little data about the status of the road just then and use reason to decide how and when to proceed.

So I have thrown out all faith based ideas. I reject astrology. I reject phrenology. I reject Scientology. I reject theism. If that's hypocritical to you, theen we have found a third word that we use differently.

In the theory of evolution, there are no ideas of altruism, logic, intelligence amongst species. To invoke such would be invoking the alternative.

In the theory of evolution, there are only ideas like allele, variation, phenotype, unguided natural processes, scarce resources, natural selection, gene pools, and populations.

You seem to be trying to find a role for a deity to play, one that only a deity could have played. To you, the deity is probably the source of intelligence and altruism. I don't see a need to inject supernaturalism into the mix to account for intelligence or altruism. There is no justification in pronouncing natural selection applied to spontaneous variation incapable of generating either or both of these.

And if that is what you're doing, it illustrates well my criticism of faith based thought. You have decided that there is an intelligent designer, and that belief has co-opted your processing of information. As a result, the two of us have parted ways and gone in unrelated directions. Your definitions and arguments are alien to me, and seem to be chosen to conform with your faith based beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't know that it was a rule not call another poster's words a lie, but there is no need to do so (perhaps I should read the terms of service again). As I have explained in the past, I don't think they're lying in the sense that the are knowingly telling a falsehood or otherwise deliberately creating or allowing a misunderstanding for the purpose of deceiving. I assume that they all sincerely believe what they are saying and are trying to make reality conform to it, which they assume it does and must.

You and I get the opportunity to see how they defend their beliefs, which I find to be an invaluable portal into the world of faith based thought.

We also get to argue why and in what way we believe that they are wrong. That may be of no benefit to the creationists, but it can be to us. It is to me. My ideas about truth with regard to science have evolved here. I've also gotten the opportunity to develop new arguments against creationism and improve older ones.

I would call that a strength of this forum.

I'm curious (and I really am curious, rather than being argumentative)......

Someone says "X doesn't exist".

You show them multiple examples of X.

They ignore you.

A few days later they repeat "X doesn't exist" and add in "I've challenged people to show me X for years and no one has ever shown X".​

How do you characterize that?

 

[Jose Fly]

It is funny how she continually demand evidences and proofs from others, and when provided as requested, she would either make flimsy excuses they are not evidences, or ignore it altogether and make the same demand next week.

And she never provide either evidence or proof, when people ask this of her.

Such hypocrisy.

You also have to factor in how she taunts and goads the science advocates into posting science to her, only to have her do what you describe above, followed by more taunts, which triggers more science posts to her......

.....and you end up with an outrageously repetitive thread that's over 250 pages long.