Does the Universe Have a Mind of Its Own?

[roamer]

Les,

All I've said is the evidence is missing when it comes to saying anything with certainty about how genetics vary exactly as they need to in order to produce an organ/organism. That question should be left open, and Darwinists should not be assuming their little pet theory is correct.

I know you aren't implying you know, and it seems obvious to me your whole point is that neither do the Darwinists when it comes to explaining things like organ development in the Cambrian era. All I was trying to do was see what people thought of the idea of accumulated behavior of organisms and its effect on evolution. The idea certainly is not my own either, as i mentioned it was something Erwin Schrodinger talked about. I also apologize because I probably haven't given it a very good explanation at all. If anyone else has heard of Schrodingers ideas on evolution please chime in. I was just trying to mention them since I thought it added another evoltuionary perspective.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les,
I know you aren't implying you know, and it seems obvious to me your whole point is that neither do the Darwinists when it comes to explaining things like organ development in the Cambrian era. All I was trying to do was see what people thought of the idea of accumulated behavior of organisms and its effect on evolution. The idea certainly is not my own either, as i mentioned it was something Erwin Schrodinger talked about. I also apologize because I probably haven't given it a very good explanation at all. If anyone else has heard of Schrodingers ideas on evolution please chime in. I was just trying to mention them since I thought it added another evoltuionary perspective.

Well, one thing I've wondered about is how behaviors get programmed into an animal. You see birds doing some amazing things, for instance, that don't appear learned and which others of their species all do. I forget the name of the bird that builds these incredibly ornate nests trying to attract a femaie. It mystifies me how that skill and desire got into his brain.

 

[roamer]

Here http://www.theapologiaproject.org/Cambrian.pdf"is a paper that some people might find to be an interesting read on the Cambrian explosion. I was only able to skim the section on Testing Neo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium against the Cambrian Fossil Record. It seemed to me they made a fairly good case for why neither of the two theories can account for the observed fossil record. The authors also seem to be argueing for intelligent design.

 

[van gogh]

I agree with Van Gogh. Though my support may not be much good to him! I have nothing to back it up except a strong feeling--not much good on this forum. Anyway, just wanted to let him know what i thought (since s/he asked). I might do some more research and thinking and come up ith some good arguments.

i appreciate that

 

[Amp1]

Gbot

Post #31, How did the neuron see the photo? Getting back on topic, Van Gogh, I think the universe could have a mind. Just as our bodies are composed of many cells and different kinds of cells at that, there is an analogous similarity with the universe super clusters, clusters, elliptical galaxies, spiral galaxies, ect. There is an overall structure to the universe also and the eletro-magnetic medium - light pervades it, so yes I think it is possible. Philipe Jose Farmer wrote a SF classic 'The Green Mask' with where he suggested the univese is a nascent being.

 

[tbc]

Hi sameandnot:(post # 31) intersting stuff, but i don't think it entirely counters my comment. I see that as being individual cells responding to outside stimuli, nothing particularly new about that except that these cells are tuned to individual people or places-like specialised brain cells. I still wouldn't describe them as self-conscious or particularly intelligent.
(post #33) I certainly don't claim to know what I am talking about. Its philosophy, its about dipping into questions you don't really know the answers to, and ya, ok, the more hard facts you have the better but they're not as essential as in most physics or science threads. Its a place for expressing and discussing thoughts.

van gogh: You're Welcome!

This topic seems to be becoming a disscussion on macroevolution (not that I'm complianing). I have nothing to add on that, because i don't know enough about it, but it is very interesting and informing. Just one thought i'd like to put out there: Would it be possible for an organ to develop gradually, over time from a more simplistic form of the organ. Let me give and example, (please bear in mind i have no biological background): Let's take an eye. Could there possibly have been a simple organism that developed a cell whose chemistry changed depending on the level of light, allowing that creature to tell i it was in light or dark and thus prehaps increasing its chances of finding plant food. Now over time could the organism (as a species) have developed more cells in order to detect light more accurately, eventually perhaps a simple lens to focus (this seems a bit advanced), colour receptors for recognising food etc... Eventually arriving at a fully developed eye? ie. an organ from microevolution? I realize that Les Sleeth's argument may be that there's no evidence to indicate that the initial light receptor would ever develop, and if not, fine, it was just a thought.
Ive got other ideas, for wings, hearts etc. Just want to know what ppl think.

Back on topic: Anybody else think the universe just works too well for there not to be some form of intelligence behind it?

And, finally, completely unrelated: I remember thinking once how funny it would be if the universe was just built by a higher (and by chance much larger race) as a type of ornament that's nice to look at. Like a mobile that keeps exploding and contracting in a globe on someone's desk. Ya completely off topic, i know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This topic seems to be becoming a disscussion on macroevolution (not that I'm complianing). I have nothing to add on that, because i don't know enough about it, but it is very interesting and informing. Just one thought i'd like to put out there: Would it be possible for an organ to develop gradually, over time from a more simplistic form of the organ. Let me give and example, (please bear in mind i have no biological background): Let's take an eye. Could there possibly have been a simple organism that developed a cell whose chemistry changed depending on the level of light, allowing that creature to tell i it was in light or dark and thus prehaps increasing its chances of finding plant food. Now over time could the organism (as a species) have developed more cells in order to detect light more accurately, eventually perhaps a simple lens to focus (this seems a bit advanced), colour receptors for recognising food etc... Eventually arriving at a fully developed eye? ie. an organ from microevolution? I realize that Les Sleeth's argument may be that there's no evidence to indicate that the initial light receptor would ever develop, and if not, fine, it was just a thought.
Ive got other ideas, for wings, hearts etc. Just want to know what ppl think.

You may already be aware that just such a light receptor has been observed, so certainly it is possible for complex, high-functioning organs to have developed through incremental changes. In fact, that is the common theory for how organs came about.

But let me make a couple of points. In the logic of philosophy, it is commonly accepted that if one can conceive of something, then it is possible. I don't necessarily agree with that, but let's allow it for the moment. In that case, it is possible as some creationists assert that God merely gave the appearance of billions of years of evolution, when really it just took seven days. They conceived it, so it is possible. So what is possible, once we understand the scope of that, becomes far less significant than what is probable and improbable.

For incremental changes to take place as you suggest is "possible," we need a few conditions (if Darwinistic evolution is going to be given credit for the development). We need genetic changes that result in positive contributions to a future organ, and we need time for that change to be selected and preserved in future generations of the organism while waiting for more positive genetic variations to occur which will further develop the budding organ. Each variation must be selected. It has been shown that not all variations preserved need to be beneficial at the time, however that is the exception, not the rule.

Hold that thought for a second and factor in the Cambrian explosion where in a 10 million year period virtually every phyla of animal developed. That means, dozens of new organs that single cell animals didn't have quite suddenly developed.

Okay, so if genetic variation and natural selection pulled that off, it means a rate of positive, beneficial genetic variation had to have occurred unlike anything we can now observe. Given the time constraints, it appears that the genetic changes needed to develop eyes, livers, pancreases, pineal glands, tongues, guts, fins, skin, brains, ears . . . occurred with very few mistakes!

Today we observe nothing like that in genetic change, nothing. The evidence just isn't there to infer that accidental genetic change will produce organs. As I said, bigger bird beaks and longer monkey tails are no problem, but that's it.

So we are back to the difference between possible and probable. It is possible that genetic variation had an incredibly long run of happy accidents, but highly improbable. In any case, we don't have the evidence now to logically infer that known microadaptive processes can produce organs.

My one and only complaint about Darwinists is they are not properly representing the significance of the evidence they have. There is nothing wrong with having a theory, but to continuously tell the public the evidence is "overwhelming" that evolution has produced all life forms, when the evidence they are talking about is simply minor changes to existing structure . . . that is misleading.

I don't say God did it or some universal consciousness. But SOMETHING affected genetic change during that rapid phyla development which we so far have not discovered. What was it? No one knows, so the question should be left open and scientists should not pretend the question is all but settled in favor of their pet theory.

 

[tbc]

Les Sleeth:
You may already be aware that just such a light receptor has been observed, so certainly it is possible for complex, high-functioning organs to have developed through incremental changes. In fact, that is the common theory for how organs came about.

No i didnt know that but its nice to know i was on to something!

...in the Cambrian explosion where in a 10 million year period virtually every phyla of animal developed. That means, dozens of new organs that single cell animals didn't have quite suddenly developed.

Yes, I thought of this while i was writing and realized that it was another argument against the idea, but i forgot to mention it. (Just like the Darwinists, eh Les? )

I should point out at this stage that I'm mostly trying to come up with explanations for the Cambrian explosion that exclude God or a universal consciousness, even though i think the universal consciousness is a strong possibility and more importantly, in my opinion, a probability.

Is there anyone out there that knows:
1.Is there any chemical or other matter that can alter the rate at which mutations or genetic changes take place in a species, in other words a type of catalyst for evolution?
2.Is there any evidence of such a compound being prevelant around the Cambrian Explosion?
3. Has there been any study on this possibility?
I realize that this is still Darwinian thinking on evolution.

My thinking is that if there was such a chemical, in unusually high concentration (in say the atmosphere or water), it could have caused a period where genetic mutation was more pronounced and there was great variety in the types of changes taking place. This would cause 'extreme evolution' where positive mutations were clear winners over negative ones
accelerating the overrall rate of evolution.

Oh, and i know I am still playing with possibilities, but if there was evidence for this possibility i may eventually consider it a probablility.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is there anyone out there that knows:
1.Is there any chemical or other matter that can alter the rate at which mutations or genetic changes take place in a species, in other words a type of catalyst for evolution?
2.Is there any evidence of such a compound being prevelant around the Cambrian Explosion?
3. Has there been any study on this possibility?

There are some intelligent theories. Right now, for example, some thinkers have hopes for a combination of true polar wander, predation, and an increase in the number of Hox genes as an answer to how, without conscious intervention, all those great organs could have developed. But no one can demonstrate it is true yet, so it is just another theory without any more weight than a theory proposing universal consciousness participated.

My thinking is that if there was such a chemical, in unusually high concentration (in say the atmosphere or water), it could have caused a period where genetic mutation was more pronounced and there was great variety in the types of changes taking place. This would cause 'extreme evolution' where positive mutations were clear winners over negative ones accelerating the overrall rate of evolution.

Awesome! Now demonstrate that and you have the basis for claiming genetic variation-natural selection alone "most likely" produced all living forms. Of course, until you or someone can demonstrate it, the question remains open.

I realize that this is still Darwinian thinking on evolution. . . . Oh, and i know I am still playing with possibilities, but if there was evidence for this possibility i may eventually consider it a probablility.

I hope you don't think I want to discourage your thinking, or dissuade you from trying to prove Darwinist evolution, or convince you there is a God. My only interest is a fair representation of what is actually known and not known so that a truly open, objective discussion can be had by all sides of the argument.

 

[tbc]

I hope you don't think I want to discourage your thinking, or dissuade you from trying to prove Darwinist evolution, or convince you there is a God. My only interest is a fair representation of what is actually known and not known so that a truly open, objective discussion can be had by all sides of the argument.

I know youre not trying to affect my thinking, I just wanted to express that i too was neither arguing for or against Darwinian theory. It just happened to be involved in that idea.
Also, as you mentioned (and i know you don't necessarily agree with this) that some consider the aim in philosophy to be probabilities, rather than possiblities. I was just clarifying the relevence of my questions, etc.

Awesome! Now demonstrate that and you have the basis for claiming genetic variation-natural selection alone "most likely" produced all living forms. Of course, until you or someone can demonstrate it, the question remains open.

Heheh, ya, that's might be the hard part...*grabs shovel*

Also, would you mind explaining some of these terms you mentioned:
true polar wander, predation, Hox genes

Thanks.

I realize i just seem to be rehashing theories you already know a lot about, cheers for having the patience to discuss them with me. Its very informative (and saves me trawling through the internet following these things up!)

 

[Paul Martin]

is it possible that the universe has a mind of it's own, is it possible that it thinks in it's own way.

I think both are possible and both are likely.

when we say "mind," what are we referring to?

the feeling that i have, of my own self, is extremely rich in complexity. i have the clear and distinct perception that this feeling is so complex that if i were to try to describe the feeling of my being conscious of it, i would merely mutter and clamour foolishly. this "sensation of self" is a very complex one, and therefore, the difficulty in relating to a virus, which has, probably among the simplest sensations, as its richest, is great.

For me the most cherished attribute of my mind is that it enables me to reason. Intelligence would be a measure of the minds ability to reason.

I agree with both of these: the overwhelmingly mystifying complexity, and the preciousness of the ability to reason. But if I were to try to put my finger on the essence of mind, I think it is fundamentally the ability to know. (I also think this ability has evolved to the complexity existing today. But more about that later.)

Anybody else think the universe just works too well for there not to be some form of intelligence behind it?

I do. Also Gregory Bateson, Erwin Schroedinger (when he was alive), Chris Langan, and many others.

Intelligent design that you hear about now days is the invention of a few Christian fundamentalists, they try to avoid saying it, because their goal is to try to have their religious views taught as an alternative to valid science, but the Christian God is the designer in their view.

I agree with evo. There are many people who think there might be, or might have been, some conscious intervention in the evolution of the universe but who are definitely excluded from the rubric of "Intelligent Design", or "ID". They are not part of that fundamentalist group evo referred to. I think the ID group may even have copyrighted the terms.

If anyone else has heard of Schrodingers ideas on evolution please chime in.

I don't know about his ideas on evolution, but I am aware of an idea of his that I think applies to the question of this thread. And, I think it is an idea that could answer many of the questions here that remain unanswered. The idea is that there is only one consciousness, or one conscious entity, in all of reality.

"what if there is a universal consciousness, how would it be involved in creation."

Well, suppose Schroedinger was right: that there is only a single consciousness in all of reality. The first logical conclusion you could come to is that if a conscious God exists, then Schroedinger was God. (He came to that conclusion, mentioned it in the book "What is Life", and promptly got dropped by his publisher. At least that's the way I understand it.). The next logical inference you could make is that if the essence of me is my consciousness, and the essence of you is your consciousness, then I am you and you are me. Generalizing this, we would conclude, as the Hindus and the Buddhists do, that we are all One.

So, Les's question is how might this universal consciousness be involved in creation. Well, one obvious implication is that since most of the universe has been around a lot longer than brains have, or even than single celled living organisms have, the universal consciousness must not be dependent on them. And, from there, it is an easy leap to conclude that the universal consciousness must not be resident in brains at all.

So how could it work then -- to appear to each of us that we think individually and autonomously with our brains? That's easy too. We are well acquainted with multiplexing methods and time-sharing methods in our computer systems that can give exactly such an illusion. No problem, since we are only speculating on what might be the case. So, IMHO, Schroedinger's idea is not only plausible, but the implications provide easy answers to some pretty hard problems.

Well, one thing I've wondered about is how behaviors get programmed into an animal. You see birds doing some amazing things, for instance, that don't appear learned and which others of their species all do.

That's easy. Since the one universal consciousness predates all birds, it is reasonable to suppose that it has also acquired some pretty formidable capabilities. (This is the "evolved complexity" I referred to earlier. Just think of the extent and complexity of the visible universe.) Among those capabilities could easily be the ability to program impressive behaviors into birds, spiders, and other animals.

so, then, who "programmed" the viruses?

Again, the answer is easy: the one universal consciousness.

However, you are wrong to say the only difference between me (human consciousness) and a virus is complexity. The big difference is my subjectivity which a virus cannot be shown to possess.

When you say "my subjectivity" and "human consciousness", I think you are seduced into making an unwarranted assumption. The assumption is that somehow each of us humans is an individual which can "own" a consciousness. Or that consciousness "belongs to" us as individuals. But if Schroedinger is right, humans don't "have" a consciousness, but instead, the most you could say is that humans share a consciousness. But even at that, it puts too much emphasis on the human. It would be better to say that the one universal consciousness "uses" each individual human. In that sense, we would view brains as simply part of the communication system that allows perceptions to flow from the organism to the one consciousness, and for intentions for willful actions to be relayed from the one consciousness to the muscles of the particular body.

So, I would say that neither you, nor I, nor a virus possesses subjectivity. The one universal consciousness possesses subjectivity and vicariously experiences each of our lives as it "drives" each body along its respective world line. The difference is that the experience of driving a virus is probably a lot dimmer and duller than that of driving a human simply because the communication channel is less sophisticated.

Personally I think [subjectivity] first starts to show with the CNS.

I'd say that the vicarious experience of driving an organism started to get interesting and vivid once the CNS was developed. But that makes an assumption that the only information the one universal consciousness receives from an organism is via its neurons. That may not necessarily be the case.

I have a rule that whatever I say about the way a universal consciousness might function has to fit some facts. The CNS and organization ideas appeal to me because nobody knows what consciousness is or its source, and nobody can explain how things got so exquisitely organized as to form a cell and all the other life forms that followed.

Not that I know what consciousness is or its source, but I have been doing a lot of thinking on the implications of a single consciousness, and I have some ideas. What facts do you have in mind that this idea needs to fit?

Paul

 

[Rade]

There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms.

Dear Les. This is an incorrect statement. I have in other threads on this forum given you books to read and peer reviewed publications to read on this topic. My words just seems to go in one of your ears and out the other. So, once again, read Bernhard Rensch (1959), Evolution above the species level, chapter 6-E, which is titled "Evolution of new structural types and new organs", subchapter "the origin of new structural types", "the origin of new organs". And, now here in 2006, we find courses such as the following at the University of North Carolina:
63 Structure and Evolution of Vertebrates (3). Prerequisites, Biology 11, 11L. A history of the human body with emphasis on evolutionary history of vertebrates and anatomical evolution of organ systems. Three lecture hours a week. Fall, spring. Feduccia.
Now it almost seems like you are repeating the false claims about theory of evolution from those involved in the intelligent design/creationism movement, and posting it here in this forum as "science" (e.g., your false statement about "lack of facts").

 

[Les Sleeth]

Dear Les. This is an incorrect statement. I have in other threads on this forum given you books to read and peer reviewed publications to read on this topic. My words just seems to go in one of your ears and out the other. So, once again, read Bernhard Rensch (1959), Evolution above the species level, chapter 6-E, which is titled "Evolution of new structural types and new organs", subchapter "the origin of new structural types", "the origin of new organs". And, now here in 2006, we find courses such as the following at the University of North Carolina:
63 Structure and Evolution of Vertebrates (3). Prerequisites, Biology 11, 11L. A history of the human body with emphasis on evolutionary history of vertebrates and anatomical evolution of organ systems. Three lecture hours a week. Fall, spring. Feduccia.
Now it almost seems like you are repeating the false claims about theory of evolution from those involved in the intelligent design/creationism movement, and posting it here in this forum as "science" (e.g., your false statement about "lack of facts").

Bull, it's all theory. Are you trying to say that I should accept theory just because a scientist proposes it, a scientist who likely already believes Darwinist evolution whether he has the facts or not? But thank you for confirming one on my complaints that Darwinist theorists sometimes act like theory is as good as fact.

C'mon, please demonstrate that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation has produced organs. Obviously genes varied as they needed to in order to form organs. What you nor anyone else knows is what caused the apparently nearly perfect variation that led to organs. Today you can't find genetic variation producing organs, so why do you think it did so 550 million years ago?

When are you going to get the point? Talk about going in one ear and out the other!

 

[selfAdjoint]

C'mon, please demonstrate that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation has produced organs. Obviously genes varied as they needed to in order to form organs. What you nor anyone else knows is what caused the apparently nearly perfect variation that led to organs. Today you can't find genetic variation producing organs, so why do you think it did so 550 million years ago?

When are you going to get the point? Talk about going in one ear and out the other!

So if we show you experimental speciation (with bacteria) that's not acceptable because it's NOT ACCIDENTAL, and if we show you species actually splitting that's not acceptable because we haven't demonstrated the gene action in that case, i.e. no experiment?

This is a carefully designed argument to accept nothing the evolutionists adduce no matter how good it is. Frankly it's unphilosophical in my opinion.

 

[alfredblase]

Quoting Les Sleeth:

the only relevant facts we have are common decent and genetic variations that either produce useless/destructive changes or which produce simple superficial beneficial changes like bigger bird beaks, longer monkey tails, new colors, etc.

There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms.

So evolution, despite the hyperbole of believers, can't be shown to have created its own programming. The programming is there, yes, but the question is still wide open as to how it got there.

An atom is a kind of logic gate. If it absorbs a photon one of its electrons jumps to a higher energy state, and then that electron falls re-emmiting the photon with random direction. So we see that the logic that might be used for programming is inherent in nature. All we need for evolution to create a program is that these kind of natural logic gates be accidentally arranged in an organic system in a way that the system has a better chance of survival and reproduction.

And so we arive at beneficial programming through natural selection.

What do you make of that?

Edit:

Another perhaps higher form of natural logic, needed for natural selection to create organic programs in the way explained above, is say an organic compound that reacts in a certain way under certain circumstances.

Edit 2:

How did you ever make philosophy guru? its a sorry state of affairs if it happened because of the sheer volume of your posts.

 

[LaPalida]

If we accept the actual facts of evolution, and not the hype pushed by physicalist believers, then the only relevant facts we have are common decent and genetic variations that either produce useless/destructive changes or which produce simple superficial beneficial changes like bigger bird beaks, longer monkey tails, new colors, etc.
There are no "facts" of evolution that show genetic variation (along with natural selection) has produced high-functioning organs or organisms.

You are wrong when you say that there are no "facts" that show that genetic variation along with natural selection produces, over time, complex systems such as high-functioning organs (brain, heart, liver, hands, etc) or orgamisms (such as humans). On the contrary Biological Sciences are replete with facts and examples that demonstrate the validity of Evolution. By saying that it is all "hype" you are reducing the entire field of Biology (along with Geology, Paleontology and Astronomy for good measure) to a few frivilous musings of a mind.

Getting to your point, that "a sufficiently advanced AI with a complex enough mind can be said to have a mind of its own and be self-aware," I don't see it. First of all, we don't know that the basis of subjectivity is complexity. I've pointed out (many times) that if subjectivity arises from complex mental functions, then why do meditators (who still the mind and therefore mental complexity) not only retain subjectivity, but report that it is strengthened when the mind is silenced?

Well this point works only if you accept the fact of Evolution ... which you, it seems, do not. Also I am new to these forums so I don't really know how many times you have mentioned your example of meditators. Sorry.
I don't see how you can logically say that "stilling/silencing your mind" equals "reducing it's mental complexity". It's like saying that by idling your car you make your engine smaller and less complex. The mind/brain is still there even if you don't use it, and it's just as complex as if you would. All the meditators do is learn a trick, to make their brains produce alpha waves at will. This requires a lot more work and concentration to produce than what any average one of our brains could do. Videogamers are known to produce alpha waves because of the intense mental concentration required to keep a game going. Nor do I see how subjectivity cannot be retained when you concentrate.

However, you are wrong to say the only difference between me (human consciousness) and a virus is complexity. The big difference is my subjectivity which a virus cannot be shown to possess.

Could it be that the right kind of complexity eventually produces subjectivity/self-awareness? Subjectivity originates within the brain. The more complex the brain the more likely that it will be self-aware and subjective.

Yes, macroevolution is what's unsupported by evidence. In terms of what I "believe," personally speaking, I believe what is supported by proper evidence. Otherwise, I believe nothing.

What in your opinion constitutes "proper evidence"? Is this a definition that you have outlined for yourself or is this an official definition that everyone (including scientists) agree on? Don't really want to turn this into an evolution debate... but I feel it's beginning to drift that way :)

Personally I think if all transitional forms had been preserved, there really would be a record showing that all life evolved from the first life forms (algae/bacteria). The reason I think there is no fossil record is because the evolution of new life forms happened too fast, so there weren't enough transitional forms to ensure a fossil record.

Well the fossil record is far from perfect. You really cannot expect for everything to be preserved that once lived upon this Earth what with all the Earth processes and erosion etc. Paleontologists and geologists go by what they got. In fact we are lucky to have anything at all! It takes some special processes to preserve life for us to be able to examine it and extract data from it. Another reason would be that a lot prehistoric life was soft-bodied leading to a spottier fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

One more bit of evidence I think that is virtually indisputable is the genetic record which clearly indicates common descent.
So if common descent is true, if all life forms did evolve from more primitive forms, then is there any reason not to extrapolate macroevoluation from microevolution?
YES! The problem is that in Darwinistic evolution theory genetic variation and natural selection are the only mechanisms we have for producing changes (well, plus how disease or changes in environmental chemistry might alter an organism). But today we cannot find evidence that genetic changes produce new organs. Bigger bird beaks, new shades of moths, longer monkey tails . . . no problem. But not organs.

You seem to agree that genetic evidence clearly indicates common descent and that it is indisputable yet you then deny macro evolution on the basis that we cannot see/have not seen new organs evolving. The problem, I think, is your understanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not produce new structures/organs overnight. They evolve over long periods of time. Also new structures are not new at all but modified existing ones (homologous structures). If you look at a bird's wing you would be tempted to say that it's a new organ... but it isn't, it's a modified leg/paw of the organism from which, depending on how far back you want to go, it evolved (some type of dinosaur like archeoapterix which in turn evolved from another creature). And if you go far back enough the thing from which the leg evolved would no longer be anything remotely like a leg but it would still be the same structure from which the leg and then the wing evolved.

Then you have the Cambrian explosion where virtually every phyla of animal first appears within a 10 million year period. There is no known mechanism for producing that quality and quantity of change. Certainly not accidental genetic variation and natural selection; they operate a billion times too slowly (at least as they are observed today) to attribute the kind and quality of changes that took place during the explosion.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

I gave you a couple links for your reference. Although there certainly was an explosion/diversification of life during the Cambrian era this is a creationist claim and it is false. The previous links explain why but I will summarize. Basically there were many animal groups/phyla existing before Cambrian. The reason we have a good record of Cambrian fauna is because that was the period when many hard parts in animals (teeth, shells) first developed. As you probably know bone preserves much better than soft tissue which attributes to the scarcity of fossils before Cambrian. More fossils preserved (due to the hard parts) does not mean there were more animals back then, just more and better fossils. This claim does not in any way disprove macro evolution. Animals as we know them today (mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, spiders), which did not appear in the Cambrian, still evolved from the Cambrian animals (which were more like molluscs and trilobytes) via macro evolution. There are several factors that could have led to this explosion, but they only served as a catalyst for macro evolution.

 

[DM]

My one and only complaint about Darwinists is they are not properly representing the significance of the evidence they have. There is nothing wrong with having a theory, but to continuously tell the public the evidence is "overwhelming" that evolution has produced all life forms, when the evidence they are talking about is simply minor changes to existing structure . . . that is misleading.

I support the majority of your arguments concerning theories such Darwinism. However it is somewhat interesting and paradoxically disappointing to learn that you believe "when the evidence they are talking about is simply minor changes to existing structure . . ."

I personally think Darwinism is completely about radical changes as opposed to minor changes. Darwinism covers and dates back to the genesis of living organisims. Up to where we are right now, I think we may construe it as a massive change.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So if we show you experimental speciation (with bacteria) that's not acceptable because it's NOT ACCIDENTAL, and if we show you species actually splitting that's not acceptable because we haven't demonstrated the gene action in that case, i.e. no experiment?
This is a carefully designed argument to accept nothing the evolutionists adduce no matter how good it is. Frankly it's unphilosophical in my opinion.

No sA. You really aren't getting it. I have never said speciation doesn't happen by way of normal accidental genetic variation (or by human manipulation). But it doesn't take a new organ to produce a new species! I already know bacteria speciate quite readily. IT IS ORGAN DEVELOPMENT AND ONLY ORGAN DEVELOPMENT THAT I CLAIM THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVICENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT ORDINARY ACCIDENTAL GENETIC VARIATION CAUSED THAT DEVELOPMENT.

Just listen please, try to get my point. Go back 550 years when there were mostly bacteria and algae. 15 million years later, tons of new organisms made up of all sorts of new organs. How did accidental genetic variation get so accurate as to produce the exact changes needed to produce hearts, livers, kidneys, brains . . . in such a short period of time?

All I am saying is that RIGHT NOW the genetic variation we actually can observe merely produces either destructive changes or superficial changes like to a tail, moth color, or bird beak. What evidence is there to assume that sort of genetic variation produced all the organs 550 myo, and all in 15 million years? But let's throw out the 15 million year time limit and give evolution all the time it needs, say all 550 million years. You STILL don't have enough evidence to conclude that accidental genetic variation can produce organs.

I am completely willing to accept that genetic variation 550 myo did produce organs; what I am not willing to accept from evolutionist believers is that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation caused those organs/organisms to develop. The objective truth is, nobody knows what made the genetic change so damn effective at creating brand new, high-functioning organs which served the overall organism so well. There's certainly nothing like it going on now.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I support the majority of your arguments concerning theories such Darwinism. However it is somewhat interesting and paradoxically disappointing to learn that you believe "when the evidence they are talking about is simply minor changes to existing structure . . ."

I personally think Darwinism is completely about radical changes as opposed to minor changes. Darwinism covers and dates back to the genesis of living organisims. Up to where we are right now, I think we may construe it as a massive change.

Well, you are another one who can't seem to see what crucial category of evidence is missing from the theory. How exactly do you know what caused the genetic changes which produced new organs? Please stop repeating the same old crap and PROVE genes can vary accidently in such a way as to create a new organ. Remember, accidental variation is the issue, not just variation.

You know, informed scientists already admit the evidence is lacking here; why don't you guys do your homework? I am mostly objecting to the practice of saying there is overwhelming evidence in support of the whole of Darwinist theory, when the evidence is absolutely NOT overwhelming in one crucial area of evolution theory . . . the evidence needed to strongly indicate that known microevolution processes produced organs.

I have been objecting, and I still object, to the practice of evolutionist "believers" using the term "overwhelming" or "most likely" to describe the likelihood of evolution alone being the source of all organisms when there is such a huge evidential gap in the theory.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You are wrong when you say that there are no "facts" that show that genetic variation along with natural selection produces, over time, complex systems such as high-functioning organs (brain, heart, liver, hands, etc) or orgamisms (such as humans). On the contrary Biological Sciences are replete with facts and examples that demonstrate the validity of Evolution. By saying that it is all "hype" you are reducing the entire field of Biology (along with Geology, Paleontology and Astronomy for good measure) to a few frivilous musings of a mind.

I didn't say "genetic variation." Geez! I said ACCIDENTAL genetic variation. You guys are so blinded by your a priori beliefs you can't understand a very simple point. How do you know, for example, that genes weren't consciously manipulated to produce organisms? As I have pointed out, you can't find any new organs today being developed via microprocesses. So what evidence do you have that the genetic changes were accidental way back when all the organs/organisms first developed? Science isn't offering the only option for what created life, and I say it is unfair for evolutionists to act like they've all but explained things.

Well the fossil record is far from perfect. You really cannot expect for everything to be preserved that once lived upon this Earth what with all the Earth processes and erosion etc. Paleontologists and geologists go by what they got. In fact we are lucky to have anything at all! It takes some special processes to preserve life for us to be able to examine it and extract data from it. Another reason would be that a lot prehistoric life was soft-bodied leading to a spottier fossil record.

I don't expect that, I am simply pointing where the evidence is lacking. Why do evolutionist believers get to leap to conclusions that favor their theory when they lack the evidence to do so? Just because they do it in the name of science?

You seem to agree that genetic evidence clearly indicates common descent and that it is indisputable yet you then deny macro evolution on the basis that we cannot see/have not seen new organs evolving. The problem, I think, is your understanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not produce new structures/organs overnight. They evolve over long periods of time.

Hold it right there. They all did not develop over long periods of time, some of them developed within 15 million years. But even if some organs did develop over longer periods, you still don't know what caused the genentic changes that produced those organs. You are just ASSUMING that known microevolutionary processes did it. You can't demonstrate today that they can do it. Don't you see? You are sticking theory in place where evidence is lacking and then acting like that theory is a fact. I don't believe anything, and I mean nothing, except what I or someone else has experienced. I am not just going to accept the assurances of evolutionist zealots that one day they'll have the evidence. When they get it, then they get to say they've made their case. Until they do, the question is open.

In any case, it isn't my problem that you can't observe evolution working the way you claim it does. The rules of proof demand that you provide the evidence, and not say "well, we can't find it yet, but until we do we are going to tell the world that this is most likely how things developed." Hey, all that is is evolutionist believers taking credit for something that is still highly in dispute.

Also new structures are not new at all but modified existing ones (homologous structures). If you look at a bird's wing you would be tempted to say that it's a new organ... but it isn't, it's a modified leg/paw of the organism from which, depending on how far back you want to go, it evolved (some type of dinosaur like archeoapterix which in turn evolved from another creature). And if you go far back enough the thing from which the leg evolved would no longer be anything remotely like a leg but it would still be the same structure from which the leg and then the wing evolved.

So the theory goes. However, I am willing to accept for now that one thing does develop from another. But when are you guys going to get my point? What you don't know is what caused the genetic changes. RIGHT NOW, YOU CANNOT OBSERVE ORGAN DEVELOPMENT VIA ACCIDENTAL GENETIC CHANGES. So you cannot just leap to the conclusion that the genetic variation we see now created organs way back when.

I gave you a couple links for your reference. Although there certainly was an explosion/diversification of life during the Cambrian era this is a creationist claim and it is false.

That is just plain bull. It is nothing more than evolutionist propaganda (yep, both sides do it). I am not a creationist, I am not an evolutionist. I am just looking at the facts. Most scientists do believe an extraordinary amount of phyla developed during the Cambrian period. And most admit there is, as of now, no adequate explanation for the speed of that development.

What is so hard about admitting that nobody knows what caused the quality of genetic changes that created new organs/organisms? Is it just me or are evolutionist believers in denial? I have read everything I can get my hands on looking for the evidence that ACCIDENTAL genetic variation can get creative, but I haven't found one single solitary bit of convincing evidence. As long as evolutionist believers keep pushing this propaganda I will continue to say it's total a exaggeration and distortion of the evidence.

 

[wave]

I said ACCIDENTAL genetic variation.

How do you define an "accidental genetic variation"? Furthermore, how can you distinguish between, for example, an "accidental" insertion versus a non-accidental insertion? You keep using that phrase but I have no idea what it means...

 

[DM]

How exactly do you know what caused the genetic changes which produced new organs?

And don't you call that radical changes as opposed to your unconceivable perception of "minor changes"? For an organism such as bacteria to develop into a human being which comprises of organs is pretty radical!

Please stop repeating the same old crap and PROVE genes can vary accidently in such a way as to create a new organ.

Did I utter "crap" about genes varying accidently?! The answer is no.

I'm not supporting Darwinism pal, all I'm saying is that if Darwinism claims it can explain how life emerged via evolution, their theory is completely RADICAL since it leaps from micro-organisms to humans. You really need to be carefully how you interpret opinions.

 

[Royce]

This is simply my thoughts and opinion based on my understanding of what I have read.

Somehow, whether accidental or intentional DNA came to be on an mainly inorganic earth. It formed cells that lived off of the chemical energy much as the “bacteria” in the deep ocean plumes do. Essentially they act rocks and minerals and broke them down and formed organic chemicals. They began the job of terra-forming Earth to make it hospital to life.

A few billion years later the atmosphere cleared up enough for sun light to reach the surface and there was enough organics to form true bacteria that using sunlight broke down the atmospheric carbon dioxide to form free oxygen molecules. This also produced even more organic material to be used and recycled by life. Meanwhile the primitive bacteria are still munching away happy on rocks making soil etc.
A few more billion years pass and all at once we have Earth water and air that can support multi-cellular plant and animal life. Whalla! We get multi-cellular plant and animal life and the rest is history as they say.

The point is that we are all one life form as supported by the fact that we all share the same DNA. Complex life cannot exist in an inorganic void. We, from the primal bacteria to human being, are all inter-dependant and cannot live without each other with the exception of the rock eaters. Life is since its coming to be on Earth terra-forming the Earth and regulating its climate, oceans and atmosphere to better support life.

Whether this is simply the only way that it could happen due to the Laws of Physics and Chemistry or whether it is just some happy accident or whether life was programmed in the primal DNA with intention and purpose to evolve in they way that it has, we have to admit that is pretty spectacular and very improbable in the time and conditions at hand for it to be simply an accident.

It appears to have direction and purpose. It also appears to be intelligently designed.
These are the easy answers of “why” and “how.” The explain all of the evidence at hand by simply saying that it was an accident or that that is just the way that it happened to happen, is really stretching probability or begging the issue with no answer at all.

A Universal Consciousness is also a “simple” and obvious explanation that is also supported with anecdotal evidence.

The position that the physicalist hold that matter and energy is all that is and the source and cause for all that is, is in my opinion untenable. There are just too many arrows pointing to intelligent design, purpose and intent to ignore. As seen just in this thread alone, the physicalist and evolutionist have to scream at the top of their lungs just to drowned the voice of reason.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How do you define an "accidental genetic variation"? Furthermore, how can you distinguish between, for example, an "accidental" insertion versus a non-accidental insertion? You keep using that phrase but I have no idea what it means...

Well, if that's what is confusing everyone, then I apologize for getting frustrated. Maybe it is my fault for not communicating it better, but I honestly thought the idea was obvious.

Let's start with what convinced Darwin. In his Journal of Researches Darwin commented that, "in the thirteen species of ground-finches, a nearly perfect gradation may be traced from a beak extraordinarily thick to one so fine that it may be compared with that of a warbler. I very much suspect that certain members of the series are confined to different islands."

In this example of genetic variation, it is obvious that within a given species of finch it is natural for bird beak size to vary. That is, a single species may have slightly bigger beaks than average, and single species may contain slightly smaller beaks than average. That variation which causes different size bird beaks within a single species I am saying is "accidental." We know such variation in animals results in different colors and sizes of existing structure. In bacteria we know simple variations to its chemistry allow it to adapt.

One interesting fact is that mutations to complex processing organs such as the liver, heart, eye or brain almost always are harmful or useless. Other examples are how genetic variation in a particular carbon transfer pathway is believed to lead to choline deficiency in humans; genetic variation in copper transporters can lead to Wilson's disease; gene variants have been linked to elevated risks for disorders from Alzheimer's disease to breast cancer.

So in terms of the genetic variation we can observe occurring today in living organisms, there is no indication that mutations will lead to organ development. Yet that is exactly what scientists attribute to mutation!

As Ernst Mayr points out, "Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work on."

Knowing mutation is what is believed to produce new organs, many scientists have seen a problem with it.

David Metzgar and Christopher Wills pointed out in Cell, "Adaptive evolution has long been regarded as the result of postmutational sorting by the process of natural selection. Mutations have been postulated to occur at random, producing genetically different individuals that then compete for resources, the result being selection of better adapted genotypes. Molecular biology has demonstrated, however, that the rate and spectrum of mutations is in large part under the control of genetic factors. Because genetic factors are themselves the subject of adaptive evolution, this discovery has brought into question the random nature of mutagenesis. It would be highly adaptive for organisms inhabiting variable environments to modulate mutational dynamics in ways likely to produce necessary adaptive mutations in a timely fashion while limiting the generation of other, probably deleterious, mutations."

Similarly, "The faithful duplication and repair exhibited by the double-stranded DNA structure would seem to be incompatible with the process of evolution. Thus, evolution has been explained by the occurrence of "errors" during DNA replication and repair." Shibata, T., Nishinaka, T., Mikawa, T., Aihara, H., Kurumizaka, H., Yokoyama, S. & Ito, Y. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98(15) 8425-8432 (2001)

In general genetic mutations result in a net loss of genetic information. There is no naturalistic source for genetic information (nor is there a naturalistic explanation for the existence of information). Genetic mutation simply causes existing genetic information to become corrupted - genetic mutations follow a downward trend. For example, it is universally agreed that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from an original pair of "dogs". This is "Variation within a Kind," NOT upward evolution from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwin's theory of evolution. The variations are always in a downward trend constrained by the genetic code (the dogs do not grow wings and learn to fly). No new genetic information is added, genetic information is always lost: the original pair of "dogs" had all of the potential characteristics of all their various progeny, while the descendants themselves have lost that same potential.

As the great philosopher Karl Popper pointed out, "The real difficulty of Darwinism is the well-known problem of explaining an evolution which prima facie may look goal-directed, such as that of our eyes, by an incredibly large number of very small steps; for according to Darwinism, each of these steps is the result of a purely accidental mutation. That all these independent accidental mutations should have had survival value is difficult to explain."

Famed geneticist H. Graham Cannon said, "A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which marks the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale."

Nobel laureate for penicillin research Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.

Nobel laureate John C. Kendrew for his discovery of the structure of the protein myoglobin said, "Just as in a book misprints are more likely to produce nonsense than better sense, so mutations will almost always be deleterious, almost always, in fact, they will kill the organism or the cell, often at so early a stage in its existence that we do not even realize it ever came into being at all."


Do you see my objection yet? We can strongly support that all life descended from single living source, but we cannot demonstrate that accidental genetic variation produced all the organs/organisms the find present. You can stick your favorite theory where there are evidence gaps, but just because you believe in evolution as presented doesn't give that theory any more credibility than suggesting some sort of universal intelligence has guided genetic variation (when it comes to organ development).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Did I utter "crap" about genes varying accidently?! The answer is no.

Sorry, I edited out "crap" this morning but I guess you caught it before I did that. I was just feeling frustrated last night that no one is addressing my point. Even in this post you once again spoke to something other than what I am saying.

And don't you call that radical changes as opposed to your unconceivable perception of "minor changes"? For an organism such as bacteria to develop into a human being which comprises of organs is pretty radical!

There is adequate genetic evidence to accept that all life evolved from a bacteria. That isn't my issue at least. I totally accept that all life evolved over time. What I object to is Darwinists attributing genetic changes to chance mutation, or some other mechanistic change factor yet to be discovered, and then telling the public that evolution is all but proven. THAT is crap.

If you read my response to Wave, accidental genetic variation is where my objection is 100% focused. No one knows what caused the quality of genetic changes that led to a human. There is absolutely nothing like that going on today in genetic variation. So how can one extrapolate from what happens today some unobserved quality of genetic change that was supposed to have occurred millions of years ago?

Remember, this thread is about if the universe has a mind of its own. The reason we are now on evolution is because I am suggesting that since the source of organ-building genetic variation is open, then it is possible that a universal consciousness caused those genetic changes. But too many scientists are pretending that the genetic variation question really isn't open, that they have it adequately accounted for. CRAP, bull, misleadingness, exaggeration, propaganda . . . that's all it is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

An atom is a kind of logic gate. If it absorbs a photon one of its electrons jumps to a higher energy state, and then that electron falls re-emmiting the photon with random direction.

Programming eh? Outside of life, why don't you show me programming that results in practical, self-sustaining, reproducing, adapting systems which are not created by consciousness (human)? You can't find one, not one, example of programming of that quality which consciousness wasn't required to make it happen. Yet you seem to think that the forces which create and sustain an atom are capable of producing the programming of life. I don't see the source of your confidence.

So we see that the logic that might be used for programming is inherent in nature. . . . All we need for evolution to create a program is that these kind of natural logic gates be accidentally arranged in an organic system in a way that the system has a better chance of survival and reproduction.

Your statements tell me you are another one who can't tell the difference between a theory and a fact. Because something is "logical" doesn't mean it happened. And then you say, "All we need"? Well, if it is so simple, then why don't you demonstrate it occurring? Let's see that arrangement "accidentally" taking place. And don't tell me how evolution had billions of years to do it. That doesn't mean you get to sidestep the rules of proof. No observation of what you've hypothesized to be true means no proof. That is the rule of science, not my rule.

Lots of things "might" be, but you have to prove it before you get to claim to the public that you've solved the evolution issue. And that is exactly what evolutionists are doing. They have some facts, and where the facts are missing they fill it in with theory, but act like that theory is nearly a fact. Such practices are unethical and misleading.

Another perhaps higher form of natural logic, needed for natural selection to create organic programs in the way explained above, is say an organic compound that reacts in a certain way under certain circumstances.

More theory. Yes, an organic compound does react certain ways under certain circumstances. But so what? Let's see you get organic compounds to, for example, self-organize into life. Scientists like to say that's "most likely" what happened, but they are so far from demonstrating it's true that that "most likely" is incredibly optimistic at this point. It isn't a scientific statement, that most likely is a believer's statement.

And so we arive at beneficial programming through natural selection. What do you make of that?

Nice theory, when are you going to provide the proof. See, I am a nonbeliever, and I don't just mean evolution. I refuse to believe anything which I cannot find evidence to support. You are clearly a "scientism" believer. You accept BEFORE THE FACTS ARE THERE TO SUPPORT THE BELIEF that mechanics, physicalness, and science are all we need to explain reality.

Well, I don't. I don't believe anything in advance of facts. That is how I stay neutral, that is how I remain objective. I far prefer to be insulted by you (see below) and other science zealots than to sacrifice my objectivity to gain your acceptance.

How did you ever make philosophy guru? its a sorry state of affairs if it happened because of the sheer volume of your posts.

And so you have what zealots resort to when they can't make their case. Ad hominem attacks. Why don't just let the quality of your arguments show how smart you are?

However, since I have been here I have challenged science's objectivity about the probability of abiogenesis and claims made regarding known microevolutionary processes creating organs. In spite of that I was elected, at a science site, Philosophy Guru two years running. So obviously I am not a gutless kiss-ass thinker looking for approval am I? At least I stand up for and try to support with logic and evidence that which I assert. I'll be looking forward to seeing what kind of thinker you are.

 

[alfredblase]

Lots of things "might" be, but you have to prove it before you get to claim to the public that you've solved the evolution issue. And that is exactly what evolutionists are doing. They have some facts, and where the facts are missing they fill it in with theory, but act like that theory is nearly a fact.

And this is exactly why I think you don't understand evolution theory.

There is not a single theory in the entire history of science that has ever been proven beyond ANY doubt. One can only say we are x percent sure that this happens and our logical theory leading to these predictions is supported by evidence that our predictions are extremely likely to come true.

Ok so how do we apply the above criteria of proof to the theory that accidental arrangment of chemicals, atoms blah blah blah, by evolution (meaning random changes that are succesful), came up with organic programs? Well there have been around 4000 million years in which such an accidental arragement could have taken place. This means it is proven, with a confidence far far higher than any other theory ever, that it HAS happened. So there is a 99.99999999... percent chance (or something ridiculously likely like that) that evolution DID come up with organic programs, all on its own. Now this does not prove that there is no universal conciousness that created its own non random organic programs, but why evoke something for which we have NO PROOF whatsoever (universal conciousness) over something like evolution for which we have the most conclusive proof EVER in the history of science?

Answer: you dont, you stick with the above proven evolution theory.

Looking forward to your concession, hehe

Edit: I can't believe I got sucked into an "is there a god argument" without even realising it. Universal conciousness, intelligent design, hahaha they are in the same boat, along with all disguised religious ideas which borrow selectivley and or misleadingly from science so that they can seem more credible. The last time I heard about intelligent design was in a Jehovas witness magazine, entitled "the watchtower" or something like that . I was 15 and realized immediately how emm how can I put this politely ... that i should put it down before my fragile young mind was poisoned by such filfth.

 

[wave]

That variation which causes different size bird beaks within a single species I am saying is "accidental."

Biologists call that "different alleles". I appreciate your effort, but those two words would have been an adequate response.

One interesting fact is that mutations to complex processing organs such as the liver, heart, eye or brain almost always are harmful or useless.

Just so we don't mislead other people - most mutations are neutral. In addition, whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial depends on the environment. For instance, sickle cell allele causes red blood cells to have a crescent shape. It can be considered harmful because it can damage blood cells and clog blood vessels. However, people with sickle blood cells are less likely to contract malaria. Hence it is beneficial to people living in areas where malaria is prevalent.

So in terms of the genetic variation we can observe occurring today in living organisms, there is no indication that mutations will lead to organ development.

All mammals have the same genetic information required to synthesize vitamin C. However, that mechanism is broken in all primates (including humans) because we share the same disabling mutation. In other words, our liver perform different functions than that of our common ancestor. Now explain why this is not an example of organ development.

Genetic mutation simply causes existing genetic information to become corrupted - genetic mutations follow a downward trend. For example, it is universally agreed that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from an original pair of "dogs". This is "Variation within a Kind," NOT upward evolution from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwin's theory of evolution.

That is a gross misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. Evolution is not about evolving from a lower "kind" into a higher "kind". There is no "upward" or "downward" in Evolution. This http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/laddervstree.gif" perfectly illustrates your misconception.

...No new genetic information is added, genetic information is always lost: the original pair of "dogs" had all of the potential characteristics of all their various progeny, while the descendants themselves have lost that same potential.

That is ludicrous. I didn't expect you to parrot that kind of nonsense, Les. For every mutation, the opposite mutation is also possible. If a mutation result in a loss of information, then the opposite mutation must increase information. Your claim that mutations always result in a loss of information is absolutely false.

Your conclusion is still wrong even if your claim was true. Complexity is not determined by the amount of genetic information (i.e. number of base pairs in a genome). The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs, while the Amoeba Dubia genome has over 650 billion base pairs. Your genome is 200 times smaller than that of a single-celled organism! It follows from your own reasoning that either an amoeba is more complex than you, or it contains 667 billion base pairs that does not qualify as "information". If you argue for the latter, then please give a concise definition for "information" in terms of genetics and explain why you consider some base pairs to be information while others are not.

As the great philosopher Karl Popper pointed out, "The real difficulty of Darwinism is the well-known problem of explaining an evolution which prima facie may look goal-directed, such as that of our eyes, by an incredibly large number of very small steps; for according to Darwinism, each of these steps is the result of a purely accidental mutation. That all these independent accidental mutations should have had survival value is difficult to explain."

Famed geneticist H. Graham Cannon said, "A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which marks the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale."

Nobel laureate for penicillin research Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.

Nobel laureate John C. Kendrew for his discovery of the structure of the protein myoglobin said, "Just as in a book misprints are more likely to produce nonsense than better sense, so mutations will almost always be deleterious, almost always, in fact, they will kill the organism or the cell, often at so early a stage in its existence that we do not even realize it ever came into being at all."

Are you parroting again? Creationists often take a quote out of context (or worse), so I don't trust a quote mine. I hope you won't interpret my prudence as an attack on your character. If you wish to discuss a certain argument then present your evidence and I'll gladly respond.

Do you see my objection yet? We can strongly support that all life descended from single living source, but we cannot demonstrate that accidental genetic variation produced all the organs/organisms the find present.

I don't know. Let me explain what I think your objection is and you tell me whether I have it right or not, OK?

You said "I don't claim speciation doesn't happen via accidental genetic variation/natural selection. We see it all the time now, plus we manipulate animals (as in dog breeding) through that avenue." I also recall other instances where you claim to accept natural selection and common descent. So it appears that your objection is against the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. mutations) rather than against Evolution itself. You also claim that since scientists have not determined the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms, we cannot exclude "universal consciousness" as a possibility. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Les Sleeth]

All mammals have the same genetic information required to synthesize vitamin C. However, that mechanism is broken in all primates (including humans) because we share the same disabling mutation. In other words, our liver perform different functions than that of our common ancestor. Now explain why this is not an example of organ development.

I swear, all you evolution believers must have a blind spot. When did I ever say that livers didn't develop via genetic variation? What I said was, you cannot show what caused that variation! The type of genetic variation we can observe today is not hacking it as an organ creator, so tell me the basis for your confidence in ordinary accidental variation?

That is a gross misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. Evolution is not about evolving from a lower "kind" into a higher "kind". There is no "upward" or "downward" in Evolution. This http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/laddervstree.gif" perfectly illustrates your misconception.
That is ludicrous. I didn't expect you to parrot that kind of nonsense, Les. For every mutation, the opposite mutation is also possible. If a mutation result in a loss of information, then the opposite mutation must increase information. Your claim that mutations always result in a loss of information is absolutely false.

Mutations observed today is all I am talking about. Not mutations of the past. I am convinced that at one point mutations were occurring which produced new information because obviously all life has come about that way. Once again, for the zillionth time, I will repeat that you do not know what caused the kind of mutations which so consistantly resulted in new information that virtually perfect organs were developed. Whatever caused that is not reflected in the the type of mutations we observe today.

Are you parroting again? Creationists often take a quote out of context (or worse), so I don't trust a quote mine. I hope you won't interpret my prudence as an attack on your character. If you wish to discuss a certain argument then present your evidence and I'll gladly respond.

Not parroting, I was simply trying to show that not all science thinkers are willing to overlook where organ development via ACCIDENTAL genetic variation lacks proper evidential support.

I don't know. Let me explain what I think your objection is and you tell me whether I have it right or not, OK?
You said "I don't claim speciation doesn't happen via accidental genetic variation/natural selection. We see it all the time now, plus we manipulate animals (as in dog breeding) through that avenue." I also recall other instances where you claim to accept natural selection and common descent. So it appears that your objection is against the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. mutations) rather than against Evolution itself. You also claim that since scientists have not determined the cause of Evolutionary mechanisms, we cannot exclude "universal consciousness" as a possibility. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Close. I claim that we don't know what caused the type of mutations which resulted in organs, and that the quality of mutations today doesn't give us enough evidence to extrapolate they were the cause.

I also claim that scientists gloss over this problem, and pretend that the mutation quality observed today is more than adequate to tell the public that the evidence in support of Darwinist evolution is "overwhelming."

I personally don't question that life evolved over time. I am only questioning the certainty which evolutionist believers assert that they have it all but figured out what caused the genetic changes that led to organs. I also am not convinced that a universal consciousness caused the quality of genetic changes that led to organs. I honestly don't know. I just don't like evolutionist zealots trying to act like they have it covered when they don't.

 

[Les Sleeth]

And this is exactly why I think you don't understand evolution theory.
There is not a single theory in the entire history of science that has ever been proven beyond ANY doubt. One can only say we are x percent sure that this happens and our logical theory leading to these predictions is supported by evidence that our predictions are extremely likely to come true.

I've understood evolution theory since I was biology student, and for most of my life I accepted it. And please, don't lecture me about theories. I am perfectly happy with most of evolution theory. I am focusing on one, AND ONLY ONE, area where the theory doesn't hold water.

You know, believers are all alike, whether it's evolution or creationism. Question your cherished sacred cow in anyway and it's all out attack on the blasphemer, his education, character and all.

Ok so how do we apply the above criteria of proof to the theory that accidental arrangment of chemicals, atoms blah blah blah, by evolution (meaning random changes that are succesful), came up with organic programs? Well there have been around 4000 million years in which such an accidental arragement could have taken place.

Not so, the first life is believed to have come about in the first 500 million years, and then most of life's phyla in 15 million years.

This means it is proven, with a confidence far far higher than any other theory ever, that it HAS happened. So there is a 99.99999999... percent chance (or something ridiculously likely like that) that evolution DID come up with organic programs, all on its own. Now this does not prove that there is no universal conciousness that created its own non random organic programs, but why evoke something for which we have NO PROOF whatsoever (universal conciousness) over something like evolution for which we have the most conclusive proof EVER in the history of science?

Boy, talk about a bunch of made up statitistics. Please quote the authorities which provide those figures. You made it up.

I didn't say there is proof of a universal consciousness did I? However, I bet you, like most evolutionist zealots, have no idea if there really is any evidence of a universal consciousness because you don't study anything except that which supports what you already believe.

I can't believe I got sucked into an "is there a god argument" without even realising it. Universal conciousness, intelligent design, hahaha they are in the same boat, along with all disguised religious ideas which borrow selectivley and or misleadingly from science so that they can seem more credible. The last time I heard about intelligent design was in a Jehovas witness magazine, entitled "the watchtower" or something like that . I was 15 and realized immediately how emm how can I put this politely ... that i should put it down before my fragile young mind was poisoned by such filfth.

Thank you for showing just how objective you really are.

 

[PIT2]

Fear not, i understand what ur saying Les. And i think u have one hell of an excellent point.

 

[alfredblase]

hahaha now I am an "evolutionist zealot" xDD

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline:

4100 MYA The surface of the Earth cools down enough for the crust to solidify. The atmosphere and the oceans form[1].
4000 MYA Life appears,...

All we need for the possibility of random arrangement of organic chemicals forming a valid logic gate arrangement (i.e. a program) is lots of carbon, and a very varied environment.

So according to wikipedia there have been around 4000 million years in which such an arrangement could have taken place. Its obvious, come on...

Right, next: OF COURSE I made my statistics up! Do you really think I'm going to sit here and calculate the exact chance that successful organic programs would evolve from god knows what chemical soups over 4000 million years??! But what I am sure of is that its again OBVIOUS that the chances are extremely high, higher than any confidence applied to any theories you undoubtedly do believe in.

and yes perhaps i have not been very cautious or sensible as regards the tone of my posts, but this is an informal forum which is meant to be among many other things a fun and relaxing way to pass the time. I am sorry if offended you in anyway, it was not my intention. (but i did think a "philosophy guru" could adopt a more "zen" like attitude to heckling) :P ;)

greetings, alf =)

Edit: actually i think will sit here and provide a simple mathematical, rough, and extremely conservative estimate of the chances of what i advocate happens, happening. watch this space =)

Edit: scratch that i don't think i will, :P

Edit: ok just figured it out, i think i will again heh

 

[sameandnot]

honestly, i think this is a lame discussion, but i am going to point out my observation, any way. as i sense that it is fundamentally important.

it seems apparent, to me, that this argument is not about "mind" at all. humorously, we are not even talking about what is meant by "mind" or what it is. this upsets me; i thought that y'all would be more concerned with answering the question, rather than "proving your own beliefs and points". in your efforts, the point of this thread has been missed, enormously, and this discussion has become second-rate, at best.

if it helps, in this tangent debate-match, those who are concerned with the "truth of the matter" may want to consider pondering the nature of "accidents". you all are talking about "accidents" and conscious evolution, but what EXACTLY is an "accident"?

it's like, what is order and what is chaos? at what point is chaos, order and at what point is order, chaos?

some say, "chaos is order" and others say that, "order is chaos". others say that "chaos" and "order" are fundamentally different, but then, who says when It is order and when It is chaos?

to say that evolution is accidental is to say that it's all an accident (there is only accident), and to say that it evolves consciously is to say that it all evolves consciously (there are no accidents). [period] get it?

who can prove it?

sincerely,
Bored on PF

 

[wave]

I swear, all you evolution believers must have a blind spot.

I certainly do. Don't you?

When did I ever say that livers didn't develop via genetic variation?

Your exact words - "there is no indication that mutations will lead to organ development". Apparently your blind spot is much larger than mine.

What I said was, you cannot show what caused that variation!

It is usually impossible to determine the cause of mutations. For example, a mutation caused by ultraviolet radiation can be indistinguishable from a mutation caused by chemicals. Why the big fuss?

Mutations observed today is all I am talking about. Not mutations of the past.

Irrelevant. Your claim that mutations always result in a loss of information is false - period. I don't care whether you're talking about mutations observed in the past, present or future.

I claim that we don't know what caused the type of mutations which resulted in organs, and that the quality of mutations today doesn't give us enough evidence to extrapolate they were the cause.

I also claim that scientists gloss over this problem, and pretend that the mutation quality observed today is more than adequate to tell the public that the evidence in support of Darwinist evolution is "overwhelming."

Scientists gloss over it because it is not a problem! There is absolutely no evidence to suggest mutations were different in the past. In fact, it is very silly to talk about "quality" of mutations because it doesn't make sense. Would you ask a chemist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of chemical reactions today? Would you ask a physicist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of forces today? Do you seriously believe paracentric inversions in the past are somehow different than those observed today??

 

[Les Sleeth]

Scientists gloss over it because it is not a problem! There is absolutely no evidence to suggest mutations were different in the past. In fact, it is very silly to talk about "quality" of mutations because it doesn't make sense. Would you ask a chemist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of chemical reactions today? Would you ask a physicist why we no longer observe the same "quality" of forces today? Do you seriously believe paracentric inversions in the past are somehow different than those observed today??

There IS a problem, and you are just being obtuse about it. I would bet my inheritance that if creationists were trying to get by on the evidence you have for genetic variation producing organs that you'd be all over them like a bad smell.

You know, this is a logic issue, not a biology issue. So no more condescending "very silly" or "parroting" comments meant to distract us from your crappy logic. Lay out step by step the logic that justifies inferring today's genetic variation, which can only be proven to produce bigger bird beaks et ect., can produce organs. I would LOVE to see that.