Problems I have with evolution

originally posted by: kennyb72
Is that you Ghost?

One thing that did not evolve in evolutionists is a sense of humour. I say this respectfully and with a straight face, get your heads out of your collective a$$es and get a life.

Here, have a star, it may pacify you a little.

It wasn't funny, it was straight up ignorant. If humor is your goal you really need to work on your stand up routine. Sorry that you don't realize this and that you are super quick to accuse others of not respecting others' viewpoints, while at the same time talking complete out of your ass and trashing scientists and atheists.

a reply to: Barcs

Once again Kenny tries to hide his ignorance, and hostility with "it was a joke" or "you have no sense of humor". Those are the classic defense tactics of the troll, not a particularly committed one, but one none the less.

Lets face it, we've all done this dance with Kenny and his club for a long time, and it always comes back (with Kenny) to "you have no sense of humor".

Well I reply, you have no sense of logic.

a reply to: Barcs

Yet again Barcs,

Still intent on not listening to what I am saying, At least you acknowledge awareness in living things which is a start.

I try to write precisely to get my point across and people interpret that as arrogance, well you have all got me stumped.

Our brains are wired differently, I go outside and witness miracles everyday and not just the evolution question. I wished we could just swap eyes for a day, as I have come to the conclusion we must live in different realities.

Noinden

I don’t belong to a club, It would be nice if I did. It appears as though I am all on my ownsome on this one, in this dimension of reality at least. I can’t see anything wrong with that though, being as happy and content as I am. What more could anybody want in life beyond contentment?

Oh, and I don’t dance with blokes, I am fairly conventional from that angle.

Well chaps, I have decided to leave you all alone in future, as it appears I am just making enemies, when all I really wanted to do was to make friends, go figure.

It never occurred to me that the criteria for that was that everybody had to be in complete agreement over everything.

I have had some fun though, but I didn’t want or expect it to be at the expense of anybody else.

Here, have a star each, and I hope it pollutes your star pools with good fortune and happiness for your futures.

a reply to: kennyb72

Seen Kenny you exhibit several problems here.

(a) Enemies and allies. That sort of thining is very dualistic, very Abrhamic. My fellow scientist here don't sit in a cabal plotting the downfall of you, or the other creation/design believing members. We simply post facts.
(b) That "dancing" implies homosexuality.
(c)That any of us post here to get stars and flags.

Out of all the threads you and I have interacted with, your stance has been consistently ill informed, and rejecting of evidence shown to you by multiple posters.

Indeed, you've not grasped a single thing about evolution. Some of the creationist posters at least have tried to keep up, and question.

It simply returns to the fact that one might not believe in evolution, but one must participate (the very act of birth means you did).

a reply to: kennyb72

I'm glad at least some people can see that there is an obvious pattern to evolution.

Convergence absolutely shows that there is a blueprint,and ideals in nature that organisms tend to. I like to use the eye as it is so obvious of an example of a pattern in nature. Sight, hearing and the other senses are ways for organisms to experience the world,and evolve a consciousness. I don't know what the end goal is, but it obviously involves consciousness.

Marsupial dogs are a great example of convergence, where the animals, especially the skulls, are nearly identical. Starting from completely different beginnings. Nature always find a way, it seems. I believe some forms are "ideal" forms that nature tends towards.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs

Yet again Barcs,

Still intent on not listening to what I am saying,

Really? I'm just not listening? I don't know why you say that because I've read every one of your posts in this topic. Just because I disagree with your extreme literal view on Hylozoics, doesn't mean that I'm not listening (or paying attention to what I read).

Our brains are wired differently, I go outside and witness miracles everyday and not just the evolution question. I wished we could just swap eyes for a day, as I have come to the conclusion we must live in different realities.

I think our brains are wired exactly the same, you just have stronger faith in your worldview than I do. I'm willing to accept evidence and new things. My mind is open, but blind belief is out of the question. Please tell me what miracles you witness on a daily basis. If you are actually seeing things that defy logic and have no physical explanation every day, then maybe we need to hang out so I can see this for myself.

Or did you mean to say that you INTERPRET things that happen as miracles, or that you INTERPRET events in your life as backing Hylozoics? Again, Christian fundamentalists (and ICP lol) use the "miracles" argument. Please list some of your recent daily miracles so I have an idea as to what you are referring to. I don't need your whole life history, just some examples from the past week would be great. I'm just curious where your extreme confidence in your worldview comes from. Last time you told me that you have "seen behind the curtain". When I asked you about your experience, you simply generalized and said a bunch of things happened in your life that make you believe it to be fact, so seeing behind the curtain was a metaphor for strong belief, not actually seeing god / miracles / hylozoics. Is "miracles" as metaphor as well?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just want to know where your extreme confidence comes from.

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: kennyb72

I'm glad at least some people can see that there is an obvious pattern to evolution.

Believing you see a pattern is not synonymous with verifying and proving such a pattern exists.

Convergence absolutely shows that there is a blueprint,and ideals in nature that organisms tend to.

No, it absolutely does not show a blueprint. If that were the case then all organisms functioning within similar ecological niches would exhibit similar or the same morphologies. This does occur but in no way is it an across the board phenomena. When it does occur though, it shouldnt be a complete shock nor is it evidence of a blueprint because even in instances where things appear similar there are many differences as well.

I like to use the eye as it is so obvious of an example of a pattern in nature. Sight, hearing and the other senses are ways for organisms to experience the world,and evolve a consciousness. I don't know what the end goal is, but it obviously involves consciousness.

Another instance of imposing a preconceived bias upon something without proof or even evidence. Its particularly evident when you cant even fsthom or imagine the "end goal" let alome describe one. Ill give you a hint though... The only end goal for organisms is to survive long enough to pass its genes on to a new generstion ensuring survival of the species.

Marsupial dogs are a great example of convergence, where the animals, especially the skulls, are nearly identical.

Are you referring to the Thylacine? sure, there are some morphological similarities, especially so with the skull but there are also many differences in morphology and behavior. The formation of the radius and ulna for example is completely differemt in thylacines than it is in canines. The thylacine arm and hand as a result is able to move like a cats giving it more range of motion and more power in striking its victim from an ambush. That is also an example of a behavioral difference between the 2. On top of the differences in their arms, thylacines are lone hunters whereas whereas dogs are pack hunters. Dogs attack en masse while thylacines attack from ambush. They are far more cat-like behaviorally than dog-like. Not exactly following the blueprint now are they?

Starting from completely different beginnings. Nature always find a way, it seems.

Nature always funds a way to fill an ecological niche. Sometimes this includes somewhat similar morphologies that may be beneficial to surviving in that niche. Some similarities though are not the same as being based on a blueprint or there wouldnt be differences.

I believe some forms are "ideal" forms that nature tends towards.

Oh? And what are these ideal forms where are they and why do you believe they are so ideal? If they are so ideal, why then are the same niches across the world not unhabited by similar looking but unrelated creatures?

originally posted by: peter vlar
Believing you see a pattern is not synonymous with verifying and proving such a pattern exists.

This statement pretty much nails it to a T, and it is essentially the crux of the argument. It boils down to personal belief and confirmation bias. Folks believe something (A), folks see something (B), then they automatically associate A with B without any further scrutiny or factoring in C, D, E, F or G. Anybody can find a pattern in anything if they are looking for it. Hence bible codes and Moby Dick codes. It's sort of like how the optimistic notices all the positive and uses it to shape his outlook on life, whereas the pessimist only pays attention to the negative and as a result his life is dominated by negativity. It's not that pessimists don't witness good things, or that optimists don't witness bad things. They essentially filter out anything that goes against their outlook and don't pay attention to it.

I feel this is kind of what Kenny is doing in his life with Hylozoics. I'm certainly not saying he's right or wrong, but it's easy to get sucked into a belief or belief system and use all kinds of things as evidence, but not consider the things that go against it. People of all faiths and beliefs do it, even non believers.

I tend to agree with the original post in the sence that we may be intelligent enough to steer our evolution. I however also think that we stagnated our evolution by destroying the premiss of survival of the fittest. We adapt our surroundings to survive instead of our body.

originally posted by: TheunT
I tend to agree with the original post in the sence that we may be intelligent enough to steer our evolution. I however also think that we stagnated our evolution by destroying the premiss of survival of the fittest. We adapt our surroundings to survive instead of our body.

I don't really see a big difference. Yes, most civilizations are removed from the physical survival aspect of nature, but evolution is about adaptation to an environment. For most of us, that environment is now the business world, so intelligence is a bigger factor. Physical traits are not as important for survival, but they still matter as there are tons of labor intensive jobs out there. That also leads me to my next point, which is sexual selection. It is probably the biggest factor hands down in human evolution right now. It isn't true for everybody, but generally speaking people prefer sexy, physically fit mates. For others intelligence and personality is a bigger factor. Based on that trend, I'd expect folks in civilized countries to become more sexy and more intelligent over time.

The only issue is that we are removed from many natural selection type events, so bad traits don't always get filtered out. But again, is it really that different from building your home in a cave in the grand scheme of things? We control our environment much more than we used to, but survival is based on other things now, like common sense (ie look both ways before you cross the street or you die), intelligence (inventing things that add to our longevity), problem solving (ie figuring out how to mass deploy food consistently to 300 million+ people) and judgement of situations (situational awareness and quick thinking when faced with an unexpected problem).

Humans won't really be able to steer our own evolution until they can manipulate existing genomes to get rid of disease and give us new traits, and also reproduce without issues from that manipulation. I think we'll get there one day.

originally posted by: TheunT
I tend to agree with the original post in the sence that we may be intelligent enough to steer our evolution. I however also think that we stagnated our evolution by destroying the premiss of survival of the fittest. We adapt our surroundings to survive instead of our body.

Evolution can't stagnate. Humans are still evolving, we just aren't evolving according to the same factors that all other organisms do because we have a society that takes care of the survival factor. But make no mistake, selective forces are still at work in our society. They may just not be as apparent as you think they are. Barcs' post above mine goes into a few of them.

I'd say that since the Western world has grown so reliant on fatty and unhealthy foods, evolution is going to shift to where those foods are actually healthier for us and humans will be able thrive on them. Or at the least not become sick and die from them. Our immune systems are changing as well. With all the diseases and illnesses we've eradicated or can treat medically, our bodies don't have to develop as good of immune systems, so expect things to change there.

a reply to: Barcs

We control our environment much more than we used to, but survival is based on other things now, like common sense (ie look both ways before you cross the street or you die), intelligence (inventing things that add to our longevity), problem solving (ie figuring out how to mass deploy food consistently to 300 million+ people) and judgement of situations (situational awareness and quick thinking when faced with an unexpected problem).

Yes- evolution is driven by behavior. So it can be argued that it is intelligently driven. Not so blind, really.

Humans won't really be able to steer our own evolution until they can manipulate existing genomes to get rid of disease and give us new traits, and also reproduce without issues from that manipulation. I think we'll get there one day.

We are already steering our own evolution, and that of other organisms. Not only that, we are going to create a whole new species of beings - "Artificial Intelligence"

Imagine that- organisms are not only controlling their own evolution and that of other organisms, but are also creating new species - or iow, causing speciation.

The theory of evolution will have to be re-written.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

Yes- evolution is driven by behavior. So it can be argued that it is intelligently driven. Not so blind, really.

I would say that is an irresponsible notion. "intelligently driven" in the sense that a species which has the power to build cities and pollute a lot is not the same as a divine being guiding genetic drift to a specific point.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

We are already steering our own evolution, and that of other organisms. Not only that, we are going to create a whole new species of beings - "Artificial Intelligence"

No, we're not. Evolution and Natural selection still are the only factor in the evolution of Homosapiens. At a biological level we may still be adapting to the changes that we've made to our environment, but that's not intentionally changing evolution. The process that Evolution goes through is still consistent from what has been occurring for billions of years.

Conversely, if an organism (other than a human) were to slowly change their environment - be that through waste or predation, or what have you - and they began evolving according to that change of environment, would that still make your claim that they were steering their own evolution and others around them to be true?

No, that's just Evolution being Evolution.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
Imagine that- organisms are not only controlling their own evolution and that of other organisms, but are also creating new species - or iow, causing speciation.

The theory of evolution will have to be re-written.

Perhaps you're unaware that Evolution is a natural phenomenon. Our theory of it is just how we describe how that natural phenomenon functions. So no, it wont have to be rewritten.

If we biologically controlled which mutations formed in ourselves and other species, then that is no longer Evolution, that's just biological engineering.

If we were to create a new species, an actual, biological species that is every bit alive like any other organism out there, then that is just abiogenises, not evolution. However, considering that it would reproduce with variation (just like any other biological species out there), Evolution would still occur to it.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It's no different. It's just adapting to a different environment. An environment that is partially controlled by humans. Natural selection still applies. Yes humans affect other species' evolution and extinction, but it is STILL evolution and is no different than a rival predator entering an area and taking another species' food supply. They are adapting to OUR environment. Humans are not above the process just because they are intelligent. I've seen 1000 ways to die, that is natural selection in action, and sexual selection is obvious and prevalent in our society. Natural selection still applies, evolution absolutely will not need to be rewritten, even if we control it 100% (which will never happen because an asteroid could hit the earth and wipe 99% of us off the face of the planet any day). Humans are still part of earth and at mother nature's mercy like every other species on earth. When hornets build a nest, is that considered removing them from evolution because they are better protected? Of course not.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I would say that is an irresponsible notion. "intelligently driven" in the sense that a species which has the power to build cities and pollute a lot is not the same as a divine being guiding genetic drift to a specific point

It's a semantics argument with him. He frequently does this. If intelligence is a factor, then it must hint at intelligent design right? Intelligently driven is the same as intelligence being a survival trait, right?

a reply to: kcgads

I see an interlligence in evolution that happens over far longer time period than human pereception. It problem solves in many ways, has a memory and senses. Look at the biotech in a lobster outsmarts anything we have ever done...

We fail to see these strengths in nature and continue to degradate with words and actions.

purp..

a reply to: Ghost147

If we were to create a new species, an actual, biological species that is every bit alive like any other organism out there, then that is just abiogenises, not evolution

Only if you see a seperation between man and nature.. without that line whats creating the new species..

purp.

a reply to: purplemer

I question how you can make those assertions without another example of evolution on another planet to compare it to.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hello and thank you for reply.

i find the scinetific views we have of evolution to to be more reflective of our own culture than of nature itself. Nature is capable of problem solving evolutionary adaptation is a good example of that. Complexity of life and ecosystems increases over time and this change is not random.

We think ourselves separate from the process that created us. We see intelligence within ourselves but fail to see it any intelligence in the complexity that created us.

Ecosystems cooperate, they communicate, they share resources they adapt to challange. Granted i dont see it as they same type of intelligence that we have but there is a sentinence there. An ability to deal with complex situations and create ingenious solutions to these in the form of life.

We could learn a lot if we looked with different eyes many of these systems have been in place for million upon millions of years. If we want to survive as a species we need to start listening..

purp

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hello and thank you for reply.

i find the scinetific views we have of evolution to to be more reflective of our own culture than of nature itself. Nature is capable of problem solving evolutionary adaptation is a good example of that. Complexity of life and ecosystems increases over time and this change is not random.

I agree, I'm just wondering where you get the idea that it isn't random from. There is MUCH evidence that say at the least, evolution isn't intelligently designed and possibly is random. Vestigial organs for instance.

We think ourselves separate from the process that created us. We see intelligence within ourselves but fail to see it any intelligence in the complexity that created us.

I'm pretty sure that scientists all acknowledge that humans aren't separate from the rules of evolution and that even today evolution is happening all around us and to us.

Ecosystems cooperate, they communicate, they share resources they adapt to challange. Granted i dont see it as they same type of intelligence that we have but there is a sentinence there. An ability to deal with complex situations and create ingenious solutions to these in the form of life.

I view it more as a shotgun blast of ideas and counting on the possibility that one piece of flak manages to hit the target.

We could learn a lot if we looked with different eyes many of these systems have been in place for million upon millions of years. If we want to survive as a species we need to start listening..

purp

Agreed. Humans are more intrinsically linked to the environment than we think we are. Even in cities that are as far removed from nature as possible, evolution continues to work its magic. Pigeons and rats have started to adapt to city life. Domesticated animals offer synergistic benefits to humans. Eventually nature may even mutate a change that helps a species overcome the human mastery of the food chain. Heck, humans themselves are still evolving. Though the things that determine our "fittest" genes are different than in nature because we have developed a new environment to thrive in than most of nature.

But despite all this, we would STILL need another example of being able to see evolution in action on another planet to compare to, to see if evolution is directional or not.

a reply to: Noinden

Maybe its not as simple as evolutionists vs creationists. Maybe both are incorrect the living world in which we live is finely balanced and nature is full of complexity we are yet to grasp.

The more we look and listen the more we will learn. Plants fire neurons yet they dont have a brain there root systems mingle with huge underground networks of fungi. They communication and share resources through these networks. Its possible that we are looking at intelligence and consciousnes that is far different to our own and on a very different levelSuch i

On a more marco level the entire earth can be seen as a sentinent being. Such ideas are not alien to science lovelock proposed in the gai theory that our planet may be a self aware self regualating system.

What we call evolution may be no different it looks to me like an intelliegence that happens over vast eaons of time. The process of evoultion requires problem solving and a memory both of which are evident..

Just some food for thought

kind regards

purpl