It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Problems I have with evolution

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
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.



I don't think you're conceiving what you quoted quite right. Homo sapiens are entirely natural. They evolved like everything else. Nothing is special about is. We are inferior to other animals in every respect minus our brains.

If we were to create something in a lab that doesn't derive from any other species, and is just built from matter in some way, and it functions exactly like any known life form on the planet, then that is indeed abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution would then occur once that thing we created started to breed, however. Because Evolution is intrinsic to life (when they reproduce with variation)




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
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.


Um, no. It's just Evolution. Our Theory of Evolution is only the way we attempt to describe a naturally occurring phenomenon. Evolution is as evident as gravity. Everything points to it's direction (biologically speaking).

Our description of that phenomena could very well be inaccurate, but that doesn't mean the phenomena disappears if it is.


originally posted by: purplemer
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 level


And this deviates from Evolution, how?


originally posted by: purplemer
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.


Unless the planet is an actual organism, then this concept wouldn't involve Evolution, there for it's a different subject entirely.


originally posted by: purplemer
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..


No, actually, it doesn't. All that is required is Reproduction with variation and natural selection. It's actually an extremely simple process. No need for something intelligent to guide anything.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 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.

Who said anything about divinely guided genetic drift?

Intelligence is inherent in all organisms capable of exhibiting a survival instinct or behavior. All organisms. Not just humans.

What is predation?
What is "sexual selection"?
What is habitat selection?
What is mating?
What is fight or flight response?
What is foraging for resources?
What is instinct?
What is communication?

Are these not behaviors that in some way play a role in the outcome of survival?


Evolution and Natural selection still are the only factor in the evolution of Homosapiens.

Sure they are still factors. But we have devised ways to fix ourselves, to extend lifespans beyond what nature may have intended, to inseminate without sexual intercourse, and on and on. Humans are tirelessly researching ways to successfully manipulate genetic material. Yet none of this is meant to control the way we adapt and evolve as a species?


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?

Why wouldn't it? It happens all the time. It's called niche contruction. Think about what an environment is, what its make up is, and how much an organism manipulates it, which in turn acts as a feedback mechanism onto itself. What proportion of any given environment is made up of organisms interacting?


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.

Perhaps you are unaware that intelligent behavior is also a natural phenomenon.


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

Bio-engineering is genetic modification – through selective breeding, mutations, recombination, hybridization et al.. What is the difference between these mechanisms and evolutionary ones? Be careful


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.

2 things:

First, perhaps unwittingly, you have suggested that abiogenesis, at least in this case, is/can be intelligently driven. But that's moot because creation of a new species is not Abiogenesis. Never has been. You can be burned at the stake for equating abiogenesis and evolution around here...



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It's just adapting to a different environment.

And what is adapting Barcs?


Humans are not above the process just because they are intelligent.

Doesn't mean they can't affect it any way. Humans are organisms just like everything else, yes. And if we succeed in creating "artificial" intelligent beings, then what is this classified as? What is comparable in nature to an organism that creates another intelligence from scratch? What does biology say about what this is?


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).

Oh brother - slow down when you type and listen to what you're saying. There is nothing in the theory of evolution or any accompanying literature that addresses organisms that can actively, purposively, intelligently control the evolution of other organisms AND that of it own species. So yes, even if we as an organism control even just 5% of the process, then the theory has to be rewritten or at least amended to address this. Or we can continue to ignore it, which is what you seem to prefer.


When hornets build a nest, is that considered removing them from evolution because they are better protected? Of course not.

This makes no sense, I'm sorry. I don't see the correlation this has with anything I said. What is building a nest, for any organism? It's an instinct, right? Right. And I'm still waiting for you to get back to me on how instincts arise.


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?

You know me so well Barcs, it's flattering. Why should biological initelligence hint at ID? Intelligence is a property of all lifeforms. Plants, bacteria, single celled organisms exhibit intelligent behavior, so it's not reliant on brain matter. Intelligence is a prerequisite for survival.

edit on 20-5-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
If we were to create something in a lab that doesn't derive from any other species, and is just built from matter in some way, and it functions exactly like any known life form on the planet, then that is indeed abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution would then occur once that thing we created started to breed, however. Because Evolution is intrinsic to life (when they reproduce with variation)


Abiogenesis is not the creation of a new species. Abiogenesis doesn't say anything about life being created by intelligent beings. You're now invoking intelligent design. Was that intentional?

While we're at it - What does the theory of evolution say about organisms that create an intelligence or another organism from scratch? Or by manipulating, creating genetic material?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Our description of that phenomena could very well be inaccurate, but that doesn't mean the phenomena disappears if it is.


Yes, it could very well be.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Intelligence is inherent in all organisms capable of exhibiting a survival instinct or behavior. All organisms. Not just humans.

What is predation?
What is "sexual selection"?
What is habitat selection?
What is mating?
What is fight or flight response?
What is foraging for resources?
What is instinct?
What is communication?


Are these not behaviors that in some way play a role in the outcome of survival?


Firstly, intelligence and biological behavior are not the same thing. All the instances you mentioned doesn't make it "intelligently driven". You're just labeling natural selection as "intelligently driven" for no apparent reason. You know, the whole "a rose by any other name..." situation.

Your making a statement with no purpose behind it. If you're not implying an intelligent being, then what the heck are you trying to prove? That natural selection is guiding evolution? Yup, I agree with you. Call Natural selection whatever you want, it's all the same process.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Sure they are still factors. But we have devised ways to fix ourselves, to extend lifespans beyond what nature may have intended, to inseminate without sexual intercourse, and on and on. Humans are tirelessly researching ways to successfully manipulate genetic material. Yet none of this is meant to control the way we adapt and evolve as a species?


I'm not arguing that we don't have the ability to fix ourselves and what not. However, you stated "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" "

That is incorrect. We aren't steering it anywhere intentionally. We don't currently have control over what mutations occur in successive generations. Until we can prevent the natural process of those mutations from occurring, it is still all up to Evolution through Natural Selection.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Why wouldn't it? It happens all the time. It's called niche contruction. Think about what an environment is, what its make up is, and how much an organism manipulates it, which in turn acts as a feedback mechanism onto itself. What proportion of any given environment is made up of organisms interacting?


Because what you're describing is just Natural Selection. It's not a conscious action from organisms attempting to change their environment to evolve in a specific manner. It is not them intentionally "steering their evolution". It is merely a means for them to survive.



originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Perhaps you are unaware that intelligent behavior is also a natural phenomenon.


You do realize that I wrote that because you incorrectly stated that "The theory of evolution will have to be re-written". If you really believe that the advent of genetic augmentation should rewrite the theory of evolution, then you do not understand what evolution is.

If something is genetically augmenting something, and really is controlling the genetic coding of an organism, then that is no longer evolution.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Bio-engineering is genetic modification – through selective breeding, mutations, recombination, hybridization et al.. What is the difference between these mechanisms and evolutionary ones? Be careful


One is intentional, one is natural. Evolution is described as a natural phenomena, so why would an external source that is manipulating how an organism receives it's genes still considered Biological Evolution?

I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
First, perhaps unwittingly, you have suggested that abiogenesis, at least in this case, is/can be intelligently driven. But that's moot because creation of a new species is not Abiogenesis. Never has been. You can be burned at the stake for equating abiogenesis and evolution around here...


I never said creation of a new species, we do that all the time with selective breeding. I'm saying starting up life from scratch using no genes from existing organisms. That is in fact Abiogenesis.

Then, once we have life that reproduces with variation, that is when it stops being Abiogenesis and Evolution takes over. You're reading my concept incorrectly.


And by the way "Artificial intelligence" does not equate to a new species. A "species" infers biological properties. "intelligence" does not biological properties, therefor it also does not equate to a new species.

You're terminology in every aspect of this conversation is all incorrect.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Abiogenesis is not the creation of a new species. Abiogenesis doesn't say anything about life being created by intelligent beings. You're now invoking intelligent design. Was that intentional?


There isn't a single theory behind Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the term used to describe when life does not exist, and then comes to existence. If Humans created a life form with no previous ancestry to any biological organism, then that is in fact creating life. Thus that would be a case of Abiogenesis. It would also be the creation of a new species, but not in the sense of ancestry like we see with selective breeding.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
While we're at it - What does the theory of evolution say about organisms that create an intelligence or another organism from scratch? Or by manipulating, creating genetic material?


It doesn't, evolution does not deal with the creation of life. If an organism created new life without previously used genetic material, then it is not a case of evolution, it is a case of Abiogenesis.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147




Our description of that phenomena could very well be inaccurate, but that doesn't mean the phenomena disappears if it is.


Yes, it could very well be.


No, it doesn't. It simply means our description of that phenomena was not correct. The existence of our description does not determine the existence of the phenomenon.
edit on 20/5/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Um, no. It's just Evolution. Our Theory of Evolution is only the way we attempt to describe a naturally occurring phenomenon. Evolution is as evident as gravity. Everything points to it's direction (biologically speaking).


and you are so sure why..?

I tell you what go and get me some falsifible scientfic evidence to prove your point. See its not there. If you had a good understaning of science you would know that the theory of evolutuion falls outward of the remit of science.
We have never observed in lab condtions the theory of evolution. We have not been able to repeat the process. Its a story that fits our cultural beliefs it fits the values that we have as a species. We live within the paradigm of capilitlsm that is why we look outward on the world and see it with the same eyes.. Survival of the fitest. Problem is nature does not work that way the more we look the more we see it coperates..




No, actually, it doesn't. All that is required is Reproduction with variation and natural selection. It's actually an extremely simple process. No need for something intelligent to guide anything.


Yes ofc easy to be big with words.. SImple process, put your money where your mouth is... Go and repeat it.

edit on 21-5-2015 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I think you are missing the point in regards to abiogenesis. It occurs is when life springs out of nothing.. Now making a new creature in a lab is not springing life out of nothing it is creating life out of life. The scientist creating it is a living being too.

I think peeps can be over reductuionist sometimes...

purp



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
And what is adapting Barcs?


Is this another semantics trap? Adaptation is one part of evolution. I'm referring to the long term evolutionary definition of adaptation.


Doesn't mean they can't affect it any way. Humans are organisms just like everything else, yes.


I wasn't arguing that humans don't affect evolution. All organisms do. I was arguing that it doesn't mean it is intelligently driven just because intelligence is a survival trait (one of many).


And if we succeed in creating "artificial" intelligent beings, then what is this classified as? What is comparable in nature to an organism that creates another intelligence from scratch? What does biology say about what this is?


How does any of that apply to biology? If we create artificially intelligent beings then it will be CREATION not evolution, plus it will likely be mechanical. The questions you pose are nothing but "what ifs". The questions cannot be answered at this time because it hasn't yet been done to the point where we can even consider that. That bridge will be crossed when we come to it. No need to pose hypothetical questions about it. AI itself has been around for decades and has been applied to video games and computer software, BUT it isn't alive. A mechanical being in the same sense would not be alive either, unless we somehow figure out how to make it reproduce and make its own decisions that aren't exclusively programmed.


Oh brother - slow down when you type and listen to what you're saying. There is nothing in the theory of evolution or any accompanying literature that addresses organisms that can actively, purposively, intelligently control the evolution of other organisms AND that of it own species. So yes, even if we as an organism control even just 5% of the process, then the theory has to be rewritten or at least amended to address this. Or we can continue to ignore it, which is what you seem to prefer.


Um. What I said was perfectly valid. Yes, it MIGHT be AMENDED not rewritten. Humans are still at mother nature's mercy. To control evolution they would have to manipulate DNA successfully AND 100% control the earth's environment to prevent any type of impact event, or bad weather patterns / earthquakes, etc. Even if they did control all that it would probably be considered something different (ie artificial selection, genetic manipulation etc). You are bringing up potential what ifs about the future. Nobody cares about that. Do you actually have problems with evolution or are you just here again to promote your philosophical version of ID using semantics? Yes I will ignore hypothetical questions because they do not get us anywhere in this discussion nor does it change the way evolution functions in the natural world.


This makes no sense, I'm sorry. I don't see the correlation this has with anything I said. What is building a nest, for any organism? It's an instinct, right? Right. And I'm still waiting for you to get back to me on how instincts arise.


The point was that people inferred that humans control more of their environment, so they are removed from evolution. I was showing that it wasn't true, it's just a different environment. Humans build houses to live in using their evolutionary strengths (intellect, ability to work with hands, etc) , just like dozens of other creatures do. The hornet builds a hive to protect the eggs and the queen. Humans build a house to protect their family and live comfortably. Instincts arise via genetic mutation and natural selection like everything else. Why wouldn't they?


Intelligence is inherent in all organisms capable of exhibiting a survival instinct or behavior. All organisms. Not just humans.

Again, who cares? What does that have to do with evolution in the least? I don't understand your need to paint intelligence as this magical special thing. You can't compare plant intelligence to human intelligence, it's not even close to the same thing.


Abiogenesis is not the creation of a new species. Abiogenesis doesn't say anything about life being created by intelligent beings. You're now invoking intelligent design. Was that intentional?

While we're at it - What does the theory of evolution say about organisms that create an intelligence or another organism from scratch? Or by manipulating, creating genetic material?


You are way too concerned with what the theories DON'T say, rather than what they DO say. None of this is even remotely relevant to evolution. If new info is discovered, then theories get updated. That's how it works. Why are you so concerned with the theory not including stuff we haven't discovered or figured out yet? What's the point?
edit on 21-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

"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."

We adapt our environment allot, I live in one of the most densly populated countries, the Netherlands, so nearly everything around me has not come into being without man's meddling. We may have our selections, unnaturally allot even, but there is no real survival of the fittest around here, you pretty much just survive and are able to procreate anyway. More sexy and intelligent, would be great. Fiddling with the genome through splicing is a way, but everything in nature can evolve out of it self allready. If we can deduce the causal relations of how to evolve in this manner, we should be able to deduce what we want to evolve to and how to achieve this. This seems the only merrit in being alive, developing your abilities to one's benefit. I therefor think that there should be beings that are highly able in physical ability in excistence. And we as a specie should aim for something likewise.





edit on 21-5-2015 by TheunT because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
I tell you what go and get me some falsifible scientfic evidence to prove your point. See its not there.


Uhhhhhhh. How do you ask somebody to get falsifiable evidence and then say "see it's not there" before it is even presented? There is TONS of falsifiable evidence for evolution, readily available from a simple google search for "evidence of evolution". Funny how you "know" there is no evidence before even researching it.


If you had a good understaning of science you would know that the theory of evolutuion falls outward of the remit of science.

Nope. Sorry. If YOU had a good understanding of science, you would know about the mountains upon mountains of physical verifiable evidence rather than just assuming it does not exist.


We have never observed in lab condtions the theory of evolution. We have not been able to repeat the process.

100% false.


I think you are missing the point in regards to abiogenesis. It occurs is when life springs out of nothing.. Now making a new creature in a lab is not springing life out of nothing it is creating life out of life. The scientist creating it is a living being too.


No. It doesn't mean life springs out of nothing. It is the hypothesis that life can form from a combination of its basic components. Guided or not, it would still be abiogenesis, unless it really was created out of absolutely nothing. If it doesn't come from a previously organism that is alive, it is abiogenesis (break the word down to it's roots and it means without originating from life, basically the opposite of biogenesis where it comes from a previous life form).

edit on 21-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheunT
We may have our selections, unnaturally allot even, but there is no real survival of the fittest around here, you pretty much just survive and are able to procreate anyway.


Are you sure about that? I'm not familiar with the Netherlands itself, but does intellect and problem solving ability/skills have no affect on the type of job you work or the money you make over there? Do folks not choose their mates based on their own personal taste? Do folks in Netherlands never get killed from making mistakes or bad decisions, or via unexpected natural disasters?

Obviously it may not be physical survival in the wilderness, but evolution still affects an environment such as that, just in different ways. It's not strictly survival of the physically fit. Intellect is a form of fitness and unless you have arranged marriage over there, sexual selection applies as well.

edit on 21-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

True science is objective, observable and repeatable.. Now then go and get one peer reviewed paper that has observed the process of evolution in lab conditions..

purp..)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Barcs

True science is objective, observable and repeatable.. Now then go and get one peer reviewed paper that has observed the process of evolution in lab conditions..


Evolution is true science and anybody that doesn't realize this hasn't even attempted to learn about it. I'll give you more than 1 example.

icb.oxfordjournals.org...

Speciation of Drosophila in a lab.

en.wikipedia.org...

Refers to E coli evolving in a lab.

www.jstor.org...

^One peer reviewed paper out of dozens on the e coli experiment.

Now search google scholar for "genetic mutation" and check out the hundreds of papers that have observed genetic mutations between generations and mapped genomes of humans plus many other great apes.

www.talkorigins.org...

^This website refers to other observed instances of speciation and evolution in the wild as well as the lab experiments as well.

www.wired.com...

^Evolution of multicelluarity in a lab from single celled organisms.

www.pnas.org...

^Peer reviewed paper on it.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The process we call evolution has occured over billions of years. Yet again I request that someone can demonstrate and repeat this process. Yes we know species can mutate i am a gardener and can see the diversity of change that can happen year to year.

Yes we can modify species show the me the mechanisms that create an eye for example. Not a simple lab experiment with small deviations of change..




Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.


KarlPopper
edit on 21-5-2015 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Ghost147

I think you are missing the point in regards to abiogenesis. It occurs is when life springs out of nothing.. Now making a new creature in a lab is not springing life out of nothing it is creating life out of life. The scientist creating it is a living being too.

I think peeps can be over reductuionist sometimes...

purp


Life isn't springing out of "nothing" It is springing out of chemistry, and the laws of physics and chemistry.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kcgads




Life isn't springing out of "nothing" It is springing out of chemistry, and the laws of physics and chemistry


yes and were does the chemisty spring from..?

the minds of men.. You have intelliegence creating intelligence..

purp



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

How does chemistry come from "the minds of men". That doesn't make any sense. Chemistry is just a natural part of the universe




top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join