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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

And here I thought we were going to have a civilized, rational ending to this topic. But, now you're back.

I could go on and write an equally long post directed at your most recent wall of text. However, seeing as you simply can't seem to let things go (despite numerously "putting your foot down and saying 'I'm leaving!' "). I guess I'll do it.

Kennyb72, You have yet to do anything in this topic but slander the apposing side. There's no possible way I can explain that you've served no purpose in this topic except turn the people who used to follow your position away, due entirely to your discourteous, rude, and extroverted disposition. You have never responded rationally to anyone's comments, and never elaborated on your own. I could very well explain away all you're logical fallacies in you're most recent post, except the only reason I responded to you're deceitful and misrepresented information in the first place wasn't for your benefit anyway.

It's quite clear that you are so entranced within your little realm of what you conceive reality to be that no amount if simplistic, rational information will ever be able to break through your closed mind. You do nothing to further your understanding of anything, no matter how uncomplicated the subject is, if it doesn't already conform to your beliefs. You can't even accept that your definition of a particular subject is incorrect. Your acceptance of a definition doesn't imply you believe it, or even that you consider it is correct, you simply reject that the entirety of how the world defines that subject as something that you either cannot fathom, or if it somehow penetrates what you believe to be fact.

I am afraid that you are so lost in the concept of what is correct and incorrect in your own mind that you have no ability to learn whatsoever because of it. So there really is no reason for me to explain away all your most recent fallacies. You are unable to be helped, and you have already done so much damage to your own cause, yet you are blind to it as well.

Goodbye.




posted on May, 10 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Barcs

"This is why certain things are inevitable to evolve like eyesight"

Why are things inevitable? Can you elaborate a bit?

It doesn't seem to me that eyesight would be inevitable. It only seems like eyesight is inevitable if the purpose was to see.


I explained it above but I will try to be clearer. They are inevitable because there are so many rolls of the dice from generation to generation varying from individual to individual with mutations. Eventually traits come about that are more advantageous. With eyesight itself, it is helpful in virtually all environments, so any improvement to it would be advantageous to survival. Once that happens, the genes spread throughout the population.

It also perfectly explains why there are so many different types of eyes, with varying ranges of the spectrum they can see. There is no pre determined purpose to see. Eye sight is the result of numerous incremental changes over thousands of generations. Basically each step improved the creature's survival so it stuck. It wasn't only the end result that was helpful. I hope this helps.


edit on 10-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72


originally posted by: kennyb72
People enter this forum expecting a friendly chat and get savaged by a pack of hyena’s screaming with their derisive sciencier than thou laughter at any one that questions their belief system.


Most people don't create threads in this section for a friendly chat. The large majority of threads here are baseless attacks on evolution and science that hold no merit. They are not made to ask genuine questions, or to actually learn how evolution works. They are made to promote intelligent design over evolution (even though the 2 are not mutually exclusive). I can't speak for the OP, but he does seem willing to learn, which is refreshing.


Evolution theory isn’t the only dog in this race and as convinced as you all are about the veracity of your claims there are many of us who question where your conclusions are leading.


There are very few actual scientists that question evolution, and pretty much every negative claim made about it in this section has been thoroughly debunked. Most people who question evolution never actually take the time to research it or learn the opposing view. They don't understand what they are debating and bring nothing but misconceptions to the table. The same misconceptions that folks have been debunking over and over for nearly a decade now.

Based on evidence, evolution is absolutely the only dog in the race to explain the diversity of life. Even if evolution is guided, it is still evolution. It is the cornerstone of biology and genetics. It's not wrong. It might not be 100% understood, but when analyzing and studying the process, it's pretty undeniable.


[It is true that the fundamental stumbling block is origin of life because, if it is shown that life is intelligently designed, then eerything you think you understand about evolution is going to change, At some point in the process something comes along and Tweeks the code, certainly not a difficult task for the level of intelligence I believe exists beyond view.


Actually, if that were the case it would improve what we know about the CAUSES of genetic mutations, plus it wouldn't be the only cause. Evolution as a process as described in MES would still be valid. It would still function via genetic mutations and natural selection. It's just that some of the mutations would have been intentional, controlled, or inserted at crucial evolutionary transitions. The problem is that it does not appear to be that way in the slightest, and your point is based on a HUGE IF. If my aunt had a beard, she'd be my uncle. Fact is, she doesn't.

You can't logically hinge the validity of evolution on the possibility of a future discovery or claim to know what it will mean for evolution if this happens. For all you know a god could be discovered that is completely non interfering had nothing to do with life evolving, he just sent the first spark and let everything unfold. We can go back and forth on what ifs all day.


Oh, I need to address this, evolution is a word, it is not a scientific process and can be applied to just about anything as in the evolution of music or the evolution of the motor industry. A gradual change over time as in the evolution of consciousness, something I completely agree with. When I state that evolution is up for grabs I am referring to the underlying forces that are shaping our existence which have nothing to do with this dodgy process you are trying to sell


Ok so basically you are talking about the definition of evolution that means anything that gradually changes or improves over time. The problem is that definition can apply to almost anything. So evolution as a word is up for grabs? What underlying forces are you referring to? Evolution is used as a descriptor in that sense, so you can't really deny it. There is no underlying force or process. It describes a process that is already there. Car design has evolved because humans have improved their design over time. There isn't a background process that ensures that happens. Humans are able to keep information from previous generations.

Most folks that use the term "evolution" are referring to the the scientific definition, which is biological evolution aka Theory of MES. Be careful with the 2 terms. It's easy to equivocate the meanings. Just because biological evolution is also layman's evolution, does not mean that they are the same. They are completely different terms with different meanings. Evolution as a word has many meanings. The scientific meaning is the only one that people are defending here.


Not only do you lot like to hijack forums but you want to do it with words as well, sort of typical I guess


I didn't hijack the word evolution. Just look it up. You are interchanging it with different definitions when it suits you. There is no underlying evolutionary process when you use the layman's definition rather than the scientific one.


So sorry everybody for being so irritating I won’t do it again honest.


If your posts made me irritated, I wouldn't respond to them. You are welcome to post anytime, just don't be surprised when people call you out. That's the way it works in these here parts.

edit on 10-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: kcgads

i'm not so sure i believe in evolution. i have read to many arguments for and against it. one thing that i often wonder when people say we came from apes, what if they came from us. some kinda genetic mutation from some ancient nuclear war perhaps? and if we did evolve from monkeys why is our dna a hell of a lot closer to pigs then monkeys??



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: atslagsifnotmember
a reply to: kcgads

i'm not so sure i believe in evolution. i have read to many arguments for and against it. one thing that i often wonder when people say we came from apes, what if they came from us. some kinda genetic mutation from some ancient nuclear war perhaps? and if we did evolve from monkeys why is our dna a hell of a lot closer to pigs then monkeys??


Who says our DNA is closer to pigs? I've never heard of that before.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Barcs

"This is why certain things are inevitable to evolve like eyesight"

Why are things inevitable? Can you elaborate a bit?

It doesn't seem to me that eyesight would be inevitable. It only seems like eyesight is inevitable if the purpose was to see.


I explained it above but I will try to be clearer. They are inevitable because there are so many rolls of the dice from generation to generation varying from individual to individual with mutations. Eventually traits come about that are more advantageous. With eyesight itself, it is helpful in virtually all environments, so any improvement to it would be advantageous to survival. Once that happens, the genes spread throughout the population.

It also perfectly explains why there are so many different types of eyes, with varying ranges of the spectrum they can see. There is no pre determined purpose to see. Eye sight is the result of numerous incremental changes over thousands of generations. Basically each step improved the creature's survival so it stuck. It wasn't only the end result that was helpful. I hope this helps.



It doesn't seem to be inevitable that those particular accidental mutations occured. More and more accidental mutations that resulted in better and better eyesight.

I agree that any improvement in sight was helpful for the survival of the organism.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: atslagsifnotmember

People state we came from a common ancestor of modern apes, not that we come from them. They state this because we have physical evidence of the transition from that common ancestor and then the successive branching of the modern species we see today.

Here's a decent explanation why we share DNA with other species:




A Human and a grain of rice may not, at first glance, look like cousins. And yet we share a quarter of our genes with that fine plant. The genes we share with rice—or rhinos or reef coral—are among the most striking signs of our common heritage. All animals, plants, and fungi share an ancestor that lived about 1.6 billion years ago. Every lineage that descended from that progenitor retains parts of its original genome, embodying one of evolution’s key principles: If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Since evolution has conserved so many genes, exploring the genomes of other species can shed light on genes involved in human biology and disease. Even yeast has something to tell us about ourselves.

Source

Here's a further comparison between human and other species you've referred to:



While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%.

Source

and a further explanation on the misleading notion of gene comparison:




The sheer fact that pigs and humans are mammals means that we share some genes. But it is simplistic to put an actual figure on the amount of genetic material we have in common, says animal geneticist Professor Chris Moran from the University of Sydney's Faculty of Veterinary Science.

"Making broad comparisons by saying … 98 per cent of [human] genes are similar to a chimpanzee or whatever else … tend to be a little bit misleading," says Moran.

...

"Scientists have discovered about 20,000 mammalian genes that encode proteins with similar basic functions," ABC Science quoted Moran as saying. "So if you compare the protein-encoding portion of our DNA, we have a lot in common with a lot of mammals."

Professor Moran said mammals have most of the same genes for similar biochemical and physiological functions, and if we look at the details of the genes, there will be differences between them, but they will still be doing the same kind of function.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kcgads

I would argue that "Inevitable" is a bit strong of a word for what he means. In my earlier examples I stated that if a new mutation is selected for due to it's beneficial nature, the mutation will continuously evolve into a more specialized manner because the species that evolved it will put it to use. It is then no accident that the mutation gradually becomes more complex over time, as the continual use for it, and the continual addition of specialized functions through selected mutations grows.

The eye is a great example because we see such variety and functionality per species depending on how they used those more primitive forms of eyes throughout their evolution as a species. All mutations work this way. They will become gradually more specialized to whatever environment the species adapts to. Nevertheless, those now-complex mutations always started off as primitive ones.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The damn fine thing about evolution is that it doesn't need anyone to believe in it, to still be a fact.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147



And here I thought we were going to have a civilized, rational ending to this topic

You mean, I win you lose, get back into your box. Don’t think so!

Your last response was so irrational I almost felt like starting a thread to tell everybody, but then I thought Na, that’s not what real men do.



I could go on and write an equally long post directed at your most recent wall of text.

Hardly, I broke it down into little kiddy sized chunks for you to digest easily, just like little toast soldiers.



Kennyb72, You have yet to do anything in this topic but slander the apposing side. There's no possible way I can explain that you've served no purpose in this topic except turn the people who used to follow your position away, due entirely to your discourteous, rude, and extroverted disposition. You have never responded rationally to anyone's comments, and never elaborated on your own. I could very well explain away all you're logical fallacies in you're most recent post, except the only reason I responded to you're deceitful and misrepresented information in the first place wasn't for your benefit anyway.

You really do seem to have a problem with people who disagree with you Ghost, I am forthright with my views as I attempt to demonstrate that consciousness logically had to play a roll in evolution.

I should't need to remind you that this forum is open to ideas, nowhere does it state that I must talk the official line on evolution or I will be burned at the stake. To be perfectly honest with you I find your objections to alternative views indicative of a completely closed mind.

You know very little of my understanding, as I have a fairly clear comprehension of the workings of Evolution Theory and it does not require a great mind to understand the concept of natural selection and genetic drift. At the concept level I find it to be rather simplistic and yet in some respects quite elegant. What I am suggesting people to do is to take what they think they know and add a new dimension of reasoning to it, which apparently is beyond you. Your attitude fits the description of the word zealot very aptly.



It's quite clear that you are so entranced within your little realm of what you conceive reality to be that no amount if simplistic, rational information will ever be able to break through your closed mind. You do nothing to further your understanding of anything, no matter how uncomplicated the subject is, if it doesn't already conform to your beliefs. You can't even accept that your definition of a particular subject is incorrect. Your acceptance of a definition doesn't imply you believe it, or even that you consider it is correct, you simply reject that the entirety of how the world defines that subject as something that you either cannot fathom, or if it somehow penetrates what you believe to be fact.

I don’t comment in this forum to be taught by you guys, as if you where some sort of guru’s. My comprehension does not require you to clear things up for me, I understand your understanding, I just don’t think you have all the information.

You seem to think that I need to agree with you otherwise I must be some kind of a nut. It would be good for your own growth if you could re-evaluate your irrational reaction to that.



I am afraid that you are so lost in the concept of what is correct and incorrect in your own mind that you have no ability to learn whatsoever because of it. So there really is no reason for me to explain away all your most recent fallacies. You are unable to be helped, and you have already done so much damage to your own cause, yet you are blind to it as well.

Damage to my own cause! What cause? I don’t have a cause, I have an opinion and that is, there is an underlying framework for life on earth and for some reason that view frightens you. Ok, I can except that, but please don’t attempt to tell me how to think.

Cheers



edit on 10-5-2015 by kennyb72 because: puctuation



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Actually, if that were the case it would improve what we know about the CAUSES of genetic mutations, plus it wouldn't be the only cause. Evolution as a process as described in MES would still be valid. It would still function via genetic mutations and natural selection. It's just that some of the mutations would have been intentional, controlled, or inserted at crucial evolutionary transitions. The problem is that it does not appear to be that way in the slightest, and your point is based on a HUGE IF. If my aunt had a beard, she'd be my uncle. Fact is, she doesn't.

That's it Barcs! that's about as close as we can arrive at, "It does not appear to be that way in the slightest" is our only real stumbling block, because in my view, it does not appear that way because science has not yet fully understood the quantum nature of our existence. My degree of confidence is based upon knowledge that is thousand of years old, and was documented long before the term quantum physics was coined.

To date, it has been correct on just about everything that science has subsequently discovered. From my studies there have been many eminent theoretical physicist who have drawn inspiration from the Vedic scripts, which is just one of the sources for hylozoics. The link is probably not the best source, but I would need to go through all of my files to provide you with a list of names.

Thank you again for a very reasonable response.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
I see it happen each time I talk to evolutionists. I use that term to define those of us who view our existence as a completely natural phenomena, which indeed I do myself, only my definition of natural has a much broader scope.

But it's only YOUR personal definition. It's not one used by any branch of science, not recognized by anyone outside of yourself. Not only have you been rather vague in all of your previous replies regarding your actual views here, you're getting frustrated with other people because they aren't accepting or acknowledging a viewpoint which you readily admit is just your opinion and can not be supported by any facts or science. And then wonder aloud why people think you're being denigrating in your comments? Perhaps being as clear as you are in this particular reply would have been a better starting point for you as it would have avoided at least some of the unnecessary back and forth and contemptuous commentary.


I will narrow this question down so it can no longer be avoided or misunderstood. A question I posed to you earlier when I asked what is life? You returned a series of answers of how science defines life in terms of characteristics and basically how to determine if something could be called life or not.
Now let me put it in a different way, because what you provided tells me nothing.


It does though. You simply don't agree with how the biological and earth sciences make the distinction therefore refuse to acknowledge it.

As David Attebourough explains in this video, the eye evolved from the development of light sensitive cells, providing the simple function of distinguishing between light and dark and overtime developing a depression which indicated a direction for light and further to develop mucus that acted as a rudimentary lens and so on and so forth.
Now let me get back to this ‘point of consciousness’, What is doing the distinguishing in the above paragraph?

As well done as Attenborough's discourse on the eye is, it doesn't actually start at "the beginning" which is ironic considering your pomp for harping on what an "origin point" actually is. All of the early creatures with light sensitive spots for example, didn't just pop into existence like that. This advantage is derived from earlier life. Plants. Photosynthesis to be precise. Just like mobile life forms use the ability to differentiate between light and dark, plants likewise depend on these cycles and plants will even follow the path of the sun as it moves across the sky. If something such as heavy rain alters how the plant is rooted in the ground, that plant will us its photo receptors to seek out sunlight and physically move its stems to gain better access to that light in order to survive. This isn't awareness. It's a basic biological impetus to survive. You are attempting to impart your own perceptions of how you ideally think things should be upon a system that neither has not requires it.


What was detecting whether there was light or dark in the first instance. Why is light more advantageous to drive the development of a light sensitive cell? did it know that it would aid its ability to find food perhaps?

the first photosensitive creatures did not know the benefits of this any more than their predecessors "knew" that if they did have the ability that it would be beneficial to them in the future.

Did the creature have a rudimentary awareness, yes/no, if no, then why is it trying to feed to survive what is it that drives that need? is it awareness that it will die if it does not feed?

Do you consider flora to be living? If so, do you believe flora to also be aware? Why does IT feed? Is IT aware it will perish without sustenance?

What is it that drives the concept of reproduction? why does it require to have an offspring? what purpose could it serve? Is it aware that it even needs to survive?

So in that context, do single celled organisms such as Amoeba or Paramecium have awareness?
Why does ANY organism reproduce? It's an instinctual function that does not require an awareness. Viruses do it, plants do it, amoeba do it. None of it benefits the original organism aside from increasing the chances of continuing its genetic lineage for another generation which contributes to survival of the species as a whole. None of that requires awareness though.

What is it that makes any creature develop a defence mechanism or camouflage, or even false eyes on its wings to scare away predators? Is it awareness? is it fear? is it cunning? is it a growing consciousness?

Again, none of the above mechanisms require awareness or are dependent upon awareness. Is it not possible that some peoples understanding of some of those mechanisms may be flawed or that in some instances we are imparting an anthropocentric viewpoint onto something so that it makes sense to US and in actuality has none of the benefit to the organisms in question? Could false eyes on wings not be pareidolia? I know for sure that what I was taught as a child about chameleons for example using their ability to change color was a defensive camouflage and blend with their surrounding is completely false. In actuality, most of the reason chameleons change color is as a signal, a visual signal of mood and aggression, territory and mating behavior. Not to hide from predators. Even if an organism does have an unusual method of camouflage, it doesn't actually imply an awareness behind said mechanism. Its all driven by natural selection over many generations, bottlenecks, genetic drift or instances of punctuated equilibrium.

Even natural selection cannot get away from awareness of an organism, because the same concept applies if 1,000000 iterations ceased to exist and one survives to reproduce, it still comes down to an awareness, or a drive to exist in its current iteration.

Why? This is your claim, please explain why it MUST be so. Instinct or basic biological impetus to reproduce does it for the all animals and plants. The imparting of consciousness as a necessary aspect to this is totally you so its on you to support it with something...anything.

Whatever the answer is, it always comes back to defining life as awareness. If along with all the other miraculous mutations, we did happen to evolve without awareness, why do we now have awareness? did it just happen? or did it evolve along with the organism?

You're imparting an anthropocentric principle upon every living things that exists now , has ever existed and will exist in the future and with no basis or supporting data to back it up. We can test for self awareness and it is not across the board in all current life on Earth. Looking at some other apes, l we can see differences in their levels of self awareness. The farther back our lines split, the less self aware various species seem to be. Archaic Hominids like Neanderthal were obviously self aware. They made jewelry, used makeup and red ochre, buried their dead etc... Other close relatives currently alive such as Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Orangutan and Gorillas are self aware based on tests like the 'mirror test'. Other lesser primates do not possess these traits.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar



I fail to see how you can separate evolution from life itself, life, being this rudimentary awareness in the simplest of creatures to the complex self awareness of a human being with all it’s faculties.

Evolution theory ignores awareness or consciousness even though it has to be a driving force that causes evolution to happen. Nothing could be considered to be life without it having a pinpoint of awareness, awareness is life and there must be an origin to that life, therefor origin of life is pivotal to evolution.


That's where you are wrong. MES does not ignore awareness. The truth of the matter is that you are insisting that an awareness be imparted where there is no evidence of it existing and then you become frustrated because nobody wants to accept or entertain the notion you put forth based on absolutely NO evidence. Science deals in facts, what it can support with evidence. Things that can be verified, tested for and independently reproduced. That primitive life on earth had awareness or that the awareness drives evolution is not a concept with any evidence supporting it. If there were any data indicating such, you can bet your bottom dollar then that someone would be investigating it but not only is there no current data indicating this, awareness just isn't required for things like sustenance or reproduction to occur. To overturn current theories, one must support that change with evidence. The more incredible the assertion, the more incredible the evidence and data must be to support it. It's really a very simple concept.


If you suggest that it didn’t require an awareness to evolve, then what is the driving factor?


Sometimes the driving factor is luck and empty ecological niches needing to be filled. For example, after the KT Extinction event 65 MA which eradicated all of the large life forms on Earth, there were many ecological niches that needed filling and mammals finally had the time to do so without massive predators interfering. This had nothing to do with awareness. It didn't require awareness. There were many resources and little competition. Sometimes it is that simple.


why would anything evolve? If there was no awareness early in the process then when did it develop? and why? and from where? Would awareness then have something to do with how it evolved?


To suggest that evolution is separate from origin of life or awareness or consciousness simply does not make sense.


Wrong. It doesn't make sense to YOU. Yet you have nothing even anecdotal to support these bold assertions.


I believe awareness evolves into consciousness which evolves into self consciousness which evolves into an expanded consciousness and that the organism that houses that consciousness evolves along with the growth of its awareness.


Great, but again, without supporting data that's all it is, your belief. One man's belief doesn't invalidate a century and a half of what is the most well documented scientific processes in the history of science.


This all of course brings me back to the idea that an evolution theory that ignores life-forces that drives it, is a pointless exercise and amounts to examining the husks of millions of iterations of adaptations which could have mutated in any direction. I just see it as a waste of resources when science does not understand awareness that evolves into consciousness, which is the phenomena we call life and the answer to that question does not lie in old bones.


To believe that means you don't actually understand the process of evolution, the studies behind it or the evidence at hand supporting it. You can't claim its a waste of resources when "science does not understand awareness that evolves into consciousness" when you can't even support or prove this phenomena that only YOU are referring to as life. If you don't like where we are searching for answers, where then should we be looking in your opinion?


Life,awareness, consciousness, evolution, what is it? why is it? how can you separate it, as it is all interwoven.


Prove it's interwoven. I know I'm sounding like a broken record at this point but the simple fact that your incredulousness doesn't equate with evidence compounded with your admission that you can not in any way support your notions doesn't give you any ground to stand on here.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, thank you for well considered response.



But it's only YOUR personal definition. It's not one used by any branch of science, not recognized by anyone outside of yourself. Not only have you been rather vague in all of your previous replies regarding your actual views here

Firstly I must clarify again that although the views I express has become synonymous with kennyb72, I have continually explained that these are my views based on the concepts explained in Pythagorean Hylozoics.

Everything I have tried to express is my interpretation, or rather a simplification of Hylozoics, which in itself is an interpretation of the Vedic scripts, The Gnostic teachings and Chaldean and Jewish Kabbalic knowledge.

If it appears that my explanations are light in substance or explanation, it is because I have written reams in this forum on this complex subject, and I simply can’t just keep repeating it. The usual visitors here, would have seen these posts, but obviously have chosen to pay no attention.

My post history will reveal my simplistic explanations, although I don’t expect, or request you to review it. It is just not practical to spend a whole lengthy post repeating myself to the same people. None of what I present can be backed up with hard scientific evidence, because no research has been undertaken to establish its veracity. All I ask is that it be considered and credited with some deep thought, as it is at that level, a larger picture emerges. My primary source is Henry T Laurency's large body of work, who I think you would agree takes a very scientific approach to a very ancient subject.



In response to the scientific definition of life.
It does though. You simply don't agree with how the biological and earth sciences make the distinction therefore refuse to acknowledge it.

The definition presented, is strictly one of observation of recorded behaviour, and I understand, given the criteria that science has set itself for empirical observation, It is as close a definition as can be deduced.

For as long as I can remember, I have had the understanding that all life has consciousness, and I am by no means unfamiliar with the concept of observation. For me, at least, awareness in all living things is a priori.

As I write, I am witnessing ants that regularly enter my house to clean out my glass that contained blackcurrant juice, a daily occurrence. When they have had enough they return to where they came from in the garden.I witness their reaction to me now and when they first started coming in.

We have become friends and we understand each other.(I also understand YOUR reaction to that) I am constantly aware of life, as I live in the country and I am surrounded by life of every description. Well, no Elephants and Lions I guess, but I am sure you get my drift. I also get on very well with bees and apart from once as a child, I have never been stung, even in the middle of a swarm on many occasions.

If science conflicts with my own objective understanding, am I supposed to ignore my own senses?


that plant will us its photo receptors to seek out sunlight and physically move its stems to gain better access to that light in order to survive. This isn't awareness. It's a basic biological impetus to survive

This is certainly helping us to define the difference between our views. A basic biological impetus to survive, what an interesting way to describe an awareness of its circumstances!



the first photosensitive creatures did not know the benefits of this any more than their predecessors "knew" that if they did have the ability that it would be beneficial to them in the future.

But you can’t possibly know this for a fact and so it is conjecture based on your own world view.



Do you consider flora to be living? If so, do you believe flora to also be aware? Why does IT feed? Is IT aware it will perish without sustenance?

But of course it is aware, as are all living things. Our concept of human awareness cannot be compared to the awareness of a plant but everything, even minerals have a rudimentary awareness according to ancient wisdom. I could fill several pages to explain why I feel that this is our reality, but it would possibly mean much more to you if you explored these teachings yourself.



So in that context, do single celled organisms such as Amoeba or Paramecium have awareness?

Yes, as do microbes,bacteria,viruses dust particles and sand although the first three are substantially more aware than inanimate objects. The esoteric axiom, that "‘all’ is conscious matter in motion, (energy)" states this to be the case.



Why does ANY organism reproduce? It's an instinctual function that does not require an awareness

What is it within an organism that can act out an instinct? How can anything without awareness have an instinct?

I won’t quote the entire next paragraph referring to the chameleons or Pareidolia in butterflies, but to suggest the function of the ability of the chameleon is other than a disguise mechanism, although those you mentioned could be additional uses of this characteristic, it is again something that cannot be proved conclusively one way or the other, unless you have had the opportunity to discuss this question directly with a chameleon, in which case I will retract my objection.



In response to my statement regarding awareness.
Why? This is your claim, please explain why it MUST be so. Instinct or basic biological impetus to reproduce does it for the all animals and plants. The imparting of consciousness as a necessary aspect to this is totally you so its on you to support it with something...anything.

Don’t you find the term instinct and biological impetus rather nebulous in definition? I would tend to pin it down with the words awareness and purpose. Again it is not my claim beyond me expressing it, it is the foundation of a belief system that has been around for thousands of years.

There is a clear distinction between the consciousness of a higher order of life such as an animal compared to the rudimentary awareness of a plant or insect. It does belong to the spectrum of sentience from the lowest order of life to the middle order of which humanity currently stands, to the higher order of sentience that exists beyond our ability to detect. Is it not clear to you that consciousness would obviously be subject to evolution the same as a biological life forms physical attributes?



You're imparting an anthropocentric principle upon every living things that exists now , has ever existed and will exist in the future and with no basis or supporting data to back it up.

I am actually doing the opposite to imparting an anthropocentric principle.

Your own view is anthropocentric. As a higher order species, we have a tendency to view everything in the lower order as inanimate or as not aware. I don’t find it at all surprising that given many things that science has studied, comprises of a spectrum of states, in fact modern evolutionary synthesis uses the spectrum principle to explain macro evolution. Why would it be surprising to learn that consciousness is also subject to a continuous spectrum of awareness through to consciousness through to higher consciousness?

Continue next post

edit on 11-5-2015 by kennyb72 because: punctuation



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Continued from previous post:

The self awareness you described, as in the mirror test, cannot really establish self awareness one way or the other, whether an animal possesses self awareness beyond perhaps an intellectual curiosity.

Again I will reference hylozoics, so I do not give the impression these are just my personal beliefs, the higher primates along with dogs, cats, horses, and elephants are the only mammalian species that will eventually reincarnate into the human kingdom, and that the human kingdom, including early hominids, is the first transmigration that self awareness in its truest sense becomes manifest.

All animals have consciousness awareness, all plant life have rudimentary awareness. To paraphrase an old axiom, The rock sleeps, the plant dreams, the animal awakens, and humanity wakens to itself.



The truth of the matter is that you are insisting that an awareness be imparted where there is no evidence of it existing

‘No evidence’ again is the key phrase, and another example of anthropocentric thinking. We accept consciousness a priori in the human species, why not lower order of organisms?



Science deals in facts, what it can support with evidence. Things that can be verified, tested for and independently reproduced.

I am fully aware of this Peter, and it is why we are having this discussion. Lack of evidence of awareness is not evidence of lack of awareness. Surely you must agree that given the confines that science has placed upon itself with its rigorous criteria, that unless you can say conclusively that awareness and consciousness cannot possibly exist in anything other than a biological brain, science by its own standards must reserve judgement until consciousness is fully understood.



The more incredible the assertion, the more incredible the evidence and data must be to support it. It's really a very simple concept.

I interpret the knowledge passed down through the ages as very natural, and dare I say an obvious conclusion to the nature of our universe. Not incredible at all, and whats more, when consciousness has been accurately defined, we will discover it to be in perfect agreement with all known natural laws.



eradicated all of the large life forms on Earth, there were many ecological niches

Yes it is remarkable how ’Nature’ fulfils the roll of providing opportunities for species to develop, whatever ‘Nature’ is.




Great, but again, without supporting data that's all it is, your belief. One man's belief doesn't invalidate a century and a half of what is the most well documented scientific processes in the history of science.

Again,this is not one mans belief. It is the ongoing belief of billions of people worldwide for many thousand of years. I am not even questioning the science personally, beyond the concept of macro evolution as my post history will reveal.

What science has not, or cannot account for is consciousness, which has been the central theme to all of my discussions on this board. I didn’t ask for, or require a lesson in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, "I get it", I just believe it is incomplete without the dimension of consciousness and where that comes from, as a driving influence.

I do become directive, and perhaps objectionably so, because I always end up feeling as though I am being spoken down to, when I honestly feel as though I have information that can shed light on some of the gaps where evolution theory (to me at least) appears to be a stretch of the imagination. I can explain 'that' based on ancient knowledge, but It doesn’t appear to go down too well. Its as if their heads are so full of information, their brains may explode if they have to think of any thing else.



If you don't like where we are searching for answers, where then should we be looking in your opinion?

MES is a good theory, with my esoteric understanding, I think it is has holes in it, and I don’t believe it has yet the authority to definitively put the lid on it. When science uncovers our true reality through quantum physics and an understanding of the non local nature of consciousness, then I believe evolution theory can be fully understood as a natural process within a much larger framework. I wouldn't even suggest that current creationist views are accurate, I believe the truth is even much larger than that, and something science will understand given time.



Prove it's interwoven

Everything else in the universe appears to be interwoven, all balanced in perfect harmony (eventually)

Why should life be any different?

Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins from his book 'The blind watchmaker' and a comparative statement

"Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying - a replicator"

Nobody knows what the creator is but somehow without violating the laws of physics and chemistry it created a molecule that arose that was perfect and had the property of a self-copying -replicator

These statements are both undeniably expressions of faith.


edit on 11-5-2015 by kennyb72 because: puctuation



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Greetings again, kennyb72.

At this point in my observations of your posts here and elsewhere I am only left with one question I feel is worth asking you. It's not what you believe, it's why. I'm interested in an answer less.. well nevermind how I feel about that. Basically, I assume you've had some sort of experience or experiences, that in your opinion support your beliefs. I'm very curious what those experiences were/are.

I honestly can't fathom how you would believe what you do- scratch that.. I honestly can't fathom the way you defend your beliefs with the air of superiority that you do unless you've had some sort of experience so profound.

Please, do your part to enlighten me, by sharing. I readily admit I will probably not be swayed, but I am interested for the sake of clarity and curiosity. Perhaps this post is the universe guiding me to give you the opportunity to provide a testimony. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek but in good spirit. Perhaps you could indulge me.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer



I honestly can't fathom how you would believe what you do- scratch that.. I honestly can't fathom the way you defend your beliefs with the air of superiority that you do unless you've had some sort of experience so profound.

Hello again wakeupbeer

It quite upsets me that people keep saying that I have an air of superiority. I am actually a very uncomplicated, humble person. I can only imagine people get this impression because I speak with confidence about a subject I have studied in some depth supported by my lifes experiences. I have spent a long time exploring this knowledge and have analysed it thoroughly comparing it with my personal experiences. It was only through searching for answers to explain my life and my good fortune that I came across this information. I can get a bit techy when people tell me I am wrong about something I know is the truth.

My life is wonderful, I am not wealthy in money although I have a nice house and modest amount of land. I never expect much from life but I am always presented with adbundance, important things never go wrong for me, the inexplicable has happened to me for all of my life, I no longer question it.

I trust life implicitly and I believe something has my best interests at heart. I have never been ill or had any serious accidents, I have never spent more than a few hours in hospital in all my life. I never go to the doctors, I never go to the dentist, I have no need.

I once choked on water at 20 mtrs below water scuba diving and lived to tell the tale, I crashed into packed ice at over 60kmh snow skiing and suffered no more than a couple of broken ribs, I didn’t even go to the doctors. I was blown out to sea on a windsurf board in the Mediterranean and was rescued 2 miles out by a guy who spotted me through a telescope from solitary house on a clifftop miles away.

I have been thrown from a horse that was spooked and thrown into the path of six galloping horses and their riders and I broke a finger nail. I have been thrown onto rocks water skiing with nothing more than scratches. I have walked through a plate glass door window in a hurry to take something into the garage and stood outside without a scratch.

Eight weeks ago I put my face through the back window of a stationary car at 32kmh while road racing on a carbon fibre cycle and had a few stitches in my chin I didn’t even feel it, the whole experience was incredibly positive as I met some really lovely people. I feel wonderfully fit and healthy.

I was once on a business trip with a very kind employer who used to treat his employees very well. We where attending a meeting at a casino and my boss was going to buy us all lunch. On the the way through the casino I thought It would be great if I could pay for the meal in gratitude for his generosity. I stopped them in their track and asked them to just wait a moment as I would like to pay the bill. I walked up to the wheel of fortune and place a 5 dollar bet on the 48to1, I never bet normally, I just felt I needed to do this. As the guy spun the wheel I went back to party of guys and said this won’t take a minute, I returned to the table and collected $245 dollars, cashed my chips and payed for the meal. To this day I cannot tell you why I made that decision.

There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t receive synchronicities guiding me in my decisions, even my home is a result of chance happenings. I have the best wife in the world the best German Shepherd in the world the best chickens on the planet and I am truly, truly, grateful for my life.

I understand I must sound accident prone but these where all rare occasions when things didn’t quite go according to plan, not a problem though.

As far as profound experiences go Yes, I seem to have access to my causal knowledge, my dreams used to be full of jumbled images but lately I awake and what I can remember, I seem to be in conversation with someone. I can never remember the details but I really enjoy my sleep these days. I always wake fresh without a care in the world even if I have only managed to grab 4 or 5 hours I feel as though I have been privy to a larger picture and I have a deep sense that everything is as it should be. I have been a performing semi pro musician for most of my life and had the best time and yet never had time to learn the piano which I am currently doing and it feels effortless and easy.

Now why wouldn’t I feel confident about my beliefs.

The most negative things that happen to me these days are on this forum and the only reason I come here is because (I don't know!) I sort of feel compelled to get the message across to people to trust life, in the hope that others can share in my good fortune. I am deeply sorry if I have offended anybody, as that is certainly not my intention. I do have a negative tendency to mirror back what I am feeling and I am ultra sensitive to intent.

So in the good spirit of your request I have revealed far more about myself than I would normally do on a public forum so take it for what it is. You may not find any of this remarkable but to me, my life is miraculously wonderful. If you have an alternative explanation for any of this please feel free to comment.

Cheers friend.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

I have no other explanations to offer you. I have no experiences such as you have to relate. I consider myself open minded but in a world full of different beliefs and experiences what am I to do but trust in things that can be shown, studied, understood, proven. You may agree that not everything people experience and believe as truth, is truth. But I digress.

I enjoyed your post, certainly some great anecdotes. I guess I can understand where a lot of the percieved arrogance is just confidence and optimism for what you've found to be truth. I'll keep this stuff in mind when I read future posts and in how I write my replies.


edit on 5-11-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: kcgads
It doesn't seem to be inevitable that those particular accidental mutations occured. More and more accidental mutations that resulted in better and better eyesight.

I agree that any improvement in sight was helpful for the survival of the organism.


Why does it not seem inevitable to you? When you look at the result of evolution as it is today, you see that eye sight has evolved in almost every animal / genetic line on the planet. It has evolved in every single genetic line, where eye sight can be useful. It's not coincidence that 99% of the animal kingdom have some sort of eye or method of sensing light. Yes, a trait like that is inevitable. HOWEVER, there are plenty of other traits out there that are based on luck, because they emerge and are completely useless... until the environment changes. Then they thrive in the new environment while the other similar creatures die out.

We are talking about a giant game of trial and error when it comes to evolution. When you have tens of thousands of individuals all getting 50+ mutations (different mutations for each one) every generation, it's only a matter of time before a trait will emerge that is helpful. It's not always eye sight, it could be something else like sonar in bats, or wings on birds. It could also be a mutation that is neutral and does absolutely nothing until it combines with another mutation.
edit on 11-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

"It has evolved in every single genetic line, where eye sight can be useful"

Exactly. You make my point for me.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join