The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

I would wager that this idea probably dates back to one or more philosophers of Ancient Greece - though off hand I do not know who - Still it is one of my favoritc concepts.

How can you get a trully accurate observation of something you are a part of

One can make all types of observations of the Universe and existence - But the fact that you are a part of the universe and all that exists creates a problem - your views are limited by the fact that you are part of what you are viewing.

Same would hold for Evolution - You are part of Evolution and any view you might have of Evolution would automatically be
prejuidiced by your being part of it

A hypothetically advanced species of being might find Man on a level that Man rates a monkey.



“The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are
prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


“In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the haughtiest and most mendacious minute of ‘world history’―yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die.

One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it. But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that it floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world.”

― Nietzsche, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense


“In science, convictions have no rights of citizenship, as is said with good reason. Only when they decide to descend to the modesty of a hypothesis, of a provisional experimental point of view, of a regulative fiction, maybe they be granted admission and even a certain value within the realm of knowledge—though always with the restriction that they remain under police supervision, under the police of mistrust. But does this not mean, more precisely considered, that a conviction may obtain admission to science only when it ceases to be a conviction? Would not the discipline of the scientific spirit begin with this, no longer to permit oneself any convictions? Probably that is how it is. But one must still ask whether it is not the case that, in order that this discipline could begin, a conviction must have been there already, and even such a commanding and unconditional one that it sacrificed all other convictions for its own sake.It is clear that science too rests on a faith; there is no science ‘without presuppositions.’ The question whether truth is needed must not only have been affirmed in advance, but affirmed to the extent that the principle, the faith, the conviction is expressed: ‘nothing is needed more than truth, and in relation to it everything else has only second-rate value.'”
— Nietzsche, The Gay Science




"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you".

-Friedrich Nietzsche

Love your selective quote mines. Guess you've got nothing tangible. Keep preaching, brother! Post those irrelevant quotes that falsely try to portray intelligent people as ID supporters. Friedrich Nietzsche now? Get real.

"There is not enough love and kindness in the world to give any of it away to imaginary beings." - Friederich Nietzsche

"Those who cannot understand how to put their thoughts on ice should not enter into the heat of debate."
Friedrich Nietzsche

"The 'kingdom of Heaven' is a condition of the heart - not something that comes 'upon the earth' or 'after death.'
Friedrich Nietzsche

"Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow."
Friedrich Nietzsche

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."
Friedrich Nietzsche

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight."
Friedrich Nietzsche

"After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands."
Friedrich Nietzsche

"Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?"
Friedrich Nietzsche

"In heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Yes, it totally sounds like he supports intelligent design, just like Feynman!

Who will be incorrectly portrayed next? Coming soon, the true Christian side of Richard Dawkins! His quotes will prove it!

a reply to: AlienView

Out of curiosity, can you do more than supply quotes that are not really pertinent to this discussion? Honestly I wonder, as you do a lot of "what ifs" and "so and so said something that has nothing to do with this soever" but hard discussion, in your own words? That would be grand.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Computer code is used BY US to understand and explain things.

This is an example of what I meant in my previous comment. Conveniently ignoring that ALL WORDS are used by us to help understand and explain things (including realities/facts) to make his point without actually spelling out his point (but people are thinking it after reading his comment, like a trigger to their figurative database of arguments they've heard regarding this subject and how to deny realities/facts by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, a conditioned, trained behaviour). It doesn't negate the appropiateness of certain words when applied to realities/facts/certainties/truths.

Notice how I used the word "figurative" in the sentence above before "database"? That's how you use words to make it clear when you're using an analogy or metaphor. Likewise you can use words like "like" or "similar to" if you suspect that it might not be clear that you're using an analogy or metaphor. The so-called peer reviewed articles in reputable magazines that use the word "code" (or "programming", "programmed") in relation to DNA that I've seen are clearly not using a metaphor or an analogy. They do it because they know it's the appropiate word to describe, help understand and explain a reality/fact.

Fact: DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code.

A person who is willing to hear out and learn from those teaching science/knowledge about DNA would do well to not only pick up what they're saying about the subject of evolution but also hear out the rest and practice their ability to tell fact from fiction and when those who possess a lot of knowledge regarding these subjects move from discussing facts into discussing fiction (which also happens in published articles).

The video below describes the facts with words, as is the purpose of language and communication when you're trying to explain facts/realities to help people understand them and when you're not trying to warp people's understanding of language and encourage them to deny facts to sell mythology as science and science as mythology. Notice the usage of the words "information, encoded, code, operation, instructions, machine", just to name a few words with further logical implications for a person willing to accept and deal with reality:

And the same words used by the Japanese (after translation into english, also notice "programmed"):

If it's programmed, then the process of programming was involved, which initially requires a programmer or programmers with the required amount and type of intelligence for whatever has been programmed; there's a relation between this that can give you further clues as to the level of technological advancement and know-how of the programmer or programmers, and the word "initially" relates to this level of technological advancement as well when we're talking about self-executing (in conjunction with the right biomolecular machinery to get that function out of the code/blueprint) and replicating codes. The abilities regarding self-execution and replication, which are still interdependent with the machinery for execution of the code, do not negate or lower the initial requirement for a programmer(s), it increases the level of technological advancement and know-how or intelligence required, and makes the evidence more convincing, especially if you also consider the interdependency of everything involved in a viable living reproducing organism.

merriam-webster.com-dictionary:

programmer

a : a person who prepares and tests programs for devices (as computers)
b : one that programs a mechanism
c : one that prepares an instructional program
d : a person who plans or prepares entertainment programs

Do you see any mention of Mother Nature, nature, the laws of nature, natural, or evolution in there? Which ones do you think apply when I used the word programmer? Is it OK when multiple descriptions of the meaning of that word apply? Might there be some aspect of a programmer that they decided not to emphasize to keep the dictionary from having to be stored in DNA format to keep it from getting too big (thinking about one of the latest science threads about using DNA to store computer data)? Something they might assume everyone already knows is required for the process of pogramming or preparing a mechanism or instructional program?

Boring here, perhaps a good time to reflect on some of the points in this comment and a couple after it rather than fight straw man argument versions of those points, or trying to come up with good cop-out excuses to deny facts/realities/truths in favor of fiction/imagination and wishful thinking.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Also note the post with all the googled links from Krazysh0t, I had a look at the first one and was slapped in my face with mythology right away, there are clear words in that article that admit that (a biased person probably won't notice, but the word "theories" there early on is more appropiately referred to as unverified philosophies/ideas, myths/false stories. Of course the publishers of that article are hoping that some readers who read "theories" there actually think of so-called "scientific theories". Another keyword: "may". That's all they've got, 'nature did it' ('it evolved'), supported by fanciful maybe-so stories to make that claim sound as plausible as they can to the biased hearer or reader. Note that neoholographic's original question said: "How did....?" not "How might...."? Big difference that certain people no doubt want to downplay. Truths/certainties vs fiction/maybe-so stories/might be-so stories, as if what "might be" even matters (using your fantasy and walking around in La La Land) when talking about science (from the Latin "scientia" meaning knowledge: a familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.) Where I'm using a / I'm using synonyms.

From wiki:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...

I've read more of the "answer" now that Krazysh0t provided and have only one thing left to say:

neurotic speculation of the obsessive compulsive kind

And a video with more details about how inductive reasoning works (also regarding the subject of the Lac operon remember that the "functional arrangement" in the DNA sequence that is called the Lac operon is a "part" of the entire DNA genome as well as a larger system of information processing, many things that count for machines also count for codes/blueprints/recipes when they are interdependent and co-functional with those machines in a larger system of machinery; see the video for those quotations), from 35:30 - 39:30:

The Michael Behe video is also still an excellent set of facts about reality to ponder on and not make excuses about why one could or should ignore it (and him or his points).

a reply to: whereislogic

I used to have to read and digest scientific/technical documents for a living. Some were so information dense that it was hard to keep up, whilst others were obviously paid by the word and spent great lengths to say nothing - they'd use a thousand words to avoid making a point. Your comments fall into the latter category - i.e. word salad.

If you have a point to make, make it concisely. Otherwise stop beating around the bush... please.

"The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

As we can see here, on this thread, such a statement is very problematical - Mainly because both 'Intelligent Design' and
'Evolution' would require an intelligent being to define what they are talking about - I don't see much of that here
- Just trite sniping at me, and others, for quoting sceintists and philosophers whose intelligence has been well rated.

For example:

Max Planck

"Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) is the originator of modern quantum theories and one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918".

To quote Max Planck:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

Always the alien fool - Why do I see Intelligent Design in that statement? - Right, you don't believe in the matrix of mind, do you ?

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness".

No Intelligent Design here either, is there? - Unless you believe that consciousness indicates intelligence.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with".

So keep up your faith in Evolution - I too have a faith that one day Man may one day step out of his shell of artificial limitations and see what intelligence really is - And realize that 'Evolution' is form of 'Intelligent Design'.

"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

Maybe I'm no more than an alien dreamer - But why do I think Max Planck would understand it when I say:

"'Evolution' is form of 'Intelligent Design'."

- AlienView

a reply to: neoholographic

Dobzhansky, a Russian who migrated to the United States in the mid-twentieth century to work as a population geneticist, championed the view that microevolutionary processes alone are sufficient to explain all of evolution. Dobzhansky, one of the co-authors of the Modern or neo-Darwinian Synthesis, had been mentored by Filipchencko. Although Dobzhansky is often credited with introducing the term macroevolution to English-speaking evolutionary biologists, it was primarily to argue against any discontinuity between microevolution and macroevolution. His influential 1937 text
Genetics and the Origin of Species stated:

There is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolution, which require time on a geological scale,other than through a full comprehension of microevolutionary processes. For this reason, we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro-and micro-evolution.

www.academia.edu...

There is a common held misconception among the public today that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation that drive micro-evolution are all that is required for the evolution of new body plans from a single celled organism. This misconception comes from Dobzhansky, who as you can see stated, "we are compelled at
the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of
macro- and micro-evolution," and by the third edition of his book this reluctance has all but disappeared. This is where the equality comes from, and no Dobzhansky was not making a mistake, but just creating a working hypothesis. One that now days has been proven false. Now, I am not an authority on the subject so i will quote Eric H. Davidson, in The Regulatory Genome: Gene Regulatory Networks in Development and Evolution states:

"contrary to classical evolution theory, the processes that drive the small changes observed as species diverge cannot be taken as models for the evolution of the body plans of animals. These are apples and oranges so to speak."

Now what Davidson is saying here is simply that the variation we find among moths versus where moths are came from are two totally different questions, and that adding the equality sign between the to is no longer a rational hypothesis. Now why does Davidson say this? Well I think that can be discerned by looking at his work on the development process:

A distinguishing feature of dGRNs is their deep hierarchy, which essentially stems from the long sequence of successive spatial regulatory states required to be installed in building first the axial embryonic/larval body plan, and then constructing individual body parts (Peter and Davidson, 2011; Davidson, 2010).....

Implicit in the hierarchical structure of GRNs is the mechanism of evolutionary canalization, as indicated in Table 1 at Principle 4. The subcircuits at each level provide feeds to the next level in the same or, via signaling, in other specified spatial domains. But each subcircuit produces a finite set of inputs for the next level, and only recipient nodes that contain target site combinations can respond to those particular inputs. Thus the universe of possible responses is vastly constrained by dGRN hierarchy at each level transition, inevitably resulting in what was classically termed “canalization” of the developmental process (Waddington, 1957; Gibson and Wagner, 2000).

Canalization is is a measure of the ability of a population to produce the same phenotype regardless of variability of its environment or genotype. Now please read this carefully. Davidson is saying the the developmental gene regulatory network which ultimately determines what an organism looks like is canalized, which is the ability for dGRN's to output the same physical appearance irrespective of genotype and the environment. This is what stops say a four legged land mammal from becoming a whale irrespective of the amount of time the organism has to change. To further elaborate on the nature of the dGRN Davidson goes on to explain:

On purely internal considerations, some aspects of dGRN structure appear much more impervious to change than others. For example, a frequently encountered type of subcircuit in upstream regions of dGRNs consists of two or three genes locked together by feedback inputs (Davidson, 2010). These feedback structures act to stabilize regulatory states, and there is a high penalty to change, in that interference with the dynamic expression of any one of the genes causes the collapse of expression of all, and the total loss from the system of their contributions to the regulatory state. On the other hand, peripheral far downstream subcircuits such as differentiation gene batteries can change freely without affecting major patterning functions or causing network collapse (Davidson and Erwin, 2006; Erwin and Davidson, 2009]).

Whatever continuous variation occurs at individual cis-regulatory sequences, the dGRN circuit output preserves its Boolean morphogenetic character.

Therefore the action of selection differs across dGRN structure. Selection does not operate to produce continuous adaptive change except at the dGRN periphery. The lack of continuous variation in morphogenetic traits defining Class and Phylum level clades is obvious in the striking evolutionary stasis revealed by the fossil record (Davidson and Erwin, 2006; 2009; Erwin, 2011). In other words, while cis-regulatory sequence variation may have continuing adaptive significance at the dGRN periphery, at upper levels of the dGRN hierarchy it does not have the same significance because the system level output is very impervious to change, except for catastrophic loss of the body part or loss of viability altogether. As long realized and much discussed in a non-mechanistic way in advance of actual knowledge of dGRN structure and function (for review see Gibson and Wagner, 2000), this imperviousness has something to do with whatever processes generate canalization and/or “buffering” of the genetic control system. We can now begin to understand canalization mechanistically in terms of dGRN hierarchy and subcircuit structure, as above, butin so far as “buffering” is taken to mean protection against “environmental fluctuations” as in many evolutionary mathematical models, it is irrelevant to animal embryonic processes, since in the main these depend not at all upon environmental inputs.

You people who think that natural selection and random mutation are all you need simply haven't delved into the molecular perspective enough. I highly doubt any of you knew that the equality between Macro and Micro was a working hypothesis from the late 1930's that has been completely falsified. Just some more food for thought.

For got source for the last three quotes:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...