Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Noinden

You talk of "elementals" you talk of Augeoides. Yet you show no understanding of what you mean by those things. OR that they may not be the only answer.
Off you go.

You asked for it lol.

This is meta knowledge, It places your religion precisely within the process of creation.

Our essential selves are not concerned with religion, providing it adheres to the laws of life and fascilites our spiritual growth.

Your clan (unity), is one of many clans (unities) throughout the world and throughout history. You must forgive me for not knowing the names of your deities, I was raised as a Christian and know of all of the characters.

They all will eventually expand into a greater unity where clans cease to have meaning and our oneness becomes increasingly evident. Your deities are different beings to the Devas, who also look over the elementals and follow their own path of evolution. Most elementals never manifest in the physical but certain animals after transmigration, enter directly into deva evolution.

They do not follow the evolutionary path of humanity.

The lowest elemental is composed of involutionary monads devoid of will, it is aware but is passive.

Those elementals compose and become our emotional and mental envelopes, along with countless other functions. The envelopes reside in the world of ‘illusion/maya/the emotional world’ and the mental/causal world.

We form new envelopes prior to birth. After the death of our physical and etherial bodies, our envelopes persist.

First we become objectively conscious in Maya, the world of illusion, where our minds conjure up our deities and prophets, all illusion.

It is where we work out our lives, a process of contemplation of our previous life (labeled as purgatory by Christian religion) but then ascend to the higher emotional dimension and reunion of love ones although they visit to greet us, it takes time to dissolve our lust for the physical life but they can visit at will, provided they haven’t passed through to the mental/causal world where all emotional attachment is gone.

From maya, we dissolve our ‘elemental emotional envelope’, along with our personality. All that remains is the mental/causal envelope and your emotionless intellect. That does not preclude however your evolving will to unity and universal love.

It is here that man experiences unimaginable bliss and may remain for thousands of years. Many however enter into deep inactive sleep much sooner and are not cognisant again until birth as a human child of either sex. The fact that we may enter a female body after a period of living as a man and the other way round explains confusions of sexuality.

There are a smaller percentage of humans who go beyond the mental world and into causal. These people are in communication with Augoedies, and are co-creators of their coming life in the physical. They are never separated from causal knowledge beyond this point and are saintly.

When each of our envelopes dissolve, so in turn does our personality, our intellect and memory of this life. There remains a shadow of our previous life retained within the monad, which we access through dreams but difficult to concretise upon waking.

All that remains after the dissolution of you emotional and mental envelopes is your causal envelope where our life experiences are recorded for perpetuity. This is a mans true soul.

Your causal envelope belongs to Augoedies your own personal divine being, who is your higher self, your causal envelope eventually dissolves when you terminate your passage through the physical world and your co-existence with Augoedies. You acquire a new envelope from the divine world where our causal knowledge is revealed to us, and our awareness expands into group consciousness of like minded groups.

The elementals that have evolved share in our will to unity, because it is the destiny of all life.

The process of manifestation in the physical world is entirely governed by elementals and essential beings. ( super human/physical beings, all synonymous)

For every being, there is a monad that is sufficiently aware to take possession of its own organ of creation, Every cell in biological forms are a conscious entity in its own right and has shared awareness. An observation and controversial conclusion drawn in Rupert Sheldrakes explanation of Morphic Resonance as he observes the apparent unity of animal life.

There is another process that concerns the journey of the monad prior to emerging into involution and is termed involvation and evolvation. This process itself takes eons, before becoming ‘involved’ as simple elementals, prior to manifesting in the physical world as mineral granules. A rock has the barest of awareness, but it knows that it exists. Just one single monad is sufficiently aware, and it is the consciousness of the rock. every unit or conglomerate of minerals has one monad that assumes the group sole of the rest.

As an admirer of Laurency’s work, I will endeavour to introduce this knowledge in the shadow of Laurency, who’s purpose in life became the explanation and dissemination of esoteric knowledge to be accepted as exoteric truth.

Comparatively, I am inadequate, and I highly recommend you study this material. You will see it is far above layman, and contains detail that would satisfy the greatest intellect.

Many people will not be ready, those that are, will devour the knowledge intuitively as if a distant memory.

The PDF’s that you hand waved, contain thousands of pages of detailed, beautifully scripted literature.

You expect people to delve deep into the intricacies of your science to prove your point, yet you refuse to do the same with ancient science in an attempt to understand our point of view, so you choose to ignore it. If you find it untenable, because it doesn’t correspond with your world view. Then you now have the opportunity to experience how we feel.

Regardless if you read any of this, or digest any meaning, I have decided to post this very brief explanation.

I believe reader of this forum past, present and future should be able to view different explanations of creation as a tenable alternative, without being bullied by those who dogmatically hold on to their erroneous beliefs.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

There are many gods. Large and small.
www.goodreads.com...

a reply to: kennyb72

Excellent paragraphing.
Still, a wall of text. A very nice one.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Deaf Alien

There are many gods. Large and small.
www.goodreads.com...

I think I'll pick you.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I prefer the god of stuck drawers.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The essay covers the concept of Polytheism

These daeities form larger unities in ever expanding consciousness to its ultimate conclusion.

a reply to: Phage

Excellent paragraphing.
Still, a wall of text. A very nice one.

I could have made more posts I guess!

I will accept that as a compliment, thanks Phage

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Deaf Alien

The essay covers the concept of Polytheism

These daeities form larger unities in ever expand consciousness to its ultimate conclusion.

At least it doesn't point to the "Judeo-Christian" gods as many here claimed.

a reply to: whereislogic

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”

Sorry for the late response but this argument is very weak. You're asking to see real time evidence of something which is so rare it probably happens only once every few billion years. Asking to see life spontaneously form out of a primordial soup before you believe it's possible is ridiculous. However I'm fairly sure I've seen some research in the last few years where scientists have shown that common types of biological structures required to create the precursors of living organisms can spontaneously form in conditions similar to what they believe early Earth conditions were like. I'll look for a source when I get some time.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
What you quoted is not an argument but a statement of a fact.

And ignoring the interdependence of biomolecular machinery and systems of machinery in all known lifeforms in one's research into this storyline by pointing to "research...where scientists have shown that common types of biological structures required to create the precursors of living organisms can spontaneously form in conditions similar to what they believe early Earth conditions were like" is not going to change that fact. Remember, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinzesz was referring to "the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup", not "common types of biological structures [that are not alive and cannot reproduce] required to create the precursors of living organisms can spontaneously form in conditions similar to what they believe early Earth conditions were like."

As earlier said in this thread, there are some issues with the step-by-step (generation-by-generation) storyline regarding the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis"). But ok, let's ignore interdependence for a moment to have a look at this other claim you mentioned that does the storyline of abiogenesis/chemical evolution no good anyway, since in spite of how I explained that ignoring the logical requirements for the abiogenesis storyline in relation to the topic of interdependence doesn't change the facts regarding the existence or need for proper evidence...

Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. [whereislogic: again, in spite of the bolded part being a logical requirement for the storyline because of the reality of interdependent systems of machinery minimally required for the preservation and reproduction of actual lifeforms, not imagined pure RNA-based lifeforms or mythological unspecified prokaryotic bacteria of unknown and also unspecified* composition; *: unspecified in the storylines, keeping it nice and vague and untestable, then appealing to 'it takes too long for it to be tested' as you did in other words, note that a version of this mythological unspecified prokaryotic bacteria is also used in the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis", even myths about flying spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns have better specified details to test and look for.]
...
Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?

“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2 *

Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3

*: Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

...
What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins.
...
Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA.
...
...says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6

*: Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

If it takes an intelligent entity to create and program a lifeless robot, what would it take to create a living cell, let alone a human?

Why do these facts matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing​—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?
...
FACTS AND QUESTIONS

Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.

Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?
...
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.

a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.

3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.

5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.

6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition​—Does It Work?”

Source: The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking - QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
...again, in spite of the bolded part being a logical requirement for the storyline because of the reality of interdependent systems of machinery minimally required for the preservation and reproduction of actual lifeforms, not imagined pure RNA-based lifeforms or mythological unspecified prokaryotic bacteria of unknown and also unspecified* composition; *: unspecified in the storylines, keeping it nice and vague and untestable, then appealing to 'it takes too long for it to be tested' as you did in other words, note that a version of this mythological unspecified prokaryotic bacteria is also used in the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis" [also referred to as "endosymbiotic theory" and "the endosymbiosis theory" as earlier pointed out in this thread], even myths about flying spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns have better specified details to test and look for.
...

Just as a reminder...

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

Source: Your Cells—Living Libraries! Awake!—2015

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can't explain genetic information

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
If "irreducible complexity" points to a certain god will it tell us which one?
Not saying it's impossible, I'm just curious as to which god it points to.

It points to none, since it's not a valid concept in the first place with biological life.

originally posted by: whereislogic
ignoring the interdependence of biomolecular machinery and systems of machinery in all known lifeforms

Until they can conceive the meaning of that, we are wasting our breath.

For example, if they were to examine the nature of promoters in prokaryotes with an open mind they would realize the immense complexity necessary for even the most basic types of organisms. Because all is necessary - nucleotide sequence, coenzymes, regulators, etc - the system is inviable if just one piece is missing. Therefore it is impossible for these systems to have come to be in a piece-wise manner, because all components must be present to allow viability.

prokaryote promoter

a reply to: kennyb72

Hey Kenny, remember me? I get that you believe hylozoics and we have gone back and forth about this in the past. Am I understanding you right in saying that your argument has to do with conscious manifestation of new life? Is that why you argued against genetic mutations as a driving force in evolution? I thought that was the gist of your prior posts, but there is quite a bit of material there and I was curious about that particular part of it. If so, is there any evidence for that kind of thing? Not trying to debate Hylozoics with you,or butt in on your conversation with Noiden, I was just curious about that particular part of it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: whereislogic
ignoring the interdependence of biomolecular machinery and systems of machinery in all known lifeforms

Until they can conceive the meaning of that, we are wasting our breath.

For example, if they were to examine the nature of promoters in prokaryotes with an open mind they would realize the immense complexity necessary for even the most basic types of organisms. Because all is necessary - nucleotide sequence, coenzymes, regulators, etc - the system is inviable if just one piece is missing. Therefore it is impossible for these systems to have come to be in a piece-wise manner, because all components must be present to allow viability.

You are wasting your breath because you don't know what you are talking about. Being unable to remove a part from a living organism, has nothing to do with how that part could or could not have originated. You are just appealing to complexity, and calling it a day, while scientists are out there actively studying every aspect of it to better understand its function and origin. 99.9% of scientists do not come to the conclusion that it could not arise incrementally, just because it's complex and you can't remove a piece from it and expect it to function. Those 2 concepts are not even remotely related. It's only creationists that argue this, not real scientists, so it's safe to say that your conclusion is bunk. Stephen Meyer is not a real scientist and irreducible complexity does not apply to biological life.

a reply to: kennyb72

Your claims are with out evidence. We are talking about something with supporting evidence (evolutions) vs the dogmatic ravings of Irreducible complexity creaationists/IDers. till you prove the supposition of IC, it is a load of dingoes kidneys. We've evolution evidence, where is the IC stuff? Actually testable stuff?

The rest of your post is Abrahamic apologetic nonsense. You cling to that, like a blankie.

I return to the questions:

Do you know what noinden stands for (waits for you to try to google it). How about:

An Fhirinne?
Dluth?
Dan?
Sli?
Coir?
Oineach?
Bealach d'aimhleasa? Does this lead to Diach?
Dúile vs the 4 classical elements vs the earth sea sky trinity? Where is the place to put Imbas/Awen?

Whence comes Bua? and whence comes Bri?

What is the realtionship between:

Coire Goriath, Coire Ermai, and Coire Sois, with the 7 major Chakra?

How about how many correspondences are there to each fid? What use do the forfeda have?


No? lets zero into one that is going hand in hand with your Classical Elemental stuff.

Dúile vs the 4 classical elements vs the earth sea sky trinity? Where is the place to put Imbas/Awen?

a reply to: kennyb72

Oy you theosophist(because guess what that was Laurency's inspiration, even if he did not name himself one)..... you are not spiritual pluralists.

YOU find inspiration from his works. Bully for you. It does not mean he was right, or the only source of esoteric knowledge. HE (and thus you) clearly fall for the all paths lead to Rome fallacy.


So I return to you. If you study draoicht, you'd gain much more. Mind you I don't think you've the stickibility to do it.

The following poem should "explain that to you"

"I am the wind on the sea;
I am the wave of the sea;
I am the bull of seven battles;
I am the eagle on the rock
I am a flash from the sun;
I am the most beautiful of plants;
I am a strong wild boar;
I am a salmon in the water;
I am a lake in the plain;
I am the word of knowledge;
Iam the head of the spear in battle;
I am the god that puts fire in the head;
Who spreads light in the gathering on the hills?
Who can tell the ages of the moon?
Who can tell the place where the sun rests?"

a reply to: kennyb72

There goes that Abrahamic myopia of yours again neighbour

(a) Actually my gods and the Deva are very similar. Deva in sanscript (an indo-European languge) has the etymology of "shinning one”. Another name for the Tuatha de Dannan (the Celestial kindred of Irish Gods) is shinning ones. Further using etymological knowledge. The proto indo-European root for Diva is *dheu (Deity, god etc). From this we get Zeus, Tyr, Deus Pater, and Dagda (the Good God, from Proto-Celtic *Dago-deiwos, from Proto-Indo-European *dʰagʰo- (“shining”) (< *dʰegʷʰ- (“to burn”)) + *deywós (“divinity”)) Thus clearly you do not know my Gods. Note ven slightly. Just saying
(b) You are mixing ideas from unrelated cultures, like asking for Mexican Sushi. It’s a thing, its not a good thing.
(c) Your idea of “elementals” is not something proven. The Indo-Europeans had a three fold, five fold, and a nine fold “elemental” cosmology. Not everything may be irreducibly reduced to “the classical elements”. Mind you as someone who seems to be stuck on someone who is in essence a theosophist, who threw Pythagoras in. I understand your limitations.
(d) Not every religious path has a purgatory or a hell. My Gods live in the Other World (which is parallel to this), or they are here now (the spirits of the land) or in the seas of time (my ancestors).
So quote your author at me. But you are going to have to be a bit more persuasive in an argument.

Now back onto the topic.

I’ve yet to see you prove Irreducible complexity is an answer, and evolution is not. Not once. You started spewing New Age nonsense, and stopped with the logical stuff.

a reply to: kennyb72

Dear Gods (pun intended) y'all do not understand what Polytheism is. Hows your Jung? I am also pretty sure you don't understand the difference between hard and soft polytheism either.

Deities seldom form larger unities. If you read the stories you'd understand that.

a reply to: Phage

Yes and they play complicated games, with funny shaped dice

I miss Sir Pratchett's regular dissertations on humanities follies