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.

 

Intelligent Design Theory

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Hi Paul_Richard,

I actually don't, necessarily, agree with Intelligent Design per se. I just think that Darwinism is a weak theory that has far too tight a grip on the debate. I also said in my original post:



There's also an AWFUL, AWFUL false polarity set up between Darwinism and christian fundamentalism such that if you disagree with the former you must be part of the latter. NOT SO. It also allows you to rule out data and argument that might be perfectly valid on the grounds that a Christian did it. Well, you know, I'm not a Christian myself, but there have been lots of perfectly good scientists who were.

Just because I agree that Darwinism is unconvincing, doesn't mean I necessarily go with Intelligent Design either, and especially not with the political agenda of those who want it taught in schools. I am however intrigued with, for example, data showing that tiny variations in funamental constants of the universe would make it impossible for life to evolve. Whether that demonstrates a designer or not is kind of a subjective call and I am absolutely agnostic on this one.

Aelita - my degree is not in natural science. It's in law. I would argue that this gives me a decent foundation in looking at the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. And it is entirely possible to look at the history of science and learn lessons from it without being an expert in any one field, because the ways in which human beings construct arguments is independent of data. And there are plenty of instances available in which anomalous data are rejected because they are inconsistent with the prevailing orthodoxy.

I'm also delighted to see that in your desperation to assert your OWN intellectual superiority you have actually ignored the majority of my text. I suggest you re-read the section I quoted above and look at your own post. You will find that you have fallen into the false polarity and lumped me in with the Creationists.



It's just a lot easier to be smug and make fun of the scientists, and just for a brief moment experience an exhilirating sense of intellectual superiority which in reality of course does not exist.


I was not making fun of any scientists. (I did object to Dawkins' absurd argument, but that's not making fun.) And there are actually quite a few accredited scientists who are also Christians who are arguing against Darwinism. You cannot attack their credentials and therefore, I would guess, you would attack their beliefs. Back to the myth of 'scientific objectivity': the argument would go that because they're Christians they can't be proper scientists. That because they're Christians the giant-sized holes they're kicking in Darwinism are somehow not there.

You also say that



You never hear an argument of an intelligent design of newly discovered structures in the Universe -- the field of astrophyscis is really making progress


Well, you may not have heard of that sort of thing, but in Cremo's Human Devolution (referenced in my original post), chapter 10, "A Universe Designed For Life", there is an intriguing discourse on how there are many fundamental physical constants that are so finely tuned that if any of them were varied by even a tiny amount, life would not be possible. These constants include the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity, the binding energy (eta), and the ratio between the critical average density of matter and the average density of matter throughout the universe. These are matters of physics and cosmology. His source for this is Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. Rees himself doesn't go down the intelligent design route but does point out the need for these constants to be pretty much exactly the way they are.

I'm an agnostic. I don't rule out the existence of God, nor am I committed to a belief in one particular set of rules. I just evaluate arguments and data as I see them. Or should I leave all that to the Men In Lab Coats and just trust in them? And if I do, which set of men in lab coats should I trust?




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
That because they're Christians the giant-sized holes they're kicking in Darwinism are somehow not there.


Errm, what 'giant-sized' holes?

Can you outline some of them?



[edit on 18-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

I did answer your question by this thread. What gave life similarity in structure and make-up is the master plan for life.
Life I said, if the genetic code can be used much like software programming using libraries of functions and objects then the basis is always similar since the basic libraries are always reused.
In C, C++ (I use these examples since I learned these languages there are basic libraries which are always referred to from the code itself. The basic structures you reffered to can be similar in nature. If the 'creator' (group of creators) were to create living life forms they would design a basic form and then use that basis to create variations. I think we are not too far off from this. Scientists were able to grow a fully functional urinary bladder from stem cells.

Design is also referred to while explaining homology.

Again I will reiterate - I am not one of those who subscribe to the biblical version of the creation, but I do believe in an intelligent design to life.


What came before the big bang? I can also pose the same question if I wish to play the devil's advocate. What I proposed is a theory just like Evolution. Can you tell me what came before the big bang? And don't tell me eternal nothingness because that would be the same things those religious fanatics would say.

Let me ask you. Supposed tomorrow ETs come from Kukamanga and claim that they created the mammals, reptiles, amphibiants and trees on this planet - where would we be? Would evolution be destroyed. No it would be tweeked.

I think the whole issue of ID as a science is in its infancy and needs time to be developed just like all fields of science.



You never answered why you don't follow evolution, yet majored in bio.

I am quite sure at some point you were told that evolution is now considered the unifying theme of biology. But, whatever. But, I do wonder if you actually took any courses in evolutionary theory.

Else, you wouldn't flat out lie and say that ID is a theory like evolution. There's no proposed mechanism for how the designer did it; hell, the designer is flat out ignored! And, you bringing up the Big Band Theory further lets me know you didn't take any courses in evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

When ID proposes a mech through which it works, I will take it more seriously. When it says at least SOMETHING about the designer, I will take it more seriously. But PLEASE, don't be foolish and say it's on par with evolution.

I could also ask you what if the aliens came and verified evolution? What then for ID? Besides, no one has ANY idea how to design a life form. And no, I don't mean breathing "life" into dirt or having life spring from your godly ejaculate (I refer to religions because they at least give a mechanism for their thing).

The biggest proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, is run mostly by Christians with mostly Christian money. Michael Behe and others pushing ID are Christians. Sure, ID doesn't have to be religious, but it's awfully funny that the biggest promoters are Christians...


[edit on 18-4-2006 by truthseeka]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
JudahMaccabbi and Paul_Richard,
You guys belong to the same “holy-roller” church?
In any case, it matters not.
You are both recipients of honorary membership in the
FLAT EARTH SOCIETY.

While this membership is honorary it comes with all the rights and services of actual membership.
You are invited to attend meetings and present ideas with the exact same reasoning you use here in this article. It is assumed that your method of arriving at conclusions will be consistent with the membership of the society and with its founders.
Congratulations!
Sayswho (skep by any other name)



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
His source for this is Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. Rees himself doesn't go down the intelligent design route but does point out the need for these constants to be pretty much exactly the way they are.


I haven't read teh book but being a physisist myself I get the jist of what Rees said.

This observation if moot, because if the conditions in the Universe were not appropriate for the creation of stable atoms and complex molecules, there wouldn't be any life to begin with, and wouldn't be Dr. Rees to write this book. So it's not like "I observed 100 different Universes and amazingly in 50 of them the physcial constants were such that life could exist". It was more like "I am sitting in a Universe and don't know anything about other Universes. One prerequisite for me making these statements is the possibility of complex organic molecules to exist. They just happen to do, but there is no way of telling whether it's remarkable or not, because I only know one Universe and not 10,000. I therefore cannot say that this was some kind of divine intervention".



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Aelita - I am aware of this line of reasoning. This is why I am still an agnostic. On the other hand, it's not an argument for the NON-existence of a God.

On a subjective level, however, it is interesting that the tiniest deviation in any of the variables he goes into means a drastically different universe with no chance for life to exist.

As for the holes in Darwinism, off the top of my ., here are a couple.

The avian lung is a strange arrangement in which air passes in and out flowing in one direction only through, effectively, one long tube. It's markedly different from our lung system which is closed at one end like a bag. There cannot be an intermediate system, an evolutionary half-way house. This is just one example of the problems posed by gradual evolution.

Even Stephen Jay Gould admits that speciation is not well-addressed by Darwinism, which is why he came up with 'punk-ek' - punctuated equilibrium. But while this addresses the problems with the fossil record, it doesn't provide any better explanation for the mechanism of speciation.

Once you move to the level of molecular biology things get even odder. You cannot compare the complexity of species at the morphological level, but by comparing the amino acid sequences of a given protein, say haemoglobin, from two different species, you can get an idea of how far apart these species are from each other within a Darwinian model. The trouble is, the results you get do not map on to the Darwinian model at all well.

To sum up:

Gaps in the fossil record - not many intermediate species, and those that exist are apt to be disputed
No possibility of intermediacy in certain instances
No correlation between the Darwinian model and the biochemical data.

Plus, if mutation is supposed to be random and selection is based on environmental factors, how come adaptation takes place so quickly? Darwinists seem to want it both ways: the easy stuff can take place in years, while the bigger stuff can happen over aeons. I just don't find it very convincing, but that does not make me a creationist, either.

Plus Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology lists many, many instances of the discovery of modern human skeletons in dramatically out-of-place strata that have just been ignored, wiped out of the scientific record. They couldn't exist according to the theory, therefore they don't exist. We can therefore keep the theory and not worry about fitting in the new data. This is something that happens across all sciences, not merely archaeology or biology.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Once you move to the level of molecular biology things get even odder. You cannot compare the complexity of species at the morphological level, but by comparing the amino acid sequences of a given protein, say haemoglobin, from two different species, you can get an idea of how far apart these species are from each other within a Darwinian model.


I don't follow this. Species share common amino acids. The genome of different species can still be very similar -- there are similar genes in mice and men. Is that what you implied, or the opposite?



Plus, if mutation is supposed to be random and selection is based on environmental factors, how come adaptation takes place so quickly? Darwinists seem to want it both ways: the easy stuff can take place in years, while the bigger stuff can happen over aeons. I just don't find it very convincing, but that does not make me a creationist, either.


Well, if you don't find it convincing, I can't help you.

Consider this - there are layers of complexity in ANY theory. You can draw the equation of motion of a particle that would work by and large. Then you start observing deviations from it and see that it's due to the fact that the particle was in fact a more complex object. So it's not that your equation was necessarily incorrect, it was a simplification, albeit a good one.

The basic idea in astronomy, that planets follow orbits of some sort, with calculabel properties, was esentially correct, despite the fact that for a long time Earth was erroneously put in the center of everything.

Churning a very large quantity of data, which is what the evolution of genome is, can be a very complex process that needs thermodynamics and theory of information for its full description. Obviously statistics is part of it as well. And we the scientists are probably far from working out the complete mode for all that is involved. However, the underlying basic idea, the first approximation, seems to work OK. Trying to tie this to divine powers is basically akin to trying to use shamanism to explain a natural phenomenon. Shamanism instead of a long and hard scientific effort -- that's what the "intelligent design" movement is about.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
The avian lung is a strange arrangement in which air passes in and out flowing in one direction only through, effectively, one long tube. It's markedly different from our lung system which is closed at one end like a bag. There cannot be an intermediate system, an evolutionary half-way house. This is just one example of the problems posed by gradual evolution.


why do you need to compare bird lungs to human lungs? Why would we expect a gradual evolution from a bird lung to a human lung?


Even Stephen Jay Gould admits that speciation is not well-addressed by Darwinism, which is why he came up with 'punk-ek' - punctuated equilibrium. But while this addresses the problems with the fossil record, it doesn't provide any better explanation for the mechanism of speciation.


Well it does explain how evolution does not have a steady rate and numerous factors contribute to the rate of evolution, and appearance of new species. Some aspects of Darwin's original theory have been contradicted by evidence, that's why we have the modern synthesis.


Once you move to the level of molecular biology things get even odder. You cannot compare the complexity of species at the morphological level, but by comparing the amino acid sequences of a given protein, say haemoglobin, from two different species, you can get an idea of how far apart these species are from each other within a Darwinian model. The trouble is, the results you get do not map on to the Darwinian model at all well.


I thought hemoglobin was one of the proteins that the likes of Behe accepted as having clear evidence of evolution.

Edit: Isn't cytochrome C a good indicator of phylogeny? It shows the general trend of ToE I think? God, I think I hate mol biol.


To sum up:

Gaps in the fossil record - not many intermediate species, and those that exist are apt to be disputed
No possibility of intermediacy in certain instances
No correlation between the Darwinian model and the biochemical data.


Some strong statements there - no possibilty, hey, but there is the possibility that humans have been around for hundreds of millions of years, even I accept that is possible, damn unlikely, but possible. Do you want 'transitional' fossils for every species?


Plus Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology lists many, many instances of the discovery of modern human skeletons in dramatically out-of-place strata that have just been ignored, wiped out of the scientific record. They couldn't exist according to the theory, therefore they don't exist. We can therefore keep the theory and not worry about fitting in the new data. This is something that happens across all sciences, not merely archaeology or biology.


This is the most interesting aspect - you criticise ToE for not having all the answers to your satisfaction, yet depend on a very shaky thesis from Cremo. He depends on a lot of 19th/early 20th century findings for his argument, is selectively incredulous on many things. If you can, as you say, assess arguments on their merits, why don't you apply it to Mr Cremo?

Basically - extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence - which he doesn't have, just old waste-bin claims from unreliable evidence (fossils bought in pubs etc). Do you really think that if a legitimate scientist found robust evidence of humans having been around for hundreds of millions of years, they would not publish it? It would be ground-breaking stuff. There is no conspiracy of scientists holding back evidence.

To replace ToE we need a better theory to fit the evidence and data we have. There are none. You question the objectivity of scientists, but probably have no experience of what scientists actually do. There is a place in scientific history for the person who can falsify evolution, a good motivator for any scientist


ID would be accepted if there was any actual science there. When, and if, it produces any, then we will assess it.

Originally from 'skeptic'...

Cremo - Hidden history, hidden agenda



edit: Okay, I'll assume, you really want to question reptile-bird evolution - Seems there may well have been non-birds with a similar pulmonary design, so much for 'cannot be an intermediate blah blah'....

O'Connor, PM and LPA Claessens (2005). Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Nature 436, 253-256.

From the abstract...



Birds are unique among living vertebrates in possessing pneumaticity of the postcranial skeleton, with invasion of bone by the pulmonary air-sac system1, 2, 3, 4. The avian respiratory system includes high-compliance air sacs that ventilate a dorsally fixed, non-expanding parabronchial lung2, 3, 5, 6. Caudally positioned abdominal and thoracic air sacs are critical components of the avian aspiration pump, facilitating flow-through ventilation of the lung and near-constant airflow during both inspiration and expiration, highlighting a design optimized for efficient gas exchange2, 5, 6, 7, 8. Postcranial skeletal pneumaticity has also been reported in numerous extinct archosaurs including non-avian theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx9, 10, 11, 12. However, the relationship between osseous pneumaticity and the evolution of the avian respiratory apparatus has long remained ambiguous. Here we report, on the basis of a comparative analysis of region-specific pneumaticity with extant birds, evidence for cervical and abdominal air-sac systems in non-avian theropods, along with thoracic skeletal prerequisites of an avian-style aspiration pump. The early acquisition of this system among theropods is demonstrated by examination of an exceptional new specimen of Majungatholus atopus, documenting these features in a taxon only distantly related to birds.

Taken together, these specializations imply the existence of the basic avian pulmonary Bauplan in basal neotheropods, indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic.


So, I guess you'll say "it is impossible that therapod lungs evolved from an earlier reptile...."

[edit on 19-4-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 19-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Aelita - you said



I don't follow this. Species share common amino acids. The genome of different species can still be very similar -- there are similar genes in mice and men. Is that what you implied, or the opposite?

The point is that the protein structures of amino acids in mice, men and chimps differ but not in a way that fits with a Darwinian model. I freely admit I don't have enough statistics to be assured that the people who do these calculations are doing it right, but I don't discount the possibility of bias on either side.

And how many times do I have to repeat that my arguments with Darwinism have nothing to do with



Trying to tie this to divine powers
? It's that old false polarity again. PLEASE try to get away from that, it's getting boring.

Melatonin - the point is not that there have been no precursors similar in structure to the avian lung. The point is that an intermediate system, a gradual evolution from one system to that system, doesn't work. There just aren't any half-measures. Did you find any? No. That, btw, is what I meant when I said there was no possibility of intermediacy in certain instances. If you can even posit something half-way between the avian lung and more conventional arrangements, I'd like to hear it. It's not a question of finding the same arrangement in another species. It's how do you get from there to here in easy steps while maintaining the organism's ability to breathe?

As for the skeptics' hatchet job on Cremo, this is all-too-predictable. It's dismissing the data, again and again, rather than attempting to explain it. It's a pattern, as I have said, not restricted to archaeology. In Jacques Vallee's Forbidden Science (why do you think I'm on this forum if not from an interest in UFOs?) he describes an incident that happened to him as a young intern at an observatory in Paris.

It was the early days of the space programme. There was only a handful of artificial satellites in orbit. JV was on an all-night observation and he noted in the log that he had seen an artificial satellite moving in a retrograde orbit. This was, to say the least, highly unusual as satellites were launched in one direction only to take advantage of the earth's rotational speed.

His supervisor tore the entry out of the log, saying 'This is impossible'.

As for that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - by what criterion are you judging the claim to be extraordinary? THAT's the big hole there... all you can do is, entirely arbitrarily, declare something extraordinary and raise the bar.

The problem is, in a sense, political: when people have so much invested in a theory they have a really hard time abandoning it and will stick to it despite data to the contrary. Note, too, that I am an agnostic: from which point of view I can observe the conflict between two sets of scientists adhering to slightly differing orthodoxies. I have nothing invested in Darwinism and nothing in any religion. It's the logic or otherwise of a postion that affects me.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Melatonin - the point is not that there have been no precursors similar in structure to the avian lung. The point is that an intermediate system, a gradual evolution from one system to that system, doesn't work. There just aren't any half-measures. Did you find any? No. That, btw, is what I meant when I said there was no possibility of intermediacy in certain instances. If you can even posit something half-way between the avian lung and more conventional arrangements, I'd like to hear it. It's not a question of finding the same arrangement in another species. It's how do you get from there to here in easy steps while maintaining the organism's ability to breathe?


But if we have evidence of pre-cursors, then we have evidence of intermediary structures. For example, Tiktaalik, it shows evidence of a pre-cursor to limbs. The notion of finding something that fits exactly in the middle seems pretty harsh. Certain features will evolve faster than others, I would think. So, here we have evidence of pre-cursors of the bone structure. What you need to understand is there is a good reason why we can explain the bone structures more readily than soft-tissue evolution - bones fossilise.


As for the skeptics' hatchet job on Cremo, this is all-too-predictable. It's dismissing the data, again and again, rather than attempting to explain it.


I think they have already done so. For example, the foxhill skull was bought off some guy in a bar, no reliable history. We need reliable evidence for such claims. The 200 million year 'shoe' does not seem to have been assessed by anyone of legitimacy (maybe you can tell me if it has). In science, we need reliable evidence, rather than unsupported claims. How can we explain it if no-one can see it?


As for that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - by what criterion are you judging the claim to be extraordinary? THAT's the big hole there... all you can do is, entirely arbitrarily, declare something extraordinary and raise the bar.


Well, for example, if you claim that you have found a 200 million yr old 'shoe' that shows evidence of being man-made, you need to at least show the evidence to people. That would be a start.

In his time, Darwin made an extraordinary claim, he had certain evidence to support it, but it was not overwhelming. Now, over 100yrs later, the evidence is compelling. It has been consistently attacked but still prevails. Why? Because almost all reliable evidence is consistent with the theory. If it works don't fix it - ToE works, it is scientific, it helps form hypotheses, it makes predictions. Even Behe, ID's contemporary leader, accepts major aspects of ToE.


The problem is, in a sense, political: when people have so much invested in a theory they have a really hard time abandoning it and will stick to it despite data to the contrary. Note, too, that I am an agnostic: from which point of view I can observe the conflict between two sets of scientists adhering to slightly differing orthodoxies. I have nothing invested in Darwinism and nothing in any religion. It's the logic or otherwise of a postion that affects me.


I'm agnostic too. Scientists need to be creative, be open to new ideas, otherwise we will never find anything new. Why would the SETI project exist if scientists were not open to the 'extraordinary', why are there studies assessing the power of prayer, alien rain in india etc? Look through the history of science, it is full of extraordinary discoveries due to work by the same people whose objectivity you question.

Science just has a standard of evidence and a rigorous method that most pseudoscience will not live up to - and usually when it tries to, it is shown to be lacking in validity. I'm sorry, but the evidence against ToE is virtually non-existent. However, admittedly, there are certain areas which need further evidence, but the same applies to most theories.

Kuhn suggested the same idea, but Kuhn expected the opponents to provide an alternative theory that fits the data better - not just find gaps in knowledge. ID cannot yet do so. A scientist is someone who practices the scientific method, when IDers do this, it may become a science.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I'm sorry to keep coming back to this point, but we seem to keep missing each other. About the avian lung structure, I do take your point about soft tissue not being preserved: but, in a sense, I'd be satisfied if you could even posit - yup, that's right, just make up - an intermediate form between that and whatever came before it. If I could even imagine something that came half-way between that and its precursor... otherwise you just have this massive leap from one lung structure to another. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part. You seem to know your stuff in this field. What would the precursor lung structure be? Can you even suggest to me a way of getting from whatever the precursor structure to the avian lung system that allows the organism to continue breathing?

I don't have The Hidden History of The Human Race so I can't comment on the specific criticisms of the author of the piece you cite. I do, however, tend to mistrust the Skeptics Society. It's just enforcing dogma by another name...

For me, the reason I am 'skeptical' about the pronouncements of science has to do with the fact that for the past decade or so I have been a practitioner of t'ai chi. By nature I'm an agnostic. I kept up the practice for the simple reason that it felt good and it seemed to be doing me rather a lot of good. It also fed into my playing (I'm a professional musician) and allowed me to improve my techniques without directly practsing them. Practising a t'ai chi form, and meditating in the prescribed manner, dramatically improved certain techniques on my chosen instrument.

After a while, however, I had some highly anomalous experiences and the only way I could deal with them was to 'come off the fence' and accept the existence of chi as being something real. This however led me into conflict with scientific orthodoxy. I found in discussions with people of an avowedly 'scientific' turn of mind that they would simply suggest that I was deluding myself or that this evidence that I was presenting was 'anecdotal'. Well, it wasn't anecdotal to me, and I'm afraid that I found the idea that I was deluding myself rather insulting. If I'm forced to choose between an interpretation of reality which excludes my sense-data, and one which includes it, then I will choose the latter. If science is telling me that the things that happened to me (which are, to some extent, replicable) cannot have happened then science is just plain wrong.

The experience did however alert me to the extent to which a 'scientific' approach is based on dogma and authoritarianism. There is actually a section in your link that illustrates this.



Cremo and Thompson are quite right about the extreme conservatism of many archaeologists and physical anthropologists. While an undergraduate at a prominent southwestern university, I participated in classroom discussions about the claims for a very early occupation at the Timlin site (in New York) which had just been announced. The professor surprised me when she stated flatly that, if the dates were correct, then it was "obviously not a site." This dismissal of the possibility of such an ancient site, without an examination of the data or even a careful reading of the published claim, is dogmatism of the sort rightfully decried by Cremo and Thompson.


The author then goes on to admit that sources cited by C&T were recipients of shocking ad hominem attacks but, without going into any verifiable detail, dismisses their data as 'unsupported'. Naturally their data was unsupported, the mob preferred to shoot the messenger.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Hi Rich,


Originally posted by rich23
I'm sorry to keep coming back to this point, but we seem to keep missing each other. About the avian lung structure, I do take your point about soft tissue not being preserved: but, in a sense, I'd be satisfied if you could even posit - yup, that's right, just make up - an intermediate form between that and whatever came before it. If I could even imagine something that came half-way between that and its precursor... otherwise you just have this massive leap from one lung structure to another. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part. You seem to know your stuff in this field. What would the precursor lung structure be? Can you even suggest to me a way of getting from whatever the precursor structure to the avian lung system that allows the organism to continue breathing?


I won't even pretend to have an answer myself.

What is suggested and does have some evidence is that the tail end sacs were a more recent developement. Mainly because many living reptiles have very plastic lungs (i.e. they have a tendency to develop sacs).

www.evolutionpages.com...

We don't have all the answers, we may never have a good answer to this issue. But this does not lead to evidence for ID, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence (I'm sure you will agree, as it applies to gods, chi etc as well).

On the personal issue, the evidence you suggest for chi is anecdotal, but it is obviously important to you. Doesn't matter what other people say, if it makes you happy, who cares what others think.

Of course, I would probably see it as chemical/biological, but if chi is real to you, it doesn't matter, it's just another name for the same thing - an alternate viewpoint. Acupuncture was seen as pseudoscience for a long time, but is now gaining acceptance. So, what you call chi, I call biology - doesn't mean its not important either way.

I'll add an anecdotal story myself. I occassionally reach similar states, not through a sort of physical ritual like you, but through chemical means, like ancient cultures did, and some tribes still do. I could tell you many stories of altered states, and experiences I have had. They were all real, in that the experience happened. But I put it down to chemistry/biology. It doesn't belittle the experience (or even your own) - maybe I was conversing with gods/beings, maybe not.

But these experiences sure help me. They give me alternate views of issues in my life and work. I know of a few scientists who have done and do similar things - to be creative sometimes we need to get out of the box. Of course, it's not on my CV, haha

I don't doubt that some scientists are dogmatic, not open-minded, applies to many people of all ideologies/occupations. What you need to tell these people is that science is tentative, is does not provide truth, is never proven, just provides a model of the world that can be used to make predictions - it is a very useful approach to the world, that cannot be denied. We can only ever falsify a theory, we can never show it to be 100% certain.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Melatonin - thanks for the post and the excellent link. You should have read it more carefully though... you said



I won't even pretend to have an answer myself.


Well, I'm just glad I wrote


...otherwise you just have this massive leap from one lung structure to another. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part. You seem to know your stuff in this field. What would the precursor lung structure be? Can you even suggest to me a way of getting from whatever the precursor structure to the avian lung system that allows the organism to continue breathing?


That's because it means I didn't fall into the error in bold below, and gives me some face to save... this is from your link -


This of course is the old canard (a term that is peculiarly well suited to this subject!) of the argument from personal incredulity. Carl cannot conceive of a pathway by which the avian lung could evolve from a bellows arrangement, so of course, in his mind, it cannot have happened. This was the original design argument used by William Paley. It was intellectual gruel then, and it is intellectual gruel now. Carl would have us believe that there is an 'in-principle' barrier to the evolution of 'flow-through' ventilation. (I think Carl means unidirectional flow-through ventilation - he doesn't seem to recognise the distinction between unidirectional and bidirectional flow-through ventilation). Of course, there is no such 'in-principle' barrier and one can think of very obvious routes by which the avian system could develop from a bellows arrangement. The first obvious step in this process, the development of a bidirectional flow-through system with air sacs positioned beyond the lung in the tail end of the trunk is strongly supported by this study.

In other words, it deals very effectively with the problem I was having.

But PLEASE - and this is to some extent my fault for agreeing with one thing very early in this thread and having to then continually reiterate my differences with JudahMaccabi - don't think I go with ID per se. I do have my doubts about Darwinism, but I don't necessarily go down the ID route and I definitely don't agree with approaching this kind of thing from a dogmatic point of view. Cremo's Human Devolution I have read and did like, partly because he brings in a lot of things I'm interested in. The Vedic perspective is actually pretty interesting and offers a novel and intriguing perspective on the nature of consciousness, couched in a very beautiful metaphor. I don't know the fine details of the archaeological cases he cites, but I think we agree that data can be rejected because it doesn't conform to current orthodoxies.



I occassionally reach similar states, not through a sort of physical ritual like you, but through chemical means
Check... I haven't done that kind of thing myself for some time, but I know what you're saying. Can I just steer you away from the word 'ritual' in relation to what I do, though?

As you're not hostile to my experiences and how I've dealt with them, let me expand a little. I'm English and there's a teacher close by me who's very good. He in turn is a pupil of B K Frantzis, who is the first Westerner to become a lineage holder in various Taoist energy arts. I was lucky enough to do a week's course in California with the man himself, "opening the energy gates of the body". (btw, I'd had some experiences of my own before this course which had already convinced me of the reality of chi - or, to put it another way, the usefulness of this paradigm.)

The main focus of the course is on standing meditation. After you learn to get into the correct standing posture (which I was only starting to get by the end of the week), you scan internally from the crown of your . downwards and dissolve any blockages you find in your chi field. You are taught to pay particular attention to specific points called 'energy gates', dotted throughout your body. I hope you begin to see why I don't particularly find the word 'ritual' applicable here. This is much more like work.

Here's the thing, though. Someone can describe, in precise detail, where an energy gate is... but Bruce, like only a handful of the top guys in the field, can actually transmit its location to you. (This is why for me, simple chemistry/biology fails abruptly.) He stands on a small dais at one end of a room, and there are perhaps 150-200 people standing around. He will then start transmitting his selected energy gate, and you really feel it. The first time he did it, one woman fainted. I think he'd been working on a slightly higher level of intensity because the previous week he'd been teaching more advanced students who were on the instructor course, but I'm extrapolating here.

At any rate, he's standing several feet away, transmitting to the entire room. My teacher in the UK transmits a bit, but nothing like as powerfully. When Bruce was working on the energies of the spine, it actually felt like someone was pushing a metal rod down the inside of my spinal cord. It didn't hurt, but there was a sensation of pressure and - it's really hard to explain this - a distinctly metallic feeling. This was some time ago, and I'm pretty sure that Bruce didn't mention anything about it at the time, but I read on his website a little while ago that in 5 element chi gung, metal is the element associated with the brain and spine.

(Please don't get hung up on the terminology here. The word 'element' used in this context is not to be confused with a chemical element.)

But the conclusions I'm tentatively reaching from my own experiences include the notion that chi - however defined - is the medium of sensation, and any chemical interactions or electrical processes within the physical body are actually secondary. This is because after doing the dissolving process for some time, one begins to sense blockages in the chi field outside the physical body.

And my thoughts regarding evolution are that it's not necessarily a blind mechanical process but that there is some sort of feedback involving consciousness itself. It's all very incohate, it's just a gut feeling, really. But I do think that our paradigms are very representative of the age we're in. Up until fairly recently, the paradigm was utterly mechanical. The body (and if you go with B F Skinner, the mind) are little machines and if we can work out the mechanisms involved we can fix them just as we might change a tyre or replace spark plugs in a car. Since what one might grandly term the Information Age, our paradigm has moved on and we now model everything in terms of computers.

Well... for me, the thing is, chi is THE thing that marks the difference between things that are alive and things that aren't, and until we actually take this into account and start really looking into it, our models of biology will consistently come up short. Chi is also, for me, at the heart of the mystery of consciousness and any theory that attempts to explain consciousness will eventually, I think, have to have some analogue or parallel to it.

At the moment I'm just getting into Ervin Lazlo's Science and the Akashic Field which I'm really enjoying. He writes very lucidly and at times poetically, and there are some interesting parallels with Popper's theory of objective knowledge.

EDIT:
I did put the Google search for Ervin Laszlo as a hyperlink under his name, but every time I did the page wouldn't load. If you do try Googling him, you might come across the word "autopoeisis", which was my word of the day for yesterday... it's cool!

I hope all the above isn't too inchoate and confusing. I confess my thoughts on all this are not at all fully-formed. I do think, however, that the next big paradigm shift in science will somehow encompass whatever it is that I refer to as 'chi', and that it may well have something to do with the zero-point substrate. I also suspect that the zero-point field may also have to do with people's notions of a Supreme Being, but I could be well wrong on that, as so much else.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Extremely interesting debate.

Something you may try to read for further illumination into the way the brain works is this book;

The Mind in the Cave, by David Lewis-Williams. (published by Thames & Hudson)

I've just finished it myself and see a lot of relevant material. It delves into the relationship between neurology, art, religion and the building of societies during the Late Paleolithic. It's a 'light' read, easily understood, yet enlightening, lucid and indirectly pertinent to the question of ID.
.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Thanks for the tip.... as I mentioned earlier, at the moment I'm making my way through Ervin Laszlo's Science and the Akashic Field which will be taking up my time for a while. I'll look out for it, though.

It's funny, though, I find that books come to you when you need and/or are ready for them.

And, on the other hand... it's possible to have a book and read it, and a couple of years later, re-read it and get a whole new level. I've got most of B K Frantzis' books, and they are extremely lucid and well-written. But there have been times when I've re-read a passage and understood what he's talking about at a different level. If you look at his website you might find what he says there to be a little bit general. This is deceptive.

For example, there's a section on 'opening and closing'. (Getting somewhat off-topic here, but...wtf) One's understanding of this deepens over time. The first time the idea was presented to me was in a class in the UK. Our instructor had us pair up, and then one person would take the other's finger and hold it behind the first knuckle. Then they would, very gently, pull the fingertip away from the knuckle and let it relax back. This localises the feeling of expansion into just one joint so you can really concentrate on it. Then you move to two knuckles opening and closing, and so on.

Ultimately you move to recreating the same feeling yourself, from the inside, without anyone tugging your fingertip. But actually, what happens, is that this expansion and contraction has to come from the core of your body. As you get more and more used to it, the expansion comes from the elbow, then the shoulder, and down to the area of the inguinal fold, which they refer to as the kwa. You begin to get the idea that you can use the synovial fluid as a hydraulic system, and I think that this is the basis for Bruce Lee's 'one inch punch', although I'm doing this for health and meditational reasons, not as a martial art specifically.

The point I was trying to make is that one's understanding of this deepens over time and is connected to one's practice. Coming back to one of Bruce's (BKF's) books and reading about opening and closing again gave me new insights I hadn't had before, that only a few years of practice could make meaningful. It's not worth explaining more than that as I don't think I could make it meaningful for people who haven't done the practice.

B K Frantzis, at any rate, has extraordinary control over his body. I have seen him move his skull plates. The top part of his skull (and you can see this quite clearly as he's bald) raises probably by a half-inch. He can move individual vertebrae up and down. Friends of mine have also been to a demonstration where he moved, over a short distance, quite literally faster than the eye can see. They told me that it was like watching a film with frames cut out.

I've been told that the human perceptual interval is one-sixteenth of a second. That means Bruce moved his considerable bulk (make no bones about it, he's a fat bloke, fatter than many of his website pictures reveal, but it doesn't seem to matter) through perhaps two feet in less than that time. He went, in this demonstration, from right outside someone's reach, to right up close.

When people start pulling impossible sh** on you like that but you have to believe it because you've seen it (and yes, I only saw the skull-plate and vertebrae thing myself but I trust both the friends who saw the speed demo) I find I have to take what the guy has to say about chi seriously.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I came across this article that counters evolutionists claims to evolution of chimps to humans

here is the article

I was hoping for some thoughts on this.



[edit on 28/4/06 by JudahMaccabbi]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
I came across this article that counters evolutionists claims to evolution of chimps to humans

here is the article

I was hoping for some thoughts on this.



[edit on 28/4/06 by JudahMaccabbi]


yeah, it's correct in that chimps did not evolve into humans - but ToE does not suggest this.

Judah, what did they teach you on this biology degree?



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Judah, what did they teach you on this biology degree?

It certainly wasn't biology.. he apparently majored in it yet doesn't even understand the basics of of ToE?






posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I stand corrected. My reference to evolutioninsts claim of evolution from chinp to man was assenine. I finished my degree over 13 years ago and I work in a different field which is more engineering and computers in the pharmaceutical field. Anyhow I will correct myself and rephrase my arguement.

The link I provided comes to point out the vast differences between primates and humans and the insignificance of the claim that the similarity in genetic makeup between primates and humans comes as further proof for the theory of evolution.
Intelligent design can also use the same data to argue that primates and humans are of the same design.

Previous posts on this thread claimed that we cannot test ID - I propose that we can. If we compare the genome of various species and find the same design "blue print" even from 'unrelated' (unrelated according to ToE) species - this can prove ID. For example, what evolutionists call convergent evolution can actually be proof for ID. If on a genetic level there are similarities in the make-up of the structures then there is proof for design and not random mutations that survive. Therefore ID is testable.

Genetics is still in its infancy. We do not fully understand the mechanisms of embryonic development or the function of genes. Junk DNA is not yet understood so it is labeled as 'evolutionary artefacts' which is quite convienient for evolutionists.

I would like again to stress that I am NOT religious - I am NOT Christian and moreover I have been educated in the sciences.
I feel that evolution has become a secular tool which was used to bash the church. This made evolution a very attractive tool. As a result alternative theories for archeological findings were not sought since the 'truth' was already found. When anomalies are uncovered they are dismissed since they do not back ToE.
This is truly unfortunate.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
The problem with the 'common design' explanation is that it can explain everything, it is virtually untestable.

The designer might use similar genetic blueprints, at other times he might decide not to, and start with a fresh design. How do we constrain this to some scientific prediction?

An omnipotent being can do anything, anytime, anywhere. In fact, he would have to if you want to invoke a common designer. Species have appeared over time, therefore this designer would need to be consistently appearing and tinkering. Does a tinkering god sound appropriate?

ToE is much more parsimonious, it makes predictions and is testable. Of course, all the evidence we have can readily be explained by a Loki-type being if you are that way inclined.

Here's the 29+ evidences for macro-evolution/common descent from talk-origins...

www.talkorigins.org...


[edit on 30-4-2006 by melatonin]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join