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.

 

Evolution and anticipation

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I know the new atheists and materialists on ATS will 'explain' away what I am about to say, but there is an aspect of evolution that I suggest proves a greater force behind it. My understating of evolution is that it is a process that has anticipated that all living things on Earth need to adapt in order to survive…and anticipation indicates intelligence.


Just my thoughts.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 

yes intilligence in the animals
evolution doesnt anticipate anything, you cant anticipate the need to change because it is often unexpected changes in the environment that preciptates evolution
edit on 22-9-2011 by UniverSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
…which would indicate they receive this ability to adapt from a transmitter from elsewhere. Think it over.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids
My understating of evolution is that it is a process that has anticipated that all living things on Earth need to adapt in order to survive…and anticipation indicates intelligence.


Evolution is not a process that anticipates anything, therefore there is no intelligence behind the process. It is not a ladder of progression and has no goals in mind.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I am not sure you are right about that.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids
I am not sure you are right about that.


Well, that's something you can find out for yourself. I am quite certain that the evolutionary process relies on no outside intelligence except in the cases of artificial selection, and that outside 'intelligence' most certainly comes from nothing supernatural..



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
HAHA, now, I won’t take the ‘supernatural’ bait, but the species is the receiver and therefore, there must be a transmitter. I believe it anticipates as and when needed. Quite clever!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
He is right evolution is the result of randomly occurring genetic mutations. Problematic mutations are deleted and beneficial mutations are amplified because problematic mutations ever so subtly inhibit survival and beneficial mutations ever so subtly benefit survival.

The factors that many people can not seem to understand is how a subtle difference can enhance an organism over vast lengths of time. I think it is the vast lengths of time thing that trips most creationists up plus the bigotry induced by religion.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids
HAHA, now, I won’t take the ‘supernatural’ bait, but the species is the receiver and therefore, there must be a transmitter. I believe it anticipates as and when needed. Quite clever!


Well, there's no evidence that would confirm your stated beliefs about evolutionary function.

It would definitely be in your better interests to learn more about how evolution works. You are making your case on a huge misunderstanding, particularly if you believe that there are "transmitters and receivers" in the process. I can direct you to some good sources for understanding evolutionary theory if you'd like.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I think, to the wise, evolution is too much of a coincidence to be random, but that is an interesting reductive thought.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think it boarders on dippy to suggest evolution is 'just because'..



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Just because you can not understand does not mean that it doesn't happen. If you can not visualize the effect of randomization over the course of hundreds of thousands of generations. Then it is hard to imagine that you could be part of the discussion. Sometimes science has some things that are hard to imagine. Have you ever looked into quantum entanglement or special relativity -- things that involve imagining time as a dimension and space as malleable.

Look in to these two theories. They make evolution appear to be a concept so simple that 6 year olds are familiar with how it works, actually my 6 year grand daughter can give a pretty good synopsis.

Entanglement and relativity will make your head assplode, perhaps they will make you understand why your arguments for intelligent design seem simplistic and naive.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


The ideas that your suggesting on evolution are based on imagination at best.
You must first understand the natural processes involved before making assumptions about the reality of evolution.
This video is a excellent introduction into the science of evolution and Don Exodus explains it with such simplicity that just about anyone can understand it.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 

I know what you're talking about.

Why does life try to survive? "Evolution" doesn't answer that question. "Survival of the fittest." Well: Why survival?

We are too blinded by our most basic assumptions to see that they are just assumptions. Some conscious entity had to decide that they wanted living things - along with their environment - to play the game of survival. It's like our assumptions about time. Time seems too basic to question. But you don't get anywhere until you do.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 





Why does life try to survive? "Evolution" doesn't answer that question. "Survival of the fittest." Well: Why survival?


"Survival of the fittest" is not a good way to think about evolution. Darwin did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success.

The "fittest" individuals could be considered those that are ideally suited to a particular environment. Such specialized adaptation, however, comes at the great cost of being more poorly adapted to changes in the environment. If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to- any- environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive. The so called "fittest" go extinct.
The phrase cannot be a tautology if it is not trivially true.




Some conscious entity had to decide that they wanted living things - along with their environment - to play the game of survival.


What conscious entity would create livings things-along with their environment- just to watch them go extinct just because the weather changed?

edit on 22-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 


Why does life try to survive? "Evolution" doesn't answer that question.

Actually it does. Organisms that evolve survival strategies and a preference for being alive over being dead are likely to live longer and have more descendants than those which don’t. Their descendants inherit the strategies and the sense of self-preservation.


"Survival of the fittest." Well: Why survival?

If not survival, then what? Survival is the first thing; you can’t do anything if you’re dead.


We are too blinded by our most basic assumptions to see that they are just assumptions.

Speak for yourself, because...


Some conscious entity had to decide that they wanted living things... to play the game of survival.

...this is a pure assumption and nothing else. Unlike the theory of evolution, it is founded in no facts. It is only what you would like to believe.


edit on 23/9/11 by Astyanax because: it was unaddressed.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids
HAHA, now, I won’t take the ‘supernatural’ bait, but the species is the receiver and therefore, there must be a transmitter. I believe it anticipates as and when needed. Quite clever!



Guess they didn’t get the message
List of extinct animals
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids

I know the new atheists and materialists on ATS will 'explain' away what I am about to say, but there is an aspect of evolution that I suggest proves a greater force behind it. My understating of evolution is that it is a process that has anticipated that all living things on Earth need to adapt in order to survive…and anticipation indicates intelligence.


Just my thoughts.

Poor species that anticipated that they should go extinct. Oh well, there are sadists everywhere.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Reductionist’s hostile replies, aside for one moment, I think evolution is a very peculiar force. As for extinct animal, well, we can clone…now what does THAT suggest…



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


Reductionist’s hostile replies, aside for one moment

I read the thread over fully (luckily it’s still short). One post makes a passing reference to creationist ‘bigotry’. Aside from that – and the very last sentence of my own reply to l_e_cox, if you’re really picky – there is no hostility in any ‘reductionists’’ replies. Most of them are actually very helpful, presenting you with links to information you need to have if you really want to understand how evolution works.


I think evolution is a very peculiar force.

It isn’t so peculiar. Suspend you disbelief for a paragraph, and I’ll explain.

Everything evolves; it isn’t just plants and animals. Evolution is simply change over time in response to environmental forces. What we call ‘natural selection’ is a kind of wearing-down process. Hard rocks withstand erosion longer than soft rocks*. This gives the landscape a form that changes – evolves – over time. Languages evolve. They develop words and syntactical forms and lose them again, changing over time as people in different eras and localities adapt them to their needs. The cosmos itself has evolved into its present shape because of the changing balance of forces within it.

It’s always a mistake to imagine that things are evolving toward something. Are whales more perfect or less because they gave up their limbs for flippers? Does the question really have any meaning? If mammals are so much more ‘advanced’ than insects, how come there are so many insects and so few mammals? Does it mean they are more ‘advanced’ than we? No, they have simply evolved to adapt to a great many, often very difficult, environmental conditions. We’re pretty good too, but no other mammal, except the dogs we more or less created, are nearly as good. And even dogs would be nowhere without us.

Evolution is never active, you see. It is only reactive. It can only respond to the forces that shape it. You can certainly argue that those forces are under the control of God, but they don’t need to be. They could be perfectly random, and yet the effect would still be the same. That’s pretty much the whole point.


As for extinct animal, well, we can clone…now what does THAT suggest…

That we’re getting good at cloning things? No, I think you’ll have to tell me what you think it suggests. I’m afraid I can’t make the connexion.
 

*Compare, for example, the relative long-term success of Led Zeppelin and Bread.


edit on 23/9/11 by Astyanax because: of levity.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join