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.
Was It Designed?
page: 7share:
reply to post by PhotonEffect
This is what I meant: the way some organisms evolve — to occupy certain evolutionary niches and require certain things in order to survive and reproduce — causes them to go extinct when some global cataclysm, such as a meteor strike, deprives most representatives of the species of their niche or their physical requirements. Others evolve to occupy different niches and have different needs — and because of this, the cataclysm spares them.
But though evolution determines which species will be extinguished and which ones spared, evolution itsef can't really be called a cause of extinction. Every species evolves to function well in a particular environment. It is environmental change (where the word 'environment' is broadly used to cover ecological factors, predators, pathogens, competition from conspecifices, etc.) that cause organisms and species to go extinct. You can't blame evolution for it.
reply to post by mrphilosophias
That isn't a reply to my earlier post, but never mind. Since your question is on topic, I will attempt to answer it from my own understanding, always bearing in mind that I am not a biologist, simply a moderately well-informed layman.
Before I do so, however, you will have to clarify your use of terms. What do you mean by: (1) varieties, (2) diversity, (3) superficial diversity? Define these in context, and then we'll see what's what.
My take away from your example was that a meteor is an evolutionary cause of extinction. I don't think that's what you meant.
This is what I meant: the way some organisms evolve — to occupy certain evolutionary niches and require certain things in order to survive and reproduce — causes them to go extinct when some global cataclysm, such as a meteor strike, deprives most representatives of the species of their niche or their physical requirements. Others evolve to occupy different niches and have different needs — and because of this, the cataclysm spares them.
But though evolution determines which species will be extinguished and which ones spared, evolution itsef can't really be called a cause of extinction. Every species evolves to function well in a particular environment. It is environmental change (where the word 'environment' is broadly used to cover ecological factors, predators, pathogens, competition from conspecifices, etc.) that cause organisms and species to go extinct. You can't blame evolution for it.
*
reply to post by mrphilosophias
...why is there no true diversity of living hominids?
That isn't a reply to my earlier post, but never mind. Since your question is on topic, I will attempt to answer it from my own understanding, always bearing in mind that I am not a biologist, simply a moderately well-informed layman.
Before I do so, however, you will have to clarify your use of terms. What do you mean by: (1) varieties, (2) diversity, (3) superficial diversity? Define these in context, and then we'll see what's what.
edit on 20/10/13 by Astyanax because: I evolved.
reply to post by theantediluvian
You're clarification wasn't needed, really, and yes, that's exactly what I was after. It's really very simple. Nature designs. Or, the Universe designs. Humans are evidence of that, but we didn't design the flowers did we. There are other natural forces at work which drive design in the natural world which we are apart of. That's what I'm curious about.
That's not at all what I meant, said, am thinking, or conveying. You're just like all the others it seems. You'd rather make leaps of judgement that are baseless and incorrect then actually engage in some sort of conversation. You don't have to agree with anything I'm saying, but please don't invoke god or religion or some sort of an agenda such as ID when I haven't done so. You seem more interested in debating religion which I don't concern myself with. So don't pretend to think you know what I'm about. Like if I referred to you as a satanist since you don't believe in god. It's really annoying when people think they can read other people's minds on this thing, wouldn't you agree?
I'm more interested with design found in nature, and how the laws that governed that process came to be. I like the topic of biomimetics. There are some very smart people in this field of study who recognize the useful designs in nature and are implementing them to help solve problems or advance human technologies. It's really an incredible science.
There's technology in nature. Technology is natural. The concepts of technology spill out of the human mind (a very natural thing by the way) and into the physical world. Humans are just as natural as trees. There's no reason to think we are separate from the natural world. It's unfortunate that this common misconception, has been built right into our psyche, and has been driving human behavior and thinking for a very long time.
Here's an example- When a civilization of termites build an incredible structure like this, then it's natural. But when humans build similarly incredible structures, it's considered unnatural. Where's the logic?
My deductive reasoning was just fine until you invoked an intelligent designer into it. That's when all reason went right out the window. Way to go mate.
theantediluvian
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Congratulations, we've proved that some natural things design but that's not really what you were after is it? I think what you're really trying to convey is something along the lines of:
You're clarification wasn't needed, really, and yes, that's exactly what I was after. It's really very simple. Nature designs. Or, the Universe designs. Humans are evidence of that, but we didn't design the flowers did we. There are other natural forces at work which drive design in the natural world which we are apart of. That's what I'm curious about.
Humans are animals.
Animals are created by an intelligent designer.
Some humans design.
Therefore, an intelligent designer designed everything.
That's not at all what I meant, said, am thinking, or conveying. You're just like all the others it seems. You'd rather make leaps of judgement that are baseless and incorrect then actually engage in some sort of conversation. You don't have to agree with anything I'm saying, but please don't invoke god or religion or some sort of an agenda such as ID when I haven't done so. You seem more interested in debating religion which I don't concern myself with. So don't pretend to think you know what I'm about. Like if I referred to you as a satanist since you don't believe in god. It's really annoying when people think they can read other people's minds on this thing, wouldn't you agree?
I'm more interested with design found in nature, and how the laws that governed that process came to be. I like the topic of biomimetics. There are some very smart people in this field of study who recognize the useful designs in nature and are implementing them to help solve problems or advance human technologies. It's really an incredible science.
There's technology in nature. Technology is natural. The concepts of technology spill out of the human mind (a very natural thing by the way) and into the physical world. Humans are just as natural as trees. There's no reason to think we are separate from the natural world. It's unfortunate that this common misconception, has been built right into our psyche, and has been driving human behavior and thinking for a very long time.
Here's an example- When a civilization of termites build an incredible structure like this, then it's natural. But when humans build similarly incredible structures, it's considered unnatural. Where's the logic?
I think the crux of the problem is that you think you're using deductive reasoning--when in fact, you are not.
My deductive reasoning was just fine until you invoked an intelligent designer into it. That's when all reason went right out the window. Way to go mate.
edit on 20-10-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
Astyanax
reply to post by PhotonEffect
But though evolution determines which species will be extinguished and which ones spared, evolution itsef can't really be called a cause of extinction. Every species evolves to function well in a particular environment. It is environmental change (where the word 'environment' is broadly used to cover ecological factors, predators, pathogens, competition from conspecifices, etc.) that cause organisms and species to go extinct. You can't blame evolution for it.
^^ This is exactly what I was getting at. ^^
ETA:
I'm trying to identify the cause for designs found in nature, and tend to think that evolution has something to do with it, or more specifically, the underlying force that drives the evolutionary process. However a typical argument against this line of thinking has been that evolution drives species into extinction, so how could it be considered responsible for good design?
I say that evolution is the driver of life on this planet. It keeps life going. It's not about a particular species, it's about life.
So then what is the phenomena of life itself? What powers it? What's the purpose of it?
What drew up the blueprint for a sunflower, with all of it's mechanisms, and it's place in the ecosystem. How did these rules come to be? Were they established pre big bang? Or somehow developed over time?
edit on 20-10-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
Plugin
Why do living creatures don't adapt to the massive changes we humans are causing?
This should be a great stimulant for species to survive because they are dying off at such a rapid rate (at a speed almost not seen before in all time), why aren't they changing to survive or even some creatures appearing which can prey on humans effectively, putting the balance in check. Perhaps they didn't need to change as they where 'perfectly adopted' but they should change right now to survive (of course they won't).
I ''know'' evolution goes slow but they will die off if they don't (even we may be).
"The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions,"
How did we evolve to survive but to (possibly) destroy our self (and almost all other species) in the near future?
Some bad evolvolution there (just a new invented word).
Who saids they don't? Bacteria becomes resistant to anti bacterial soaps, insects have start to become immune to pesticides. Certain fish are becoming "invasive" species changing entire ecosystems and food webs.
PhotonEffect
Well, no, anyone with two eyes and a sense of what constitutes design- mainly form, function, purpose- would agrees those characteristics. Just because we haven't identified the design mechanism doesn't mean it wasn't designed. But don't tell that to the naysayers...
The problem with that statement is you insert purpose. There is no purpose. Life exists and changes based on natural pressures. It's that simple. It is a cause and effect relationship. No grand finish line to cross, no pinnacle to life forms, just continued variation.
Cypress
PhotonEffect
Well, no, anyone with two eyes and a sense of what constitutes design- mainly form, function, purpose- would agrees those characteristics. Just because we haven't identified the design mechanism doesn't mean it wasn't designed. But don't tell that to the naysayers...
The problem with that statement is you insert purpose. There is no purpose. Life exists and changes based on natural pressures. It's that simple. It is a cause and effect relationship. No grand finish line to cross, no pinnacle to life forms, just continued variation.
Tell that to an artist.
What purpose does art serve? Really.
These purpose as life
To bear witness to something
And inspire
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Firstly, I apologize if I jumped to conclusions. I think after having read through the preceding posts, I might have been quick to assume that you were trying to substantiate ID through a roundabout approach.
When an insect colony constructs its home, the members of the colony are operating on evolved innate behaviors-- they have no consciousness, they don't "design" (plan), they lack creativity, and they don't learn.
I read an article recently about a study into how some species of ant chooses a suitable home. The ants behaved in a predictable manner, travelling outward from the nest following a simple set of rules from which a pattern emerged.
Among other things, I am a programmer by trade. Last year I wrote some code that could take a customer's order and using the case weights and dimensions, split it across several pallets. This is a variation of what is known as "The Knapsack Problem." This led me to do some research into combinatorial optimization and using dynamic programming (splitting the problem into discrete tasks) and heuristics (rules used as shortcuts to finding a solution) and a fair amount of trial and error, I created code that performed well enough to put in production. In the weeks that followed, there were conditions that would crop up that would lead to a hiccup and I'd make a revision to my code to compensate.
While not perfect, I think that there's a workable analogy for complex behavior arising from instinct in my story. If I apply it to the termite colony:
1. individuals perform tasks
2. the tasks can be described by a set of simple rules
3. tasks are iterated until the problem is solved (the mound is built)
The rules that govern the tasks are fixed in the neural pathways and do not change through learning--like the rest of the organism, they evolve. I'm sure if we could observe the mound building of termites throughout history, we'd find that the structure of the termite mounds has continually been refined over generations. Organisms with more complex neural systems are capable of learning--with experience, new connections are formed and reinforced.
So wouldn't the critical distinction be the level of consciousness? Sure it's a anthropocentric view but I imagine if we ever discover (or are discovered by) beings that have levels of consciousness comparable to or greater than our own, we'd make the same distinction between their creations and those that are considered to be natural.
Here's an example- When a civilization of termites build an incredible structure like this, then it's natural. But when humans build similarly incredible structures, it's considered unnatural. Where's the logic?
Firstly, I apologize if I jumped to conclusions. I think after having read through the preceding posts, I might have been quick to assume that you were trying to substantiate ID through a roundabout approach.
When an insect colony constructs its home, the members of the colony are operating on evolved innate behaviors-- they have no consciousness, they don't "design" (plan), they lack creativity, and they don't learn.
I read an article recently about a study into how some species of ant chooses a suitable home. The ants behaved in a predictable manner, travelling outward from the nest following a simple set of rules from which a pattern emerged.
Among other things, I am a programmer by trade. Last year I wrote some code that could take a customer's order and using the case weights and dimensions, split it across several pallets. This is a variation of what is known as "The Knapsack Problem." This led me to do some research into combinatorial optimization and using dynamic programming (splitting the problem into discrete tasks) and heuristics (rules used as shortcuts to finding a solution) and a fair amount of trial and error, I created code that performed well enough to put in production. In the weeks that followed, there were conditions that would crop up that would lead to a hiccup and I'd make a revision to my code to compensate.
While not perfect, I think that there's a workable analogy for complex behavior arising from instinct in my story. If I apply it to the termite colony:
1. individuals perform tasks
2. the tasks can be described by a set of simple rules
3. tasks are iterated until the problem is solved (the mound is built)
The rules that govern the tasks are fixed in the neural pathways and do not change through learning--like the rest of the organism, they evolve. I'm sure if we could observe the mound building of termites throughout history, we'd find that the structure of the termite mounds has continually been refined over generations. Organisms with more complex neural systems are capable of learning--with experience, new connections are formed and reinforced.
So wouldn't the critical distinction be the level of consciousness? Sure it's a anthropocentric view but I imagine if we ever discover (or are discovered by) beings that have levels of consciousness comparable to or greater than our own, we'd make the same distinction between their creations and those that are considered to be natural.
edit on 20-10-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-10-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by PhotonEffect
What a good post. I wish I could give you more than one star.
Then you are a scientist.
Yes, of course there is design in nature, and not just in our brains and hands either.
Nature is a designer. Not because she means to be — she is not a sentient being — but ultimately because of the way her laws operate. Her only design tool is selection, applied not just to living organisms but to everything from states of matter to the differential survival of philosophical ideas in various human cultures.
Some people like to see God behind all this but that is neither helpful nor necessary.
What a good post. I wish I could give you more than one star.
I'm more interested with design found in nature, and how the laws that governed that process came to be.
Then you are a scientist.
Yes, of course there is design in nature, and not just in our brains and hands either.
Nature is a designer. Not because she means to be — she is not a sentient being — but ultimately because of the way her laws operate. Her only design tool is selection, applied not just to living organisms but to everything from states of matter to the differential survival of philosophical ideas in various human cultures.
Some people like to see God behind all this but that is neither helpful nor necessary.
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Yes, of course it does. It makes life possible under varied and changing conditions. Without it, life would soon become unviable.
In fact, it isn't even about life, it's about genes. Living things are just big machines constructed by genes to allow them to survive and propagate themselves despite ever-changing, often inimical environmental conditions. Survival machines.
I say that evolution is the driver of life on this planet. It keeps life going.
Yes, of course it does. It makes life possible under varied and changing conditions. Without it, life would soon become unviable.
It's not about a particular species, it's about life.
In fact, it isn't even about life, it's about genes. Living things are just big machines constructed by genes to allow them to survive and propagate themselves despite ever-changing, often inimical environmental conditions. Survival machines.
Living things are just big machines constructed by genes to allow them to survive and propagate themselves despite ever-changing, often inimical environmental conditions.
That's quite an assumption! Incredibly short-sighted IMO. Are you sure that's ALL living things really are?
reply to post by GEmersonBiggins
It is far from being an assumption. It was certainly a radical thought when George C. Williams proposed it in 1966, and caused a public sensation even ten years later when it was elaborated and popularised by Richard Dawkins in his book, The Selfish Gene. The evidence duly piled up, however, and the gene-centred view of evolution is pretty mainstream in biology nowadays.
It also has the great advantage of providing the first meaningful answers to all the Big Questions, from Why are we here? to Why do we quarrel? to Why do we love?
I strongly recommend you try to understand it properly before attempting to refute it. Dawkins's book is probably the best place to start. I will not bother to reply to silly objections like 'genes aren't conscious, so they can't be selfish' or 'evolution is only a theory'. I'm not interested in debating fundamentals, especially not with fundamentalists.
That's quite an assumption! Incredibly short-sighted IMO. Are you sure that's ALL living things really are?
It is far from being an assumption. It was certainly a radical thought when George C. Williams proposed it in 1966, and caused a public sensation even ten years later when it was elaborated and popularised by Richard Dawkins in his book, The Selfish Gene. The evidence duly piled up, however, and the gene-centred view of evolution is pretty mainstream in biology nowadays.
It also has the great advantage of providing the first meaningful answers to all the Big Questions, from Why are we here? to Why do we quarrel? to Why do we love?
I strongly recommend you try to understand it properly before attempting to refute it. Dawkins's book is probably the best place to start. I will not bother to reply to silly objections like 'genes aren't conscious, so they can't be selfish' or 'evolution is only a theory'. I'm not interested in debating fundamentals, especially not with fundamentalists.
edit on 21/10/13 by Astyanax because: of the usual niggles.
Bah.
edit on 21/10/13 by Astyanax because: it got posted twice.
I strongly recommend you try to understand it properly before attempting to refute it. Dawkins's book is probably the best place to start. I will not bother to reply to silly objections like 'genes aren't conscious, so they can't be selfish' or 'evolution is only a theory'. I'm not interested in debating fundamentals, especially not with fundamentalists.
I second this recommendation. The Selfish Gene is an accessible, seminal work of contemporary evolutionary theory and as bonus, there's a chapter where Dawkins introduces his theory of memes, units of cultural information that like genes, undergo evolution.
I'd also recommend reading the writings of Robert M. Hazen about emergence and the origins of life.
reply to post by theantediluvian
Appreciate it. I can understand why you would've thought that, particularly because the topic itself (design in nature) has been somewhat hijacked by the intelligent design crowd to promote their own agenda, whatever it is. It's a big reason why I tend to become frustrated with it, and loathe being lumped with them when I mention design and nature in the same sentence. ID is in a fight against evolution, where such a fight is not necessary. I, on the other hand, tend to think that evolution plays an important role in the design of life. The two go hand in hand, naturally. God is a difficult if not impossible thing to prove, so I understand the contempt towards that belief. I don't defile anyone who thinks along those lines, it's just not a view I share. And if I'm to be fair, then I would say technically, since a god can't be proven to exist either way at this point, I guess it's still an option. But I don't concern myself with that.
I'm not sure about the consciousness part of what you say, because we still don't understand it completely. You may very well be correct to say that insects don't possess consciousness, but where I get held up is that current science attributes consciousness as a property of the brain (where I tend to view it more as an inherent property of life). And since insects do have brains, and are aware, then I don't see why they couldn't also possess some form/level of consciousness as well. Are (innate) behaviors tied to consciousness in some way? Perhaps so. (I will concede that the complexity of neural networks may play a role in this as well.)
Cool that you're a programmer. You are tasked with developing rules for how certain actions are to be executed in the most efficient way possible. Your medium is the computer. For termites its their termite mound. Not sure if that's what you were getting at but regardless I see the analogy.
I find instinct to be very interesting because of the very facts that you touched on- it's behavioral patterns which are innate within all living things. They are neither taught nor learned, but at the same time can be highly complex. These behaviors have been programmed right into the very fabric of all living things to perform specific actions for the purpose of survival and reproduction, and everything in between. Plant life included. It is behind the phenomena of emergence, which is also interesting because nature tends to favor working in harmony to achieve specific goals. There's a lesson there somewhere...
Termites were not taught to build a mound 10 feet tall with ventilation systems, temperature regulation, with elaborate travel tubes, and food storage chambers. Nor were they raised to form different social castes that divvy up the work accordingly. They just do it, amazingly, and have been for 300 million years.
So where did this blue print; these rules, come from? Did they really arise right out of the primordial soup? Perhaps encoded within our DNA? But how? I don't know, but that's what I want to understand. I do know that evolution seems to carry these types of behaviors right on through no matter the type of species, or time and place in existence. Extinction may kill off the species, but not the instinct.
Life is designed in this way.
I see what you mean, but consciousness is a natural phenomena too. That's my point, it's all derived from the same DNA, the same evolutionary process. We humans are conditioned to think that because we've evolved to the top of the food chain that we are no longer apart of nature. We feel we have control over it somehow and therefore we're above it, or separate from it. Nope, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Pyramids are just as natural as the termite mound. They're made from/by the same stuff on earth.
theantediluvian
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Firstly, I apologize if I jumped to conclusions. I think after having read through the preceding posts, I might have been quick to assume that you were trying to substantiate ID through a roundabout approach.
Appreciate it. I can understand why you would've thought that, particularly because the topic itself (design in nature) has been somewhat hijacked by the intelligent design crowd to promote their own agenda, whatever it is. It's a big reason why I tend to become frustrated with it, and loathe being lumped with them when I mention design and nature in the same sentence. ID is in a fight against evolution, where such a fight is not necessary. I, on the other hand, tend to think that evolution plays an important role in the design of life. The two go hand in hand, naturally. God is a difficult if not impossible thing to prove, so I understand the contempt towards that belief. I don't defile anyone who thinks along those lines, it's just not a view I share. And if I'm to be fair, then I would say technically, since a god can't be proven to exist either way at this point, I guess it's still an option. But I don't concern myself with that.
When an insect colony constructs its home, the members of the colony are operating on evolved innate behaviors-- they have no consciousness, they don't "design" (plan), they lack creativity, and they don't learn.
I'm not sure about the consciousness part of what you say, because we still don't understand it completely. You may very well be correct to say that insects don't possess consciousness, but where I get held up is that current science attributes consciousness as a property of the brain (where I tend to view it more as an inherent property of life). And since insects do have brains, and are aware, then I don't see why they couldn't also possess some form/level of consciousness as well. Are (innate) behaviors tied to consciousness in some way? Perhaps so. (I will concede that the complexity of neural networks may play a role in this as well.)
While not perfect, I think that there's a workable analogy for complex behavior arising from instinct in my story. If I apply it to the termite colony:
1. individuals perform tasks
2. the tasks can be described by a set of simple rules
3. tasks are iterated until the problem is solved (the mound is built)
The rules that govern the tasks are fixed in the neural pathways and do not change through learning--like the rest of the organism, they evolve.
Cool that you're a programmer. You are tasked with developing rules for how certain actions are to be executed in the most efficient way possible. Your medium is the computer. For termites its their termite mound. Not sure if that's what you were getting at but regardless I see the analogy.
I find instinct to be very interesting because of the very facts that you touched on- it's behavioral patterns which are innate within all living things. They are neither taught nor learned, but at the same time can be highly complex. These behaviors have been programmed right into the very fabric of all living things to perform specific actions for the purpose of survival and reproduction, and everything in between. Plant life included. It is behind the phenomena of emergence, which is also interesting because nature tends to favor working in harmony to achieve specific goals. There's a lesson there somewhere...
Termites were not taught to build a mound 10 feet tall with ventilation systems, temperature regulation, with elaborate travel tubes, and food storage chambers. Nor were they raised to form different social castes that divvy up the work accordingly. They just do it, amazingly, and have been for 300 million years.
So where did this blue print; these rules, come from? Did they really arise right out of the primordial soup? Perhaps encoded within our DNA? But how? I don't know, but that's what I want to understand. I do know that evolution seems to carry these types of behaviors right on through no matter the type of species, or time and place in existence. Extinction may kill off the species, but not the instinct.
Life is designed in this way.
So wouldn't the critical distinction be the level of consciousness? Sure it's a anthropocentric view but I imagine if we ever discover (or are discovered by) beings that have levels of consciousness comparable to or greater than our own, we'd make the same distinction between their creations and those that are considered to be natural.
I see what you mean, but consciousness is a natural phenomena too. That's my point, it's all derived from the same DNA, the same evolutionary process. We humans are conditioned to think that because we've evolved to the top of the food chain that we are no longer apart of nature. We feel we have control over it somehow and therefore we're above it, or separate from it. Nope, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Pyramids are just as natural as the termite mound. They're made from/by the same stuff on earth.
edit on 21-10-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Astyanax
Thank you kind sir. I am definitely not a scientist, nowhere near, and would not want to degrade one by thinking so. I am interested in many things science though, mostly because it strives to find the answers to all the burning questions that I have. With that said, I don't take everything science says as gospel. I use it as a guide and intertwine my own thoughts/ideas where I see fit. Science doesn't always get it right either, nor is it completely devoid of its own agendas. But don't tell that to a scientist!
I find too that the community often tends to firmly implant the goal posts, only until it's time to move them.(sometimes right when you've just set yourself to kick the field goal).
Ah yes, her laws. In all of their complexity. Author unknown...
DNA contains the instructions, I'm with you, to build machines capable of life. All the billions of types of life forms that have ever existed followed the same formula. Survive and reproduce. And yet one type, and perhaps the only type of life form to ever exist on this planet was given the brain power to be able to look back into its own origins.
In other words- DNA achieved the ability - through humans- to look back at itself and study itself. And to take that thought a step further. The universe created the DNA that allowed for it to look back and reflect on itself, through the human life form. An introspective universe of sorts...
Astyanax
reply to post by PhotonEffect
What a good post. I wish I could give you more than one star.
I'm more interested with design found in nature, and how the laws that governed that process came to be.
Then you are a scientist.
Thank you kind sir. I am definitely not a scientist, nowhere near, and would not want to degrade one by thinking so. I am interested in many things science though, mostly because it strives to find the answers to all the burning questions that I have. With that said, I don't take everything science says as gospel. I use it as a guide and intertwine my own thoughts/ideas where I see fit. Science doesn't always get it right either, nor is it completely devoid of its own agendas. But don't tell that to a scientist!
I find too that the community often tends to firmly implant the goal posts, only until it's time to move them.(sometimes right when you've just set yourself to kick the field goal).
Nature is a designer. Not because she means to be — she is not a sentient being — but ultimately because of the way her laws operate. Her only design tool is selection, applied not just to living organisms but to everything from states of matter to the differential survival of philosophical ideas in various human cultures.
Ah yes, her laws. In all of their complexity. Author unknown...
Astyanax
In fact, it isn't even about life, it's about genes. Living things are just big machines constructed by genes to allow them to survive and propagate themselves despite ever-changing, often inimical environmental conditions. Survival machines.
DNA contains the instructions, I'm with you, to build machines capable of life. All the billions of types of life forms that have ever existed followed the same formula. Survive and reproduce. And yet one type, and perhaps the only type of life form to ever exist on this planet was given the brain power to be able to look back into its own origins.
In other words- DNA achieved the ability - through humans- to look back at itself and study itself. And to take that thought a step further. The universe created the DNA that allowed for it to look back and reflect on itself, through the human life form. An introspective universe of sorts...
edit on 21-10-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
Hmmmm.......
Why has there even got to be an argument about this? We humans are rather fickle creatures to say the least.
Is there a God? A Great Designer?
With my life experiences and the things I have seen the answer is an absolute YES.
Can I prove it.....No.
If you ask a true atheist if God is real he will tell you.......No, of course not.
They base this off of their life experiences and things they have seen.
Could he actually prove evolution?
That is a bit tricky but the technical answer is....No. At best he would be able to prove adaptation.
All living things have the ability to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive.
I think we were designed that way while others believe it is evolution.
As I told Solomonspath earlier in the thread...."people see what they want to see".
Quad
Why has there even got to be an argument about this? We humans are rather fickle creatures to say the least.
Is there a God? A Great Designer?
With my life experiences and the things I have seen the answer is an absolute YES.
Can I prove it.....No.
If you ask a true atheist if God is real he will tell you.......No, of course not.
They base this off of their life experiences and things they have seen.
Could he actually prove evolution?
That is a bit tricky but the technical answer is....No. At best he would be able to prove adaptation.
All living things have the ability to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive.
I think we were designed that way while others believe it is evolution.
As I told Solomonspath earlier in the thread...."people see what they want to see".
Quad
reply to post by Quadrivium
Says the writing proof!!
Quadrivium
Hmmmm.......
Why has there even got to be an argument about this? We humans are rather fickle creatures to say the least.
Is there a God? A Great Designer?
With my life experiences and the things I have seen the answer is an absolute YES.
Can I prove it.....No.
If you ask a true atheist if God is real he will tell you.......No, of course not.
They base this off of their life experiences and things they have seen.
Could he actually prove evolution?
That is a bit tricky but the technical answer is....No. At best he would be able to prove adaptation.
All living things have the ability to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive.
I think we were designed that way while others believe it is evolution.
As I told Solomonspath earlier in the thread...."people see what they want to see".
Quad
Says the writing proof!!
edit on 21-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: reply change
Honestly don't have much to add, and I seriously don't want to be attacked AGAIN today as a creationist....
Put all of that aside and please just explain to me the following:
WHY, if natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction.....why do some organisms evolve and others don't?
Natural selection should apply to all organisms on a grand scale...but we see these "failures" that have long been extinct...As a natural process, it should not FAIL. As an example, the hydrologic cycle is a natural process, it does not fail in it's function. As another example, volcanic activity is a natural process and it too does not fail in it's function.
Nature demonstrates to us that it cannot have failures or it would fail to exist. The Universe as a whole works the way that it does because it could not exist any other way....
This is a several part question I suppose...and granted I am open to being called bias, because I kinda am I suppose....but these are rational questions that have no intent other than to enlighten myself...and perhaps others that have the same questions...
Also, are any of my definitions and/or suppositions concerning evolution and/or natural selection incorrect? ex. "natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction" ex."Natural selection should apply to all organisms on a grand scale" ex."As a natural process, it should not FAIL" If yes to any, please explain and provide examples if applicable.
And again, why does evolution and/or natural selection fail for some organisms and succeed for others?
A2D
Put all of that aside and please just explain to me the following:
WHY, if natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction.....why do some organisms evolve and others don't?
Natural selection should apply to all organisms on a grand scale...but we see these "failures" that have long been extinct...As a natural process, it should not FAIL. As an example, the hydrologic cycle is a natural process, it does not fail in it's function. As another example, volcanic activity is a natural process and it too does not fail in it's function.
Nature demonstrates to us that it cannot have failures or it would fail to exist. The Universe as a whole works the way that it does because it could not exist any other way....
This is a several part question I suppose...and granted I am open to being called bias, because I kinda am I suppose....but these are rational questions that have no intent other than to enlighten myself...and perhaps others that have the same questions...
Also, are any of my definitions and/or suppositions concerning evolution and/or natural selection incorrect? ex. "natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction" ex."Natural selection should apply to all organisms on a grand scale" ex."As a natural process, it should not FAIL" If yes to any, please explain and provide examples if applicable.
And again, why does evolution and/or natural selection fail for some organisms and succeed for others?
A2D