"Darwin Day" Topic

There has to be something in order to reorganize/evolve another something: the energy has to come from something/somewhere.

It's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

When I demonstrate sapient thought and imagination, is science going to pursue the notion that this evolved out of non thought, nonsense and mere chemicals that possess no more than these?

You now sound just like TJ, putting the cart before the horse. Science will pursue any fruitful avenues that the data provides.

The concept of "Sapient thought" follows exactly the way the concept of "living" did in my previous examples. It is based on the complexity of the organism.

If you place a small block of a chemical poison into a Petri dish swimming with bacteria, you will find that the bacteria all will eventually swim away from the poisonous source. That means that they must "remember" if they are closer, or farther from the poison and take appropriate action. In other words the bacteria have to "remember" previous states and compare that with their current state. This indicates a level of sentience, but is the bacteria actually thinking? Does it have imagination? Doubtful.

Now move up quite a few levels in complexity to a cheetah chasing a gazelle. The cheetah doesn't run at the gazelle, but calculates a vector to put it in contact with the gazelle in the very near future. Therefore, the cheetah shows sentience AND imagination, as it has to imagine and project the future position of it's prey.

Somewhere along the gradient of biological complexity you have to draw the line for what has "life", what has "sentience" and what has "imagination". I'm not sure clear cut separations exist. It's not just a matter of "mere chemicals"

You can't produce "God" through empirical science, if "God" remains outside of the purview of empirical detection.

Ok.

But Existence in the first place is not arguable; our sapience is not arguable;……..

Ok.

…..raw chemicals do not always Exist without some Cause;……

I wouldn't presume to know that.

…….and finally, human sapience cannot evolve out of insensibility (chemical abiogenesis), or you have just proven ex nihilo….

Well, I'm content to see where the data takes us.

Ralph

Hi

Actually, "out of nothing" is called either a premise or an assertian, but it isn't proof, nor is it a fundimental element for anything. And the reverse is true with the rest of it. In this case, lack of data isn't proof.

The trap here is this: if you accept that assertian of yours denying "out of nothing" then you need, like TJ to explain, and by the same standard "prove" some version of God. God of Abraham, or the Hindu Pantheon?

In Darwin's day, the "out" was "prime mover"(undefined). Just as TJ says in effect without a clear scientific proof of abiogensis "proves" evolution isn't on offer, so, without a specific defination of the Prime Mover and the mechanisms involved saying "GOD" doesn't work either.

Rocky

The trap here is this: if you accept that assertian of yours denying "out of nothing" then you need, like TJ to explain, and by the same standard "prove" some version of God. God of Abraham, or the Hindu Pantheon?

Proving a particular concept of "God" to be the true one would be the ultimate discovery, yes? But simply admitting that Existence isn't arguable, including all this STUFF that makes up the empirical side of Existence, doesn't mean that for it to be valid a particular "God" must be shown. These are unarguable facts; yet their "cause/origin" are not known. We only see ourselves as part of it all: but we cannot tell what causes the STUFF to Exist in the first place.

So if I go with the Second Law, I am denying the speculation of "scientists" who posit that the Second Law might not apply to the Universe at large? It may indeed always exist, and out of its mindless matter has come, US! We are greater (that is our capability to think sapiently is) than the sum of all the parts of the mindless, eternal, material/chemical universe.

Isn't that expectation/pursuit at least as speculative and "faith-based" as religion?…

On a side note.

I found a christian watchdog site that comment movies and tv shows, they give and take away points based on their values.
The realy funny parts happen when they talk about movies like 10 000 bc, and complane that it's a fantasy becasue people and the universe didn't exist 12 0000 years ago.

Or when they talked about the tv show dinosaurs, they started to go on about the consperacy that is evolution, and ofcourse thay put up links to answers in genesis ect.
It's kinda silly that becasue they are chrisitans thay have to be aganist evolution.
Sure if they don't whant their kids to whats movies were people get eaten by zombies, fine, but why dirty it up with creation

It isn't a matter of denial, so much as it is "alternate reality." To ID fundies, Satan has deceived the world into believing scientific, humanist dogma to replace God's religion: simple as that. Once you buy into it, all so-called evidence from the ground, no matter how reproducable and copious, is just more Satanic deception to trap souls….

Hi

Actually, one arguement about "life" is that it is a local temporary reversal of the three laws. There is no real evidence for the three not to be universal, but specifics get in the way.

it is like saying the fastest human moves without a machine at 20mph, unless, of course, he is temporarily falling off a cliff!

Anyway, back to "prime mover"..the syllogism is in the premise on both side of "ex nihilo". Just don't know enough to make the basic assertian. It is a sub set of the argument that "out of chaos, there cannot be order, therefore…

Order derives ONLY from order? It is a basic sort of assertian that cannot be demonstrated. It is obvious that there is appearant chaos, and that sometimes it might congeal into order, say dust to star.

WE exist, supposedly sentient, but using that to prove the assertian that "therefore since intelligence always arises out of …." Doesn't follow. The conclustion doesn't prove the premise.

Rocky

So if I go with the Second Law, I am denying the speculation of "scientists" who posit that the Second Law might not apply to the Universe at large?

Doug, it is hard to understand what you are actually asking here. I assume you mean to ask if the local laws of science apply equally throughout the entire universe.

When science started, it was considered that the universality of discovered laws and relationships was axiomatic. Later on it seemed the universe did work that way. Now, with the benefit of the Hubble, can see almost to the edge of the Universe, and to the beginning of time. What we still see is exactly what we expect to see. The Universe seems to be constant.

We are greater (that is our capability to think sapiently is) than the sum of all the parts of the mindless, eternal, material/chemical universe.

All the parts? Including everyone else who lives there? You may think you are greater, me……I'm just happy to be a part of it all.

Ralph

We are probebly not more then the sum of our parts, we just havn't quite figured how yet.
This is one of the bigger things in Evolutionary physiology.

Boy howdy! Intelligence, sapience, isn't something we consider inanimate matter to possess, or the chemical compounds science is playing around with to get to the "first life" stage. So from whence comes intellect and sapience? Ex nihilo is out, scientifically (although it works okeedokee metaphysically).

Rocky, intelligence, sapience, arising out of itself isn't provable with evidence, that is true: but it is logical: whereas assuming that somehow homo sapiens got to this point (possessing "parts" that the eternal universe of inanimate, insensible matter does not possess) is not logical or scientific….

So if I go with the Second Law, I am denying the speculation of "scientists" who posit that the Second Law might not apply to the Universe at large?

Doug, it is hard to understand what you are actually asking here. I assume you mean to ask if the local laws of science apply equally throughout the entire universe.

Your answer indicates that yes, science is getting what it expected to see by peering further and further out into the universe and back in time. That means that inanimate matter producing an abiogenesis on the scale of the universe Existing would be the same thing as it applies to this planet.

So if scientists are speculating that somehow sapience arose out of insensibility, that is an ex nihilo: sapience, being the biggest and most unique quality known to living things, cannot arise out of insensibility, or you have just demonstrated an ex nihilo….

So if scientists are speculating that somehow sapience arose out of insensibility, that is an ex nihilo: sapience, being the biggest and most unique quality known to living things, cannot arise out of insensibility, or you have just demonstrated an ex nihilo….

Why?

"Sapience" doesn't arise out of nothing. It arose over time from slighty less intelligent animals. Look at an ape, or a dolphin, or an octopus.

This discussion with Doug reminds me of many, many discussions I used to take part in on the James Randi Educational Foundation forums. The new agers and religious alike were coming from a completely different world-view that it was impossible to shake them from. They think humans are "special" and that our brains are actually radios that recieve signals from the "soul" and that's what makes us "sapient." I forget what the philosophic term for this is, it's been awhile since I was active in the online atheist/skeptic community.

Wait! It's Dualism. Material and immaterial.

Count me as a happy materialist.

The new agers and religious alike were coming from a completely different world-view that it was impossible to shake them from. They think humans are "special"

I agree…it is this "specialness" that I find so unattractive. I used the term "arrogant" earlier in this discussion and was castigated by TJ for using it, but I will use it again. There is an inane arrogance in considering humanity "special" or "different" to any other part of the universe. I do find the need to separate humanity from its environment as childish and immature. We are lucky to have the ability to be cognitive, to have evolved into entity's that can think for themselves, communicate and investigate their existence. However the one thing we are not is special, we are simply another part of this wonderful universe. Others , of course are free to feel "special".

Pete

Saying that humans are special is a statement from ingnorance as we don't know exactly how diffrent we are from other animals.
There are sevral other animals that are so close to humans that on the whole we realy arn't that diffrent.

Untill we can tell exactly were we differ from other animals, the whole discussion is never going to be resolved.
Everything humans have, some other animal has it to, we just have more or have it deeper.

Sapience is put on the pedestal…………but only by those who are sapient. Sapience is only one tool, honed by evolution, that provides fitness to an individual organism.

It reminds be of a small Emo Philips joke:

"I think that rational thought, undertaken by our marvelous brains is the epitome of all human activity. But then I think, "Oh ya, but look who is telling me that"".

Sapience is a manifestation of complexity. It exists on a gradient, as my previous examples have shown. There is no magic moment when it appears, fully realized. This is an error, starting in pre-Darwinian times with William Paley, and then leading to the ID movement with their irreducible complexity. It is the error in asking "What use is half an eye?"

If you believe Ray Kurzweil, we are about 50 years from having our robots and the software programs that control them, develop such a complexity that they will have a form of self-awareness and sentience. That doesn't make them human, however, but it does make them sentient.

Skynet, anyone?
;^)

Ralph (who is also not "special", but damned happy to be here for the ride)

Depending on your definition of Sapience, you could either angle it to make it look like only humans has it, or humans and other animals has it, no nobody has it.

"Sapience" doesn't arise out of nothing. It arose over time from slighty less intelligent animals. Look at an ape, or a dolphin, or an octopus.

If you go back far enough, there is NO sapience in the original "stuff", is there?

So by saying that sapience (which is the key "ingredient" in ID) isn't intelligence, you are saying that what we perceive as our superior intelligence compared to lesser animals, isn't significant of anything, i.e. doesn't really exist.

But if the original "stuff" doesn't possess an iota of intelligence, from whence arises a quality that the original "stuff" does not possess? That's the ex nihilo.

They think humans are "special" and that our brains are actually radios that recieve signals from the "soul" and that's what makes us "sapient."

I quaint idea to some, I am sure. But being true or not cannot be shown, so is irrelevant to the actual question of ex nihilo being proposed.

We ARE special, in that we are the smartest, most sapient beings we know of.

We are lucky to have the ability to be cognitive, to have evolved into entity's that can think for themselves, communicate and investigate their existence.

Okay, so "luck" is the answer. Does the original "stuff" possess "luck", or do we get it also as a case for ex nihilo?

Sapience is put on the pedestal…………but only by those who are sapient. Sapience is only one tool, honed by evolution, that provides fitness to an individual organism.

You are still not addressing the direct question: "Is the original stuff -- the resulting chemical compounds we refer to as lifeless matter -- possessed of this quality we recognize in ourselves that we call (among other things) sapience?" If not (obviously not, as far as I can tell), then where does IT come from?

Hi

Doug, the original stuff cannot palm a basketball either, nor dunk it!

The original stuff didn't have any attribute of current life forms. Best evidence is that the original atmosphere didn't look anything like the current either.

R

Took a break for a while; need to catch up. Meanwhile:

Number 1 Rule of discussing evolutionary theory: "If evolution needs [whatever it needs – you fill in the blank] it has it!" The theory can never be wrong, even if the evidence says so.

Big words for someone who has shown us ZERO evidence that contradicts the theory. Someone who has shown us the severe limitations of his own scientific understanding: remember your "Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics" argument, TJ?

What? Zero evidence? See rules 3, 7, 10 and 4a… It's sad really. Sometimes one should go back, check and re-read. You never refuted a single word about what I said about the seriously misleading articles about thermodynamics over on Talk Origins… not a thing. [Oh dear, I think I'm about to break Rule 10…] Face it; all we ever seem to get from you is this sort of rodomontade (i.e. pretentious blustering talk). I think we all know why… though it does get somewhat monotonous after a while. For example… and yet again:

Rule 6: Always be dogmatic that your theory is the preeminent theory and that any others pale into insignificance when compared to it.

The theory that survives the cold scientific scrutiny and best explains the evidence and observations becomes the preeminent theory. That is how science works. Nothing dogmatic about it. The others "pale into significance" next to it by the absence of supporting facts and observances.

Err… In case you haven't noticed, in trying to refute Rule 6 you actually used… Rule 6… You really do believe what you said here don't you? Seriously, where are your alleged "supporting facts and observances" for abiogenesis? Oh, sorry; I forgot; abiogenesis has "nothing" to do with evolution… which of course begs the question as to how all of this evolving life came to be in the first place…?

Rule 10: If you can't attack the argument; attack the man.

We don't have to do that…

Yes, that is very true; you don't have to do it… but you just can't help yourself can you? That's why we get this blatant piece of hypocrisy immediately following:

1) The "man's" attempt at constructive argument and scientific discourse is enough of an indictment on him already.

2) The "man" steadily refuses to advance a viable alternative himself, in spite of repeated requests to do so. It is clear that the "man" has no real "argument", and is not interested in fruitful debate.

Again, in trying to refute Rule 10 you have actually used… Rule 10. Remember Rule 10, Ralph? Rule 10 says: "If you can't attack the argument; attack the man"… and as usual we never see any serious scientific argument from you, so we should see Rule 5 employed pretty soon… and yep:

We ARE talking science here.

Mmm… science? What science exactly? Where is it? Lots of rhetoric, a little philosophy and plenty of personal beliefs more like it… for example:

My belief is that the mechanisms for a pure "chemical abiogenesis" will be elucidated within my lifetime, or that of my children.

Now, there's faith for you! … and an excellent proof of Rule 3 by the way.

1) A divinely inspired abiogenesis that produces non-changing, non-evolving life forms. This is a viewpoint held by many religious fundamentalists. I would suspect TJ is in this group.. [Etc]

And not surprisingly, you would be incorrect. What about this one… left out deliberately perhaps…?

5) A divine creation producing non-evolving life forms that can vary within their kind.

This is also a viewpoint held by many people.

We know that many organic molecules are carried within meteorites that continually bombard and "seed" the Earth.

Oh for pity sake, now we're back to the forlorn suggestion that life was seeded from outer space via meteorites. It's a stuck record. This is of course a viewpoint that is firmly held by a fringe group of "fundamentalist evolutionists"… Again: Why look to outer space for your answers to abiogenesis if it could have happened so "easily" here…?

Yes Doug, we have been through this before and you still get this wrong […see Rule 10]. It's not, "Anything outside of Science doesn't exist!", as you seem to suggest. It is that we have no way of verifying, controlling [now there's a telling comment], measuring and confirming anything that is metaphysical and therefore we have no ways of determining if or how the metaphysical interacts with the materialistic universe. So, if I say "magic invisible immaterial space pixies" run every facet of the Universe, who can say anything against that? It is meaningless to proceed along this line of thought. […see Rule 9]

Is it meaningless? Is it impossible to scientifically deduce that your "magic invisible immaterial space pixies" exist as you so boldly assert? I'll call it the "supernatural" and let's explore the thought and see where it takes us. I will start here:

Question: Is there anything we know that is absolutely true; something that we would all agree on; what is it that we can all say that we know is absolutely true?

Not much is there? The only thing I can think of is that we actually do "think".

If we think then I would logically assume that thinking requires a thinker; thus those who think must exist. Thus we as thinkers exist… I think, therefore I am.

Continuing: It seems thought requires the passage of "time". Of course it is possible that thought may not require the passage of time, but it would be difficult to argue the position that a thought does not require the passage of time. Thus, it seems that time also exists.

What exactly is time? Who knows, but I guess what is important at this point is the effect it has on our discussion, that is, if time exists then events in time have a "beginning" and an "end".

If we exist, then how do we know anything outside "us" exists? For example, suppose you were totally blind and deaf, couldn't feel, smell or taste anything, etc. How would you know anything outside "you" exists? Suppose you were this way since conception. How would you know?

Again, it may be hard to prove that the "outside world" or the "universe" actually exists, but it would be pretty safe to assume that it does actually exist. This conclusion may sound obvious, but many eastern philosophies believe that everything about us is just an "illusion"… that of course begs the question: Is that belief just an illusion as well? If the universe was just an illusion and did not actually exist then I don't really exist nor anything else for that matter. Thus, it would be pointless to investigate any such illusion scientifically (or otherwise) because any conclusion that you reached would also be just an illusion.

Ok; so we as individuals exist, time exists and the outside world and universe exist. What do we know about the universe "outside"? Let's take a look, after all, that's where all science starts… just by taking a look.

Firstly, our scientific observations of the universe show the presence of order from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. A fundamental aspect of the scientific endeavour is deriving scientific laws that provide for predicable outcomes; this would only be possible where the universe is orderly and predictable. Again, some eastern philosophies believe the universe is just a great "thought"… that of course begs the question: What's to stop this great "thought" changing its "mind" at any moment? If the universe did not have this inherent order, but rather it could change at any moment and did so, then it would be impossible to undertake any sort of scientific endeavour whatsoever.

Another thing we observe and do know for sure about the universe is that nothing starts to move without first being pushed; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, all events are caused; they just don't happen by themselves.

Another thing we observe about our universe is that it is governed by the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics. These laws are the most rigorously tested laws in all of mankind's scientific endeavour. No exception has ever been found.

Paraphrasing the First Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Matter and energy are interchangeable (via Einstein's famous E = mc squared) but neither can be created nor destroyed. That's a universally observed fact.

Paraphrasing the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The amount of energy available to do work is always decreasing.

Thus, though we can't lose energy, it becomes more and more useless to do work each time it is used. That's a universally observed fact.

Paraphrasing the Third Law of Thermodynamics:
Temperature can never reach absolute zero.

This is because to reach absolute zero you would need something colder to draw the heat out and there is nothing colder than absolute zero. That's a universally observed fact.

So where are we so far?

It seems pretty safe to assume that we exist as individuals.
It seems pretty safe to assume that time exists.
It seems pretty safe to assume that the universe exists.
It seems pretty safe to assume that our scientific observations are real and that our scientific observations about the universe are real.

So, our scientific observations show that everything in the universe has motion, from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. Since the universe exists, and since events in the universe occur within time, and since all events require something to cause them in the first place, then something must have started all the motion in the first place.

Our scientific observations of the universe also show that it is winding down and losing its useable energy. Since the universe does not contain infinite amount of matter and/or energy then that implies there was a beginning. If it had a beginning then it will eventually have an end, and it appears a cold miserable one at that.

Our scientific observations of the universe also show the presence of order from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. Yet, our scientific observations show that, overall, the level of order decreases with time towards an eventual minimum value in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics. That means when the universe started somewhere back in time it had a much higher overall level of order.

So, summarising:

We know that motion exists within our universe.
We know that the laws governing the universe cannot initiate such motion.
Therefore we can deduce that there is something beyond our universe which gave it its motion.

We know that the laws governing the universe cannot create matter or energy.
That means that the universe could not have begun itself.
Therefore we can deduce that there is something beyond our universe which began it.

The laws governing the universe tell us that the available energy in the universe is always diminishing.
That means the universe is unable to sustain itself.
Therefore we can deduce that there is something beyond our universe which that gave it its initial energy.

We know that order exists within our universe.
We know that the universe, overall, cannot maintain such order.
That means the universe is unable to sustain itself.
Therefore we can deduce that there is something beyond our universe which gave it its initial order.

Thus, it seems possible to deduce from our scientific observations of the universe about us that something beyond the universe (that which I call the "super-natural") does in fact exist.

As I have said before: The existence of the supernatural only becomes "meaningless" if you deem it to be so (see Rule 2 and Rule 9). Finally:

As I have a number of fundamentalists in my circle of people and within a week, all, with various levels of education have promoted this same problem, I am a little suspecious about how this happened.

Oh no… err… no need to be "suspecious" [is that "suspicious" with a Mexican accent?] that is. Perhaps they are just open minded people that have been thinking about and questioning what "fundamentalist evolutionists" preach. Or perhaps someone, like me for example, is getting in their ear……?

So, for you to be consistent, whatever the reason, you "know" you can immediately reject any and all supernatural explanations so you must rule out your suggestion of "magic invisible immaterial space pixies" straight away and look for a non-supernatural evolutionary based explanation… and when you don't find one, you could always just deem it to be all "irrelevant" anyway…

Glad to have you back TJ.

So, for you to be consistent, whatever the reason, you "know" you can immediately reject any and all supernatural explanations

No, in my case you are wrong on this, as I pointed out to you quite a while ago (and which you chose to flippantly dismiss) . Your logical reasoning on your last post is, however, faulty.

Pete

What? Zero evidence? See rules 3, 7, 10 and 4a

Thats not evidence, those are unfounded accustations with no bearings on real science

….the original stuff cannot palm a basketball either, nor dunk it!

The original stuff didn't have any attribute of current life forms. Best evidence is that the original atmosphere didn't look anything like the current either.

Since we don't know what "the original stuff" IS, all we can say is that it either has always existed or has an original Cause behind it which has always existed.

If the original stuff always exists, then the latent quality of it (in total) must include everything that was, is and will be: in any form whatsoever.

If the evolution of the STUFF produced something that didn't Exist in the first place (even latently), then someTHING has come to be, transcending any latent ingredient: that would be ex nihilo.

Our intellect, sapience and appreciation of Existence is unique in our universe, so far as we know. It is logical to assume that such a unique Existence has a purpose; and might even be THE purpose of the Existence of our universe….

"Our intellect, sapience and appreciation of Existence is unique in our universe, so far as we know. It is logical to assume that such a unique Existence has a purpose; and might even be THE purpose of the Existence of our universe….
"

As I have allready said we don't know exaclty how we differ from other animals, so saying we are uniqe is a bit silly.
Second, and even if we were some how uniqe on this planet, this unqieness can probebly be explaned though evolution.
Third saying we are uniqe in the universe is again a little silly as the universe is 93 billion light years across.
Even if there was a million hihghly developed siviliasions in the univese they all might be to far away from eachother to ever know about one and other.
Giving humans a special purpose just becasue we happen to be humans is a bit Speciest.
For all we know pigs walk around thinking they are the big guys on the planet

As I have allready said we don't know exaclty how we differ from other animals, so saying we are uniqe is a bit silly.

Oh yes we do know many specific ways that we differ from all other animals. For whatever reason caused it, we alter our environment; no other creatures ever do this. And we are demonstrably smarter, and more imaginative, and live in TIME, and no other animals demonstrate any awareness of these things.

If you are referring specifically to the biological/genetic similarities of our origins with the rest of the animals, then you are complicating the question of uniqueness. To assume that a purposeless, mindless evolution serendipitously came up with US and it hasn't happened anywhere else, is an assertion that puts off the question of ultimate origin of Existence in the first place.

Pigs urinate on plans draw on floors, and "ape" human beings.

Homo sapiens, on the other hand, are unique mainly not biologically but intellectually: there is more than just brain size involved here….

The beaver alters it's inviorment.
We are slightly smarter on some levels, but we don't know exactly how much smarter we are or if we simply think diffrently. Our brain is basicly the same as a chimp brain, only bigger and with some parts more developed but it's still the same makeup of the brain.

Elephants show speriutiality, sevral animals show ability for language, sevral show an ability to reconice them self as a single individual and a thoery of mind.
Infact many prominent scientist now feel that the other great apes are so close to us in every way they should get personhood and granted the same basic human rights as us.
Every thing we humans do, other animals do to, only to a lesser extent.

For whatever reason caused it, we alter our environment; no other creatures ever do this

Whether this makes us "smarter" is questionable…but that is another discussion!

Pete

Humanists accentuate the likeness of homo sapiens to the other animals: Gorillas with "personhood", oh, my, word. Just because an animal is smart for its species doesn't mean that it in any way is equatable with a human being as far as rights and recognition go.

Human development has been changing throughout our entire perceived history: EVERY other animal on the planet is THE SAME going back as far as they exist. We are the ONLY ONES that have been changing upward in our capabilities and imaginations: everything else remains static: the only evolution occuring being adaptations to environmental conditions. Humans don't adapt, they change their environment instead….

You might find this interesting:

link

Pete

And this:

link

PDF link

link

Since we don't know what "the original stuff" IS, all we can say is that it either has always existed or has an original Cause behind it which has always existed.

Yes, this original "cause" is called the laws of physics and chemistry. They sorted themselves out soon after the big bang. "Soon" meaning in a miniscule fraction of a second.

Human development has been changing throughout our entire perceived history: EVERY other animal on the planet is THE SAME going back as far as they exist. We are the ONLY ONES that have been changing upward in our capabilities and imaginations: everything else remains static: the only evolution occuring being adaptations to environmental conditions. Humans don't adapt, they change their environment instead….

This is bullcrap right here. There is no "upward" in evolution. Every species that exists today has been successful. Some will go extinct, others will survive and pass their genes on. Those genes will change for the good to increase the species survival chances, or they won't and they'll go extinct. It remains to be seen whether human intelligence is increasing our long-term survivability or not. One thing is certain, success in the game of life does not count on intelligence. Count the anthills in your yard. That should tell you something. Intelligence counted for humans because we've got nothing else going for us. Smarts and opposable thumbs is all we've got.

You're attaching an anthropomorphic search for "meaning" into life. I can tell you the meaning of life right now, it's not a secret.

Ready?

Here it is: "Spam your DNA as much as you can."

That is the extent of life's meaning. Life is just a way for DNA to keep replicating itself. Everything else is just window dressing.

Here it is: "Spam your DNA as much as you can."

Crude but accurate

Pete

Crude but accurate

And easier to understand than "42."

Yes, this original "cause" is called the laws of physics and chemistry.

Does this even deserve a response? How can an order of physical "laws" set itself up and still be some kind of uncaused Cause of Existence in the first place?

One thing is certain, success in the game of life does not count on intelligence.

For sure. Just look at all the Bubba's out there "spamming their DNA" without a thought.

Count the anthills in your yard.

Boy, have I got an interesting "ant story" for you; and it's absolutely true too. And it refutes your facile comparison of ants to "no intelligence."

Intelligence counted for humans because we've got nothing else going for us. Smarts and opposable thumbs is all we've got.

Watch out for Scarlet's evolving, expanding primate brains links: Apes have opposable thumbs, actually twice as many as we've got. What am I missing here?

"Spam your DNA as much as you can."

Go forth, my child, and may you have joy and rejoicing in the full measure of your creation.

And easier to understand than "42."

Oh qwit it….

Does this even deserve a response? How can an order of physical "laws" set itself up and still be some kind of uncaused Cause of Existence in the first place?

Now you're changing the question. Go back and read what you wrote.

As for the rest, you're the one claiming special status for humans, not I. I meant you should be impressed with ants, which you've apparently got what I said completely backward. I don't think humans are special, and I don't think our intelligence counts for much in the big scheme of things. We required it because as apes on the plains of africa we didn't have trees to climb into with our opposeable thumbs. So instead of climbing, our hands evolved to have fine motor skills instead of just a power grip like our ape cousins.

Bubba is doing exactly what his genes tell him. And as I said, it remains to be seen whether this is good or bad for humans.

Go forth, my child, and may you have joy and rejoicing in the full measure of your creation.

And you apparently think me some kind of nihilist for that. Just because life has no inherent meaning doesn't mean individuals cannot give it their own meaning. Mine is quite meaningful to me, as I'm sure yours is to you. Mine is meaningful without any attachment to the spiritual, unseen, or supernatural.

Now you're changing the question. Go back and read what you wrote.

Okay: "Since we don't know what "the original stuff" IS, all we can say is that it either has always existed or has an original Cause behind it which has always existed."

Heh, first of all, it isn't a question: it is a statement of logical reasoning. It has to be one way or the other: the "original stuff" (your "laws of physics and chemistry" and the existing matter to define them) has to always Exist, or the Cause behind their Existence has to always Exist. As it seems weird conceptually, to put everything we are, have been, and will be, into inanimate compounds that Exist eternally, it seems more "logical" (it tastes better) to look for an uncaused Cause of the universe. The main logical fallacy behind saying the BB is the cause, is that some Cause is behind the BB. TJ has mapped it out rather well, imho: he has shown the laws of thermodynamics applying to the universe, ergo some Cause outside of the universe is making it "work" the way it does.

As for the rest, you're the one claiming special status for humans, not I.

I'm not claiming anything: I am stating a fact: that we don't KNOW of any other life that is even as smart and advancing in knowledge and empowered management of our environment: or even any other life that is sapient. It is that quality I am saying is "special", not our physical body development.

So instead of climbing, our hands evolved to have fine motor skills instead of just a power grip like our ape cousins.

The fine motor skills would be forthcoming, if the ape brain could imagine anything besides a twig to scrape for grubs. It's the contents in the brain, not the physical "machine", that makes all the difference. (Just look at a perfectly formed body housing the mind of a drooling idiot: yep, no fine motor skills there either.)

Just because life has no inherent meaning doesn't mean individuals cannot give it their own meaning.

If you create meaning, then the Cause of Existence in the first place possesses meaning, ergo life has at least as much INHERENT meaning as you can muster. You cannot come up with meaning out of nothing. Nothing about YOU is ex nihilo….

Watch out for Scarlet's evolving, expanding primate brains links: Apes have opposable thumbs, actually twice as many as we've got. What am I missing here?

Opposable thumbs is just one thing that has helped us conqure the world, and realy hasn't much to do with intelligence. Apes are as smart as they are becasue there hasn't been any reason for them to get any smarter, humans obiously lived in a diffrent inviorment that made it an evoluionary advantage to get smarter, the smarter induvinduals survived longer and got more children ect.
There is also evidence that hints that humans about 60 000 years ago suddenly realised their potential.
Before that humans had been very much like other apes just a little smarter, more handy ect. then 60 000 years ago a light bulb flashed in the head of mabye just one human, and he or she started to think more or less exactly like us.
This wasn't a fysical thing, humans have existed as is for about 200 000 years, so for a 150 000 years we had had the brain we just didn't use it to the fullest. Then a phycologial evoution happend, we don't know exactly what happend and why, some things hint at a major global chatastrophy might have forced the few humans that were left(some say as few as 1000) to thing in new ways.
The reason chimps, gorillas, dolphins, elephans havn't gotten human type intelligance might simply be they weren't at the right place at the right time. They didn't face the "get smarter or die out"
Now this dosn't mean every animal that is faced with exticion suddenly grows smart, there allready has to a big brain ready to get smarter, you need a body plan that is very general ect. Humans had all this, they were faced with exitiction and they got smarter, simply by allready using what they had in brain power and thinking in new ways.
Remember that evolution is allways give and take, yes a big brain seems like the answer to very question, why not make every animal realy smart, but you have to remember, a big brain takes alot of space in the head, this means weaker jaws and face, and even more importantly it takes ALOT of enery, humans use 20%!!! of ALL we eat just to fuel our brain, this makes humans very suseptibal to lack of food, our brain is also very suseptibal to lack of water, the first things that goes when you go with out water for a long period is that the brain starts to shut down.

…humans obiously lived in a diffrent inviorment that made it an evoluionary advantage to get smarter, the smarter induvinduals survived longer and got more children ect.

Obviously? There's nothing obvious about this assertion. What "different environment?" Humans and apes share the same environment and always have.

…then 60 000 years ago a light bulb flashed in the head of mabye just one human, and he or she started to think more or less exactly like us.

Yes, that's my favorite part of 2001 A Space Odyssey. What hooy it is, though, thoroughly madeup crap, not that different from a Dr Seuss story, imho.

…major global chatastrophy might have forced the few humans that were left(some say as few as 1000) to thing in new ways.

"God works in mysterious ways", yes sir. "God's" methods sure do seem catastrophic, don't they? How about this: evolution throughout the universe is "how it's always done." It doesn't matter how long it takes: the "end product" is intelligence. Even Arthur C. Clark posited as much. There's nothing random or insensible or lucky about it: it just happens, sooner or later: it's the way Existence is "made."

Yes, that's my favorite part of 2001 A Space Odyssey. What hooy it is, though, thoroughly madeup crap, not that different from a Dr Seuss story, imho.

We have arciolagical evidence to show it happend.

[qoute]Obviously? There's nothing obvious about this assertion. What "different environment?" Humans and apes share the same environment and always have.
The other 3 great ape spiecis are forest animals, humans and our ancestors have for atleast 3 million years been savanah animals. We have been more exposed to drought and other natural desastors that have helped shape how we evolved.

God works in mysterious ways", yes sir. "God's" methods sure do seem catastrophic, don't they? How about this: evolution throughout the universe is "how it's always done." It doesn't matter how long it takes: the "end product" is intelligence. Even Arthur C. Clark posited as much. There's nothing random or insensible or lucky about it: it just happens, sooner or later: it's the way Existence is "made."

First you say it is made up crap, then god did it, make a choice.
And I like Arthur C. Clark but he was a sci-fi writer not a scientist, even if he had knowlage about science
But yes. depending on how commen life is in the first place, Intelligence might have arisen quite often, but that still dosn't mean evolution ig guided or has a purpose.
If you have 10 million planets with life, mabye 1% gets multi celliular life, whle the rest just stay as bacteria, of that 1% mabye another 1% gets life with intelligence like a dog, and another 1% of that gets human equiligant intelligence

…but that still dosn't mean evolution is guided or has a purpose.

Evolution is a TOOL. Our tools don't have a purpose either, until we apply them to something.

Statistical categorizing of differing planets doesn't show lack of purpose, just because a bigger percentage don't evolve the kind of complex life earth has. If this was the ONLY planet in the universe with sapient life on it, that wouldn't change a thing regarding the Cause behind Existence in the first place. One human being or countless billions, it doesn't matter: either there's a purpose behind it or there isn't. If there is no purpose, there is no cause: if there is no cause, we have a problem with observed physical laws that this universe is complying with: and, we also have a problem defining anything we lay our hands on having any purpose either. If Existence has no purpose, then we cannot "invent" purpose: we cannot argue that we have purpose because we decide to. If we can do that, and purpose then exists because we say so, then the universe has purpose too.

But the shown compliance of the universe with the laws of thermodynamics that TJ reiterated, demands an answer to the question of causation: the universe is being caused to work, because it sure as hell didn't fire up on its own….

TJ,

This is my last communication to you, as you have become even more insufferable. Two last points:

1) Anyone who seriously states:

……..the Laws of Thermodynamics; that's what every process observed in the universe does. Evolution on the other hand has to describe an as yet unknown property of inanimate matter that allows it to self-organise into a living reproducing organism in opposition to this law, a law which has never been broken, never proven wrong.

(from Feb. 26)

has no business saying:

Sometimes one should go back, check and re-read. You never refuted a single word about what I said about the seriously misleading articles about thermodynamics over on Talk Origins… not a thing.

(from June 18)

Your first comment amply illustrates that you are obviously too ill equipped to render any opinion on the Laws of Thermodynamics.

2) You charge me with instigating an Ad Hominem attack with:

Again, in trying to refute Rule 10 you have actually used… Rule 10. Remember Rule 10, Ralph? Rule 10 says: "If you can't attack the argument; attack the man"…..

Why?, because I stated, "The "man" steadily refuses to advance a viable alternative himself, in spite of repeated requests to do so. It is clear that the "man" has no real "argument", and is not interested in fruitful debate."

That, TJ, is not an Ad Hominem attack, rather an accurate description of your behavior. You have not offered any viable alternative, many of us have requested such a response from you to no avail, and you thereby have forsaken any attempt at fruitful discussion. How is that a personal attack? (This is a rhetoric question…..don't bother answering.)

Best wishes.

Ralph

Hi

Doug, you just argued in a circle again. Demanding, now, an explanation of the causality, where you also argue that existance is a fact!

Not being able to test or prove any theory of the original causality is irrelevant to the discussion. I have not met your great grand parents, have no idea what their story might be, bue I am still talking to YOU.

You cannot prove your grandparents!

See the trap?

Now, back to man.

Actutally, the "sudden use of the brain" isn't quite a good assertion. In fact by the time discussed, there was a significant difference between other apes and proto-human species. It was a minor deformation in the bones of the foot that made upright posture and walking comfortable.

What does this do? Well, it makes two important advantages for those humans. Simply, walking up right allows us to not be arborial. In very short periods of time, the forest changes size and shape constantly, in a time frame sometimes of a generation of less.

Ground apes survive these changes.

The other thing is that upright for apes gives long range movement. This allows distant colonies by arborial species to stay in contact, and keep swapping favorable genetic material. That "man as world wide species" thing.

Upright allows the greater ability to hunt! (disfavored by the prejudice of man as the noble vegitarian). Allows greater range of acceptable foods as in omnivore! It isn't well understood, but primiative man, usually no further back than your great grand parents, could hunt by walking long distances. Essentially, standing "tall" looking like a threat, the deer outruns us…but tires and surrenders!

Intelligence is obviously an advantage.

But the 60,000 years ago thing isn't quite the same issue. The current thought is that the brain was there and being used, but lifespan was the issue. There needed to be a "critical mass" in technological success to allow people to live long enough to be grand parents Why? Tribes on the margin cannot support the "old". UNLESS there is a success there, you don't have the luxury of grandparent experience with reemmbering solutions to pass to the grand kids. The parents are too busy with ordinary survival.

One might suggest that if MAN was the plan, he was thinking in a plan that would work out over a couple billion years as opposed to just creating adam. That is the essence of the attack on evolution. God didn't wave a wand and make man.

Instead you have a large number of minor changes coming together over huge amounts of time to reach THIS version of apes.

Spine, foot design, thumbs, brain case, skull mounts and on and on until a critical mass of tools leading to a longer life and technology MEMORY through generations.

R

RockyRusso… I agree with what you are saying here…group society (including grandparents) is seen as one of the fundamental reasons for the sudden explosion in humanity. Grandparents gave the social group the TIME to educate the young and not just survive. Education (in even its most basic form) is the key to intellectual development. No time to teach the young and in two or three generations we revert to "savages".

Pete

Yes, but savages with imaginations, there's the difference. We ponder things infinite and metaphysical; the kind of reverie that could get you killed by a stalking predator. Why would evolution allow that to happen?

Doug, you just argued in a circle again. Demanding, now, an explanation of the causality, where you also argue that existance is a fact!

I'm not arguing or demanding anything: Existence being a fact cannot be shown scientifically: it defies science, since the universe apparently follows the laws of thermodynamics, ergo cannot cause or sustain itself. I am not suggesting anything other than calling the Cause behind Existence in the first place "God", because that (facile to some) concept begins to answer the known facts regarding empirical Existence, whereas ignoring the question by saying there is no evidence for "God" seems to me like a copout….

Yes, but savages with imaginations,

You cannot know this.

Pete

Do you have any evidence of reverse evolution going on? Are you suggesting that the loss of grandparents' teaching for a couple of generations would reduce US to savages without imaginations?

I don't need evidence…I had a metaphysical revelation. :->

Pete

Do you have any evidence of reverse evolution going on?

That actually has happened, if you read the scientific literature. Some species of moss have devolved into more primitive forms. Evolution doesn't have a "point", an "impulse", a "purpose" or a "direction". Clearly, the environment the moss finds itself in has changed, and a previous incarnation is succeeding better. That is how it works.

Ralph

It's easy to see humans "de-evolve" it's not true reverse evolution as evolution can't backtrack, that is why the nautulis still have pinhole eyes. once it had gone up that slope it couldn't back track then evolve more complicated eyes, in other words it had hit and dead end.

Now somethings can't happen we can de evolve so that we suddenly grow fish fins, this is why whales swim very diffrently from fish, when they started to be more and more aquatic, they couldn't just de-evolve into fish. They had to adapt to the water using the limitationds of mammal skeleton ect.

Now I can easly see apes getting dumber, if the resources aren't there to sustain a big brain, then mabye slightly dumber apes have a better chance at survivng and the ape brain gets smaller.
I doubt this will happen to humans as we have masterd our inviorment to a scertain degree. Now if something major happens and the whole of the planet goes to , then humans might have to secrefice their big brain.

Hi

OR, the factor of "gravity" is "god".

All matter has a property of being attracted to others. Helium under enough gravity creates Helium and, eventually more complex atoms.

Over billions of years.

Naming "Causality" as "God" is also special pleading.

As for devolution, not sure I like the term. One observes that cetations once were land walkers and "devloved" into fake fish, sort of. But adapting to an environment isn't "devolution" unless you somehow hold one aspect as better than another. Survival first.

One of the favorite themes of SF is "post apocalypse", where our "big brains" lead to our destruction.

In one respect this value system is evolution personally. Virtually all parents hold their children, as Keelor says "above average". Even if not, most parents will protect their children at the expense of others who might be objectively considered "better" say with better brains. My daughter in law and son work with autistic kids, most of whom will need "keepers" for life. None of them even think about abandoning the kids for the greater good of society.

"My kids are more important than your kids, our kids are more important that THOSE kids(basic tribalism), OUR country is better than your country.

Back to causality. The same problem with "who created god" is "who created causality(god). The suggestion is that the big bang is a periodic event that involves nothing more than gravity. thus gravity is god!

Rocky