Just Accidental?

[Valjean]

"Programmed?"
Psychology and behavior evolve just as physical features do, for the same reasons and by the same mechanisms.

 

[FearGod]

Tis where the evidence points.

Which evidence? what mutations that caused the brain to be developed.
Can you prove if it was due to the stupid random mutations and not a guided one?

"fleshy features"
As stated before.

What buttocks mean? the scene and the shape is received by the men eyes and it's converted
to electrical signal by the optic nerve, so what attracted the male actually is an electrical signal
which is perceived in the brain as a sexy body, so we aren't different than a machine and men
are programmed to be attracted to women by the scene and the image of a female.

Where did you get that from?

From reality, If colorful duck then ,,,,, if not .......

I presented a simplification, not evidence for genetic programming.

What do you mean by that?

Genetic traits and common mutations and so forth.
I could take the time out of my day to explain the process to you, but will you absorb the information?
This I doubt.

I challenge you to bring here a valuable information to prove me wrong, but you can't,
so better for you to play GTA instead.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Which evidence? what mutations that caused the brain to be developed.
Can you prove if it was due to the stupid random mutations and not a guided one?

I can present evidence that mutations did happen, regardless of whether or not they were guided.
Can you show me evidence that those mutations are guided? Testable, verifiable and repeatable?

What buttocks mean? the scene and the shape is received by the men eyes and it's converted
to electrical signal by the optic nerve, so what attracted the male actually is an electrical signal
which is perceived in the brain as ta sexy body, so we aren't different than a machine and men
are programmed to be attracted to women by the scene and the image of a female.

Where you find this connection, I don't know.
Reactions and feelings can be broken down into electric signals, therefore it's programmed into us?

From reality, If colorful duck then ,,,,, if not .......

So because there are perceived similarities, it has to be programmed? No other option?
Wonder how many things I can apply that to... We may be living in the matrix...

What do you mean by that?

I meant that you conflated my previously presented simplification of the obvious difference between people and ducks to be some sort of genetically programmed god anomaly.

I challenge you to bring here a valuable information to prove me wrong, but you can't,
so better for you to play GTA instead.

Literally a google search away.

 

[viole]

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation?

The vast majority of the scientific community.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We are each "believers" in our own view of the way things came to exist in this world. I cannot impose my view on you and I assure you that you will never impose your view on me.

Science, when it comes to evolution, is blind IMO; it relies on supposition and assumption, and it has no real solid evidence to substantiate a single claim for macro-evolution.
They cannot apply to evolution the same kinds of rigorous testing methods that they use for other fields, because no one was around to observe and document the supposed evolutionary changes that were said to take place all those millions of years ago.
The fossil record isn't telling them much either and imagination fuels computer generated images to convince the uneducated that it is all factual. None of it is.

Yes, however attractive or academically fashionable the idea may be, it is not based on direct observation, empirical methods.

The jaw and skull of Piltdown man were declared to belong together 'without doubt' .We should always reserve doubt, acknowledge our faith, or that faith is blind

I see evidence for adaptation within species, but that only explains changes in color or minor external changes to facilitate a new food source or change of environment.

adaptation within species- that's the observable, scientific part yes. It's very tempting to extrapolate this out to a comprehensive explanation for all life, but this is a very common mistake in science. Scales matter- physics works completely different at micro, macro and in between scales. What seems superficially simple, random and without direction, is underwritten by specific instructions with specific predetermined outcomes

 

[FearGod]

I can present evidence that mutations did happen, regardless of whether or not they were guided.
Can you show me evidence that those mutations are guided? Testable, verifiable and repeatable?

You're the one who said that evidences prove that it was due to random mutations, so the burden of proof is on you.
Explain how the random mutations developed our brains.

Where you find this connection, I don't know.
Reactions and feelings can be broken down into electric signals, therefore it's programmed into us?

Who did the programming? don't you see science in our creation?

So because there are perceived similarities, it has to be programmed? No other option?
Wonder how many things I can apply that to... We may be living in the matrix...

Parts of us are programmed, but we have still the free will, for example men are programmed
to be attracted to women but we can beat it by not doing so, but only when we want to.

I meant that you conflated my previously presented simplification of the obvious difference between people and ducks to be some sort of genetically programmed god anomaly.

And do you think aging and death was naturally selected for the survival of species, it's very evident
that it's genetically programmed, we're created by science and not by the science of randomness.

Literally a google search away.

How genetics work? what it proves ? what's your point of it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I feel confident in saying that a human mind is far more developed than a ducks mind, and in many different ways.
A human standard for beauty can be based on many different attributes, e.g. skin color, eyes, hair, height, body tone, fleshy features, fetishes and so forth.

With ducks it's just a = b, colorfulness = attractiveness.

Are you sure? We do not know about the thinking method of ducks as well as their preferences.

"Unintended"? How would you describe the process that led to the interaction of the orchid wasp with the flower that it counts on for pollination?

Yeah how did a flower with 12 inch corolla and bird with 12 inch of beak developed? That requires some study of biology. Were you ever a biology student?

"The sword-billed hummingbird has the longest beak relative to its body size of any bird in the world. In fact, it is the only bird that sometimes has a bill longer than its body. The bill is so long, the hummingbird must groom itself with its feet. It also has to perch with its head tilted at an upward angle to be able to balance. But the upside is it can feed on flowers with particularly long corollas, reaching nectar that is unavailable to other hummingbird species."
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/15-birds-with-unbelievable-beaks

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

but the thing is, the vast majority of mutations are detrimental.....not improving the species but destroying it.

This is not true. Most mutations are neutral/benign and don't confer a detriment or an advantage. Everything that's ever born has their own mutations. If most mutations were bad, life would go extinct rapidly.

You accept that mutations happen. Trying to argue that most are bad does not help your case. You need to argue that they don't happen at all in order to disprove evolution. The notion of bad mutations being the norm, flies more into the face of the fact that we're not all dead, moreso than it flies into the face of the Theory of Evolution.

"Unintended"? How would you describe the process that led to the interaction of the orchid wasp with the flower that it counts on for pollination?

I've asked you this before. What do you expect from a universe that is not designer-made? What gives you that reckoning? Do you have a collection of universes to compare to each other where some are designer-made and some are not, where you're able to compare their sets of phenomenon?

How did the orchid know that it needed to not only mimic the appearance of the female wasp on the rim of its flower, but it also needed to duplicate its pheromone so as to attract the male to mate with it? Pollination ensues whilst the wasp is unaware that the orchid has taken advantage of him.

It didn't know. The orchids that resembled a wasp more, simply had an advantage and more reproductive success.

Another great example of this that we have full written historical proof of is the heikegani crab. In Japan, fishermen would catch these crabs to eat. But some of the crabs had a pattern on them that vaguely looked like a samurai face. The fishermen had a tradition where they would throw such crabs back in the water out of honor for the samurai. That conferred an advantage to any heike crab that looked like it had a samurai face. The more it looked like a samurai, the more likely it was to be thrown back in the water and thus, not get eaten. Before you know it, most of the members of the population comprised of crabs with a strong resemblance to samurai.

In the picture you see that the orchid has attracted more than one "suiter". Please explain how that happened without any intelligent direction?

We've explained this to you over and over. How about you, for once, explain how it WOULD NOT happen given the fact that populations of species contain random variations heritable traits that determine their survivability?

Explain how the population of heikegani crabs would NOT develop a samurai looking pattern given their situation?

I don't doubt natural selection at all...what I doubt is the long story that goes with it and the extent to which natural selection goes way beyond anything remotely believable as the cause of all inherited characteristics.
I see adaptation within species offered as proof of organic evolution when they are two entirely different things. Micro-evolution is NOT proof of macro-evolution.

What's so unbelievable about natural selection with more time? If you already accept it to an extant, then why can't you extrapolate what would happen to a population over greater periods of time? More time means more change has happened.

Well, you see it isn't as "proven" as they would have you believe. If you look up "Speciation" in Wiki, you will see something glaringly obvious.....the fish remained fish...the flies remained flies.

Evolution doesn't claim that things will stop being something. Only that something will become a variation/off-shot of what it descended from. Fish is an informal term, so it's a term that's used loosely. The proper term is cordate, which is also what we are. Human and, say... cats, have common ancestry. We are both mammals. Our ancestor is simply the first placental mammal before it diversified into multiple clades. When it did diversify, the various clades never stopped being placental mammals. But the various clades all have distinquishing names, from dogs, to cats, to rodents, to primates etc... all will remain placental mammals forever though.

All lifeforms fit into nested hierarchies, and the higher up you go on hierarchy, the more shared groups you get.

The Creator doesn't tell us much about himself, but he tells us a lot about his creation.

This isn't about what your creator tells you. This is about what your logic dictates. You're arguing that life, logically, requires a creator due to it's complexity and apparent design. That logic follows that the creator also requires a creator of his own, which creates an infinite regression problem.

Humankind have an innate need to worship a higher being. Why would we evolve a trait like that in every culture?

Citation needed saying we evolved this trait. I'm pretty sure it's just a byproduct of our brains and the fact that we are inclined to think emotionally. I see it more as a flaw than anything. All lifeforms have flaws.

What survival advantage is found in art, literature, theatre, music or poetry?

There isn't one. There's simply an emotional appeal. We make art, music and what not, because we don't have to worry about survival and have time to enjoy ourselves. Many animals will do things simply out of enjoyment if they live leisurely lives and are not constantly focused on survival.

We've talked about the aesthetic sense of various bird species. There are some that simply decorate their nests with flowers to attract females. Once again, these are bird species that live in easy environments where survival is not the biggest concern.

The thing is, the easier your life is, the more unnecessary **** you do (unnecessary for survival that is).

Why is mathematics seen everywhere in the natural world? Is the Fibonacci sequence just a fluke?

Why does stuff exist? You might as well just ask that. Math is abstract. As long as anything exists, math will be seen in it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You're the one who said that evidences prove that it was due to random mutations, so the burden of proof is on you.
Explain how the random mutations developed our brains.

I recall saying it's where the evidence points, not proves. Quote me.

Who did the programming? don't you see science in our creation?

Just because it looks like programming, that does not make it so.
How do you know there is a who? What evidence do you have for it?

Parts of us are programmed, but we have still the free will, for example men are programmed
to be attracted to women but we can beat it by not doing so, but only when we want to.

And thus you have gained a BoP.
Please, feel free to show me evidence of such a thing.

And do you think aging and death was naturally selected for the survival of species, it's very evident
that it's genetically programmed, we're created by science and not by the science of randomness.

Or maybe, just maybe, there's a misconception you are having.

How genetics work? what it proves ? what's your point of it?

It proves itself...that's the point... Did you read any of those articles? There was a one for kids, if you need a simplification.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Are you sure? We do not know about the thinking method of ducks as well as their preferences.

It's a logical guess, to be fair, but it's more than enough for the level of debate I've been involved with so far in this thread.

 

[FearGod]

It proves itself...that's the point... Did you read any of those articles? There was a one for kids, if you need a simplification.

I have wasted enough time with you, you don't even know what you're debating, that's a childish behavior.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I have wasted enough time with you, you don't even know what you're debating, that's a childish behavior.

I suppose it could have been called a debate, though it's a stretch.
It was more me giving offhanded and basic responses to whatever you said.

If you want to debate these things, be my guest.
Bring your issues, present your argument and evidence. I'll do the same.
Then we can rebuttal and pose questions.

Up for it? Feel free to take the lead.

 

[Deeje]

to use your fashion design analogy;

Fashion houses could decide they wanted to save on expensive creative departments, simply use the power of evolution- make random changes to their clothes and let the public select the ones they like best, and repeat.

This is where it gets sticky.....evolution happens because of random changes, you say.....so what guides random changes? Who determines whether a random change is better than the way things were?....and if the change takes place over a long period of time, at what point does the creature become satisfied with its appearance or function?

The 'best' designs will be selected, but they are not 'better'. The vast majority of random changes will be deleterious, people select the 'least ugly' design every time, until the outfit is totally unwearable

Selection is a choice...so who chooses?....and what precipitates a choice for the better design if the creature was perfectly functional to begin with?
What happens when the design is in its transition stage and the duck (or whatever creature you name) doesn't like the color scheme or design in the process?

We know that vastly more random changes in DNA, also lead to inferior rather than superior designs. The odds of producing a significantly superior design by mistake is vanishingly small.

Yes we know that when humans make intelligent choices many things improve.....intelligence drives the changes for the better......so how many things improve by random chance in our lives?
Can you estimate the odds for that?

Beneficial "flukes" happen but they are so rare that they tend to be spoken about for a long time.

Without a predetermined goal, design, plan, entropy takes over. A trend towards dysfunctionality.

Who pre-determines the goal without an intelligence to guide the choice? Who furnishes the improvements without direction when choices have to be made about such improvements?

This makes no sense at all to me.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

so what guides random changes? Who determines whether a random change is better than the way things were?

The environment! Hello?! Selection?! Why do you ask the same questions over and over? We answer over and over that it's natural selection, and you even said you understand and accept natural selection to a point! But then you ask questions as if you don't understand Natural Selection!

Mutations themselves are random. Natural Selection is not random. What mutations live or die, is not random.

Selection is a choice...so who chooses?....

The environment. Sometimes humans. Sometimes other animals. But always the environment. Did you not see the video on Heike crabs I posted above?

and what precipitates a choice for the better design if the creature was perfectly functional to begin with?

No creature is perfectly functional. Ever.

What happens when the design is in its transition stage and the duck (or whatever creature you name) doesn't like the color scheme or design in the process?

If a duck doesn't like its own patterns of colors, then too bad for him. If there aren't any females that like his pattern, then really too bad for him! He doesn't get to have sexy time and make babies with his pattern.

Also, what is the point of this question? You already said you accept Natural Selection at least on this level and have a problem with speciation. You're fine with animals changing color right? So why are you jumping around?

Yes we know that when humans make intelligent choices many things improve.....intelligence drives the changes for the better......so how many things improve by random chance in our lives?
Can you estimate the odds for that?

Lots of things improve our lives by random chance. You're probably just more inclined to believe it's some miracle from God.

Beneficial "flukes" happen but they are so rare that they tend to be spoken about for a long time.

If it's a really major random benefit, like winning the lottery, sure. I dunno about you, but a lot of small benefits happen to me that I would attribute to random chance. Those numerous small benefits accumulate.

Inversely, major detriments that are random are rare. The worse they are, the more rare it is. e.g. tripping and falling, compared to getting struck by lightning.

This makes no sense at all to me.

Saying something makes no sense to you, isn't really an argument. All you're really announcing to the world is that you lack an understanding of something. Calculus doesn't make sense to a lot of people. It doesn't take anything away from its merit or its practical use.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is where it gets sticky.....evolution happens because of random changes, you say.....so what guides random changes? Who determines whether a random change is better than the way things were?....and if the change takes place over a long period of time, at what point does the creature become satisfied with its appearance or function?



Selection is a choice...so who chooses?....and what precipitates a choice for the better design if the creature was perfectly functional to begin with?
What happens when the design is in its transition stage and the duck (or whatever creature you name) doesn't like the color scheme or design in the process?



Yes we know that when humans make intelligent choices many things improve.....intelligence drives the changes for the better......so how many things improve by random chance in our lives?
Can you estimate the odds for that?

Beneficial "flukes" happen but they are so rare that they tend to be spoken about for a long time.



Who pre-determines the goal without an intelligence to guide the choice? Who furnishes the improvements without direction when choices have to be made about such improvements?

This makes no sense at all to me.

Yes, I think you pretty much nailed it, and why this doesn't make sense to the vast majority of people.

The whole theory made a little more sense, back when it was formulated over 150 years ago.. before much of the scientific enlightenment of the 20th century, before quantum mechanics, subatomic physics, when we still believed that a handful of simple superficial 'immutable' laws were all that was needed to 'evolve' all the staggering complexity, functionality, beauty of the physical universe around us.

Evolution was merely a logical extension of this simple, attractive but erroneous idea. He was a very smart man, and by his own explicit standards, I think he would be very skeptical of the theory today, and very interested in the scientific progress made beyond it, academically unpopular or not. He was a pioneer also

 

[Kirran]

I'm curious - do you think that over in the USA the majority of people genuinely don't accept evolution? This certainly isn't the case over here in the UK, where I'd say it's about 5-10%

 

[Deeje]

I'm curious - do you think that over in the USA the majority of people genuinely don't accept evolution? This certainly isn't the case over here in the UK, where I'd say it's about 5-10%

As secularism becomes the norm in the west, more and more generations are led to believe that evolution is an established fact. (I know that is how it is here in Australia) Schools teach it as fact so these generations now believe that it is irrefutable. It isn't until you put it under scrutiny that you realize that it is all based on educated guesswork and assumption, not on anything concrete. "Because I think so" doesn't make anything into a fact unless you can prove it. Science cannot "prove" evolution ever took place. They see "evidence" for adaptation, but then take it to quantum leaps of assumption for what is outside of the provable.

Evolution cannot be proven by any method that science uses to establish facts in any other field. The language is designed to make things appear to be what they want to present....not what they actually are.

Getting rid of God is convenient. It makes us into human 'animals' who do not have to answer to a higher authority in our own minds and hearts. Even now we see a total disrespect for all authority. Children have little respect for parents, teachers or any others in authority. There are more moral law breakers than there are law keepers in the world today, and the ones at the top who should be leading by example are the most corrupt of all. How can authority figures be respected when they are not respectable? How do people keep laws that only apply if they get caught? Policing of human conduct should come from within.....but it doesn't anymore.

People are being forced to adhere to law these days because the enforcers are now ready for combat. I don't think people are prepared for what is coming on this godless world.
Making the Creator disappear doesn't make him go away. Having heartless human enforcers will be worse than answering to God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm curious - do you think that over in the USA the majority of people genuinely don't accept evolution? This certainly isn't the case over here in the UK, where I'd say it's about 5-10%

42% (Gallup). Astounding! Is it not? It is quite a backward society.
"In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

[Deeje]

42% (Gallup). Astounding! Is it not? It is quite a backward society.
"In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Interesting how the US is slow to lose God...or should I say "slower" than the rest of the world? Does it have to do with thinking patterns or is it pure gullibility?
I am always intrigued by the way America markets to its own people....like they were 3 years old.

Do they assume that their own people are stupid?...or are the masses really that easily convinced and parted from their money?

This is a brief excerpt from a popular Australian Newspaper on the status of religious faith in our country.

"Sceptics can take this comfort: they now make up the biggest denomination, followed by Catholics and then Anglicans. But this puts Australia only about midway in a list of the top 50 non-believing nations. The great deniers of God are the Scandinavians and Japanese. The great believers of the Western world are Americans. The US remains religion central."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html
It isn't the fact that Americans are "believers" as much as what Americans will accept as belief....(televangelists come to mind)

Go to church in your PJ's and give lots of money to the man in the Armani suit, via your credit card.
Its sometimes hard to distinguish the televangelists from the politicians.

We have just had another census in Australia so it will be interesting to see how much ground the atheists have made here. They were lobbying people to state "NO RELIGION" if they were not church goers.

 

[Kirran]

I like that you distinguish between 'big religion' and more genuine religion. I'd say the majority of any society is basically non-spiritual, whether they are religious or not. Personally, I came to accept evolution a while before reaching the age when it was taught in schools, but I was always interested in these things. I've never found it to in any way interfere with my faith in God, any more than heliocentrism. As I've grown up, I've been given the chance to study it more and have studied ut at a tertiary level now, although most of my understanding comes from my own research still.

Your point about the USA's infantilisation of its populace is also interesting. I think that's the case here too, but not to the same extreme.

I didn't know you were Australian! That's cool