Orthogenesis

[DavidFirth]

You KNOW nothing of the FACTS, neither do I. You wander in the dark mistaken in your belief that you know the terrain. I've seen similar terrains in other places and have tested what I learned in those explorations against this one, and invoked Occam and relied on uniformitarianism... and it appears that the fit is pretty good. There is a rather high probability that causes are natural, there is no evidence (a low probability) that they are not. That's not the same thing as "I don't know" except when you get pushed to the wall of solipsism where everything outside one's own mind is unsure.

You speak of probabilities and "evidence." You do not speak in absolutes, indeed you cannot do so. Current theories will be changed or cast out altogether over the years. Newton thought his laws of gravity were 100% correct, well, they aren't.

Basically, probabilities and guesswork means you don't know.

 

[shunyadragon]

You speak of probabilities and "evidence." You do not speak in absolutes, indeed you cannot do so. Current theories will be changed or cast out altogether over the years. Newton thought his laws of gravity were 100% correct, well, they aren't.

Basically, probabilities and guesswork means you don't know.

Your objections of 'you do not know' represent blue smoke and mirrors creating a high fog index. What would be your purpose in questioning science with the vague; 'you do not know,'

It is not enlightening hiding in the darkness of Plato's cave.

Science definitely does not speak in 'absolutes,' because that is not the nature of the knowledge, which is why science works. Science is willing to evolve and change as new information becomes available. In the relative sense of the evolving knowledge of science. Science does 'know' that science works and can explain the nature of our physical existence, and has consistently falsified the predictability of uniformitarianism. Every theory and hypothesis falsified in the history of science has confirmed uniformitarianism.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Orthogenesis also known as orthogenetic evolution is an obsolete biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a unilinear fashion due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".-wikipedia
Makes sense to me. As opposed to the theory that we are a random accident.

Natural selection is the primary driving force of evolution. So, no, traditional evolutionary theory does NOT say that we are a random accident. Quite the opposite.

 

[DavidFirth]

Your objections of 'you do not know' represent blue smoke and mirrors creating a high fog index. What would be your purpose in questioning science with the vague; 'you do not know,'

It is not enlightening hiding in the darkness of Plato's cave.

Science definitely does not speak in 'absolutes,' because that is not the nature of the knowledge, which is why science works. Science is willing to evolve and change as new information becomes available. In the relative sense of the evolving knowledge of science. Science does 'know' that science works and can explain the nature of our physical existence, and has consistently falsified the predictability of uniformitarianism. Every theory and hypothesis falsified in the history of science has confirmed uniformitarianism.

If scientists don't know, why bother with them? God knows, His word is absolute, He is Holy and never lies so I will trust in Him. No one ever has or can prove so much as one word of Genesis 1-2 is errant.

If you want to play guessing games then that is your folly.

 

[Valjean]

If scientists don't know, why bother with them? God knows, His word is absolute, He is Holy and never lies so I will trust in Him. No one ever has or can prove so much as one word of Genesis 1-2 is errant.

If you want to play guessing games then that is your folly.

Scientists will likely know, in time, if history is any indicator.

God? Which God? The one depicted in the Bible is constantly contradicting himself and behaving like a petulant child. Me, I wouldn't trust Him.

 

[DavidFirth]

Scientists will likely know, in time, if history is any indicator.

God? Which God? The one depicted in the Bible is constantly contradicting himself and behaving like a petulant child. Me, I wouldn't trust Him.

According to you it has been what, 15 billion years? Yeah, I'm sure they'll figure it all out by tomorrow.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. All of the proposed ones have been shot down as fallacies.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So who can show what?!?!?!

Show that hierarchical digital information systems like DNA can be originated entirely by spontaneous unguided mechanisms.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I imagine that when people first start playing poker, they just see everything as random.
But the best poker players actually have skill at the game - it isn't just chance that they tend to win more.

I'm not saying things did or did not start out "randomly" but at this point in our "evolution" things have really moved well past the "million monkeys on typewriters" phase. We are part of a complex system, the boundaries of which we do not fully understand.

At this point in our "evolution" a "random" change in genetics is more likely to do more harm than good - as demonstrated when conditions occurs that promote random mutation (such as exposure to nuclear radiation). It is far more likely that there is a "considered" approach to our continued evolution and genetic rules governing the kinds of changes that actually take place - for example, dominant and recessive genes, for example, not all animals appear to be evolving into the same creature (one species more fit to survive than any other). Rather, animals appear to have diversified into numerous types and actually have functions that complement each other's activities.

Organisms have "evolved" past the rudimentary concept of "survival of the fittest" and into a more advanced notion of mutually beneficial existence.

Humans do not exist on air alone. They depend on the complex relationships that they have with all other organisms.
You might think that it is would be better for a fish to evolve into a human because humans are "more fit to survive" than fish, but it just doesn't work that way. The human could not exist without the fish (and if not the fish, then w/e your preferred organic food is). At some point, organisms stopped evolving solely for their own benefit.

Maybe it all started out of some random DNA soup, maybe not, but does that really matter anymore? The system is up and running and the rules (whether they were random at one point or not) aren't just random anymore.

if the poker player plays 4 royal flushes in a row- we know he's cheating, it's not chance.

Likewise species developing entirely from chance mutations is not technically impossible, but that doesn't make random chance the best explanation!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Anything, select blue objects, select things that taste good, select the car with a full tank of gas, select the phenotype that is the most fit. None of those are random.

I agree, like most signioficant advantages the car did not get filled with gas by random chance!
I do. Did anyone suggest that it was not?

I do not. Did anyone suggest that it was?

so it is empirically proven; hierarchical digital information systems CAN be generated through creative intelligence 'ID'

can purely spontaneous unguided mechanisms ever achieve likewise? fascinating question, not much luck demonstrating this yet though

 

[shunyadragon]

Show that hierarchical digital information systems like DNA can be originated entirely by spontaneous unguided mechanisms.

First, I do not consider anything related to DNA to be a hierarchical digital information. This sounds lik phony computer jargon, Second, the events in the course of natural process are not spontaneous by definition. They result based on Natural Laws.

Third, and the biggy you are neglecting is your claim for empirical falsification (proof?) that supports Intelligent Design. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence that supports a guided 'Intelligence' outside nature.

Still waiting for the empirical falsification (proof?)

 

[shunyadragon]

If scientists don't know, why bother with them? God knows, His word is absolute, He is Holy and never lies so I will trust in Him. No one ever has or can prove so much as one word of Genesis 1-2 is errant.

If you want to play guessing games then that is your folly.

Oh Well! Not much of discussion here for someone stuck in the paradigm of ancient mythology. I smell the smoke of an inquisition here.

There is light at the end of Plato's cave if should desire to come out.

 

[shunyadragon]

Likewise species developing entirely from chance mutations is not technically impossible, but that doesn't make random chance the best explanation!

The foolish notion of 'chance' mutations determining the outcome of evolutionary processes is not science,

 

[Valjean]

Show that hierarchical digital information systems like DNA can be originated entirely by spontaneous unguided mechanisms.

Please explain how DNA is hierarchal, or an information system. It's just a string of code, a simple polymer.
Why would you think it particularly unlikely to assemble spontaneously?

Likewise species developing entirely from chance mutations is not technically impossible, but that doesn't make random chance the best explanation!

Why do you keep bringing up random chance? How many times have we explained to you that no-one's proposing random chance as an explanation?

so it is empirically proven; hierarchical digital information systems CAN be generated through creative intelligence 'ID'

And what is this creative intelligence? Can you link me to a discussion off it? By what mechanism does it act?
You say it's empirically proven. Do you have links to the tests?
And what the heck's a 'hierarchical digital information system'?

can purely spontaneous unguided mechanisms ever achieve likewise? fascinating question, not much luck demonstrating this yet though

There you go again.
Evolution is guided, changes are selected.

 

[DavidFirth]

Oh Well! Not much of discussion here for someone stuck in the paradigm of ancient mythology. I smell the smoke of an inquisition here.

There is light at the end of Plato's cave if should desire to come out.

Actually, rather, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. So you're the one who's wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, rather, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. So you're the one who's wrong.

Fear, yes, but fear of the light at the end of Plato's cave.

 

[Valjean]

Actually, rather, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. So you're the one who's wrong.

How is fear conducive to wisdom? Fearful people infantalize, and uncritically embrace any strong father figure.

One thing I could never figure out. Are we supposed to fear God, or love Him? Is he a loving God, or vindictive?

 

[DavidFirth]

How is fear conducive to wisdom? Fearful people infantalize and uncritically embrace any strong father figure.

One thing I could never figure out. Are we supposed to fear God, or love Him? Is he a loving God, or vindictive?

Sounds like you have research ahead of you, friend.

 

[David T]

It seems to go along with my intelligent design beliefs. I do not think this complexity occurred just by happenstance. I am not a biologist, but there are modern spiritual sources I respect that I believe are beyond current science who are saying what I am saying.

What modern spiritual sources are weaker at is they can often fall into the exact same pattern of thinking as random accidentialism except they call it miracle with a heavy handed dosage of the human cranium on high governing. So we tend to agree witb underlaying assumptions to disagree. We can create the perception we live in a virtual reality which certainly random accidentalism.is we cN also create the perception outside of reality is the divine ghepetto they do not seem that different.

 

[shunyadragon]

What modern spiritual sources are weaker at is they can often fall into the exact same pattern of thinking as random accidentialism except they call it miracle with a heavy handed dosage of the human cranium on high governing. So we tend to agree witb underlaying assumptions to disagree. We can create the perception we live in a virtual reality which certainly random accidentalism.is we cN also create the perception outside of reality is the divine ghepetto they do not seem that different.

Needs some rewrite to improve comprehension. Again any notion of randomness or accidentalism is not science, It is a part of the fantasies of 'anti-science' fundamentalist Theism.

 

[George-ananda]

Needs some rewrite to improve comprehension. Again any notion of randomness or accidentalism is not science, It is a part of the fantasies of 'anti-science' fundamentalist Theism.

The key distinction may be better worded for your sake as life occurring with or without the deliberate involvement of conscious intelligence. I consider my beliefs intelligent design because I believe there was deliberate involvement of conscious intelligence in the process.

I don't really have a problem with calling the opposing point of view happenstance as any processes you may be talking about developed from elementary forces with no intent and things just happened to work out as they did.