artificial selection.

[idea]

I believe you are misusing ID in the context of this conversation, not sure if your trying to be cute by making up your own definition but it is confusing. The wiki you posted said another name for Artificial selection is selective breeding

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

no - I am not trying to be cute.

from the wiki


"It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God"

it specifies this for a reason... perhaps I should go edit the wiki I'm sure this page gets edited quite a bit - but then the best place to learn what ID really is, is not from wiki...

 

[Copernicus]

Artificial selection (selective breeding) should not be confused with divine "intelligent design". In artificial selection, humans take advantage of the same mechanism that natural selection uses to shape the development of animals and plants. Divine creation supposedly was not, or did not need to, be restricted to that mechanism. What ID theory says is that natural organisms could not have arisen through that natural mechanism. They needed some external agency to bring them about.

 

[idea]

So how do you propose god came about?

the same way that matter, or energy, or any of it came about... I don't think any of it came about - I think it is all eternal - without beginning and without end.

So how far does that extend? If I placed you in a volcano surrounded by 15 feet of magma in all directions or at the bottom of an ocean is it still not your environment but your free will that dictates how you act and react? Extreme but being willfully ignorant of how the environment affects you is imho equally extreme.

In such an instance, I think my physical body would be destroyed, but that my sentience would not...

it's pretty hard to destroy information - Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is equally hard to destroy sentience/spirit.

Mormons believe that our Spirit is as old as God's - that everything is eternal, with no beginning, and no end, that it all just changes form - but nothing blinks in and out of existence.

 

[idea]

Artificial selection (selective breeding) should not be confused with divine "intelligent design". In artificial selection, humans take advantage of the same mechanism that natural selection uses to shape the development of animals and plants. Divine creation supposedly was not, or did not need to, be restricted to that mechanism. What ID theory says is that natural organisms could not have arisen through that natural mechanism. They needed some external agency to bring them about.

"natural mechanism" - it is all "natural" in my opinion, I hate words like "artificial" or "supernatural"

Most people agree that there are many different mechanisms at play. I think it is close-minded to pretend that one of these mechanisms is not ID.

just trying to point out that intelligence/sentience/spirit - call it what you will - but it exists - and it's existence points towards the possibility of higher powers.

when you look at the fine tuning at play, it's not that far of a stretch to start believing in God.

from: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

we exist within a singularity - nothing but dust in every other direction...
it sure looks like someone/something was playing with the dials.

 

[proffesb]

no - I am not trying to be cute.

from the wiki


"It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God"

it specifies this for a reason... perhaps I should go edit the wiki I'm sure this page gets edited quite a bit - but then the best place to learn what ID really is, is not from wiki...

from the wiki if you were to put the next sentance in

"It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God.[3] Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#cite_note-DI_engine-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#cite_note-4and believe the designer to be the Christian God."

so ID I think that is why ID is so often presented/received as creationism, the leading proponents are actually pushing hidden creationism


from webster
Definition of INTELLIGENT DESIGN

: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence



seems to me that ID is to be creationism pretending to be science, simply saying a designing intelligence instead of god, if someone could explain how it's not I would appreciate it.

 

[Sententia]

the same way that matter, or energy, or any of it came about... I don't think any of it came about - I think it is all eternal - without beginning and without end.

And god was always around and able to manipulate what was always there? You think both that sentience is the key ingredient in life and that sentient living creatures have always eternally existed?

In such an instance, I think my physical body would be destroyed, but that my sentience would not...

Which is fair... Maybe you don't really get how the brain works... hell if I know lol. I have seen Alzheimer patients though and volunteer at convalescent homes where I see people slowly lose themselves... Their physical bodies are here but their "spirit" has checked out... maybe they get to go back to heaven early?

it's pretty hard to destroy information - Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is equally hard to destroy sentience/spirit.

Cool but I don't think you get the argument presented or controversy around it and yet you seem to accept it as fact and then extend it to personally imagined constructs like 'Spirit'.

Fantasy worlds are fun mate. I get that.

Mormons believe that our Spirit is as old as God's - that everything is eternal, with no beginning, and no end, that it all just changes form - but nothing blinks in and out of existence.

Idea... IMHO: This is you arguing with you. You both state that nothing blinks in and out of existence but that god and your spirit did and they are both eternal as nothing can blink in and out of existence except what you rationalize must have always been there?

 

[Alceste]

seems to me that ID is to be creationism pretending to be science, simply saying a designing intelligence instead of god, if someone could explain how it's not I would appreciate it.

It isn't even pretending very hard. The original ID text book, of Pandas and People, was originally titled Creation Biology - all they did was a find/replace and stuck "intelligent design proponents" in all the places "creationists" used to be.

 

[idea]

from the wiki if you were to put the next sentance in

"It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God.[3] Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,and believe the designer to be the Christian God."

so ID I think that is why ID is so often presented/received as creationism, the leading proponents are actually pushing hidden creationism


from webster
Definition of INTELLIGENT DESIGN

: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence



seems to me that ID is to be creationism pretending to be science, simply saying a designing intelligence instead of god, if someone could explain how it's not I would appreciate it.

I think it is sad that this stigma has been attached to it - if you believe in God or not, there are some valid points - everyone needs to contemplate the role that intelligence/sentience/deliberate intentional behavior plays.

 

[Alceste]

I think it is sad that this stigma has been attached to it - if you believe in God or not, there are some valid points - everyone needs to contemplate the role that intelligence/sentience/deliberate intentional behavior plays.

Contemplating the role that intelligence / sentience / deliberate behavior plays is a job for sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists and so forth. Theologians already have a seat at the professionals' table as experts in ferreting out moral directives from convoluted and ambiguous scripture. They've no call to complain that nobody wants to hear what they have to say about biology.

 

[idea]

And god was always around and able to manipulate what was always there? You think both that sentience is the key ingredient in life and that sentient living creatures have always eternally existed?

I think sentience has always existed - but I do not know the history of it's interactions with matter. Life can be defined many ways, and I do not know the history throughout the universe of physical life.

Which is fair... Maybe you don't really get how the brain works... hell if I know lol. I have seen Alzheimer patients though and volunteer at convalescent homes where I see people slowly lose themselves... Their physical bodies are here but their "spirit" has checked out... maybe they get to go back to heaven early?

My grandfather is going through this right now, it is painful to watch... he flickers in and out - like a TV set that gets static most of the time, but every now and then a picture comes through... it's a hard thing to watch... the fact that a picture comes through every now and then makes me believe that the mind transmits, rather than generates, our conscious thoughts. That our spirit exists similarly to radio waves - our body just the transmitter for it all...

Cool but I don't think you get the argument presented or controversy around it and yet you seem to accept it as fact and then extend it to personally imagined constructs like 'Spirit'.

Fantasy worlds are fun mate. I get that.

a rose by any other name... I can call it "sentience" if you prefer that terminology.

Idea... IMHO: This is you arguing with you. You both state that nothing blinks in and out of existence but that god and your spirit did and they are both eternal as nothing can blink in an out of existence except what you rationalize must have always been there?

I guess I am not being clear - I do NOT think that God or my spirit blink in and out of existence, but that they - like everything else - are eternal.

from our scriptures:

... Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be....Behold, here is the agency (free will) of man, ...(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29 - 31)

I think our free will is proof of our eternal nature... Robots do not have free will because everything they do can be traced back to how they were created... only something that was never created - is self-existent - is free from the cause/effect net - no ultimate cause, if that makes sense?

so our ability to act and think... rocks are controlled by their environment - they erode, are polished by rivers etc. etc. ... there is an element of that within us too, but there is also an ability to stand up - think / act / choose who we are and what we believe - I think this ability points towards something divine within us, and within the universe as a whole.

 

[idea]

Contemplating the role that intelligence / sentience / deliberate behavior plays is a job for sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists and so forth. Theologians already have a seat at the professionals' table as experts in ferreting out moral directives from convoluted and ambiguous scripture. They've no call to complain that nobody wants to hear what they have to say about biology.

biology is intertwined with sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists and so forth...

our thoughts/beliefs/morals/feelings dictate our behaviors, which in turn dictate mating/migration/survival etc. etc. so to understand the process, you have to understand feelings, beliefs, opinions - all this subjective stuff. ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sorry, have to sleep - it's been fun! read ya later.

 

[camanintx]

I agree - sentience is the key ingredient in life.

Since a majority of life on this planet exists without the benefit of sentience, then how can it even be necessary for life, much less the key ingredient?

when you look at the fine tuning at play, it's not that far of a stretch to start believing in God.

When you consider that we don't know how these parameters came to be or even what potential range they could have been, it's impossible to say what the odds are of them being what they are. And since we don't have any other universes to compare with, who can say that life wouldn't exist under other conditions.

 

[idea]

Since a majority of life on this planet exists without the benefit of sentience, then how can it even be necessary for life, much less the key ingredient?

the degrees of sentience vary... trees do not have a brain, but they do reach out for sunlight.

When you consider that we don't know how these parameters came to be or even what potential range they could have been, it's impossible to say what the odds are of them being what they are. And since we don't have any other universes to compare with, who can say that life wouldn't exist under other conditions.

We do know what potential range they could have been, and what would be produced if they were set differently than what they are now. The list I posted explains what the universe would look like if they were different. (no planets, no atoms, no periodic table of elements, no stars, etc. etc.)

 

[johnhanks]

the degrees of sentience vary... trees do not have a brain, but they do reach out for sunlight.

What's more, the apples that drop off them make a bee-line for the ground.

 

[idea]

What's more, the apples that drop off them make a bee-line for the ground.

they reach for the sun, and they make apples. The ability and drive to reproduce is an incredible thing.

 

[camanintx]

What's more, the apples that drop off them make a bee-line for the ground.

Not only that, they know exactly how to stimulate my taste buds. Those trees are obviously smarter than they look.

 

[camanintx]

the degrees of sentience vary... trees do not have a brain, but they do reach out for sunlight.

Are bacteria sentient?

We do know what potential range they could have been, and what would be produced if they were set differently than what they are now. The list I posted explains what the universe would look like if they were different. (no planets, no atoms, no periodic table of elements, no stars, etc. etc.)

The list you posted makes a series of unsubstantiated claims. Let's start with the first one. Please tell me what the value of the strong nuclear force constant is and what values it could have otherwise been? If that one proves too difficult for you, then try the gravitational force constant. Heck, take any one of these you like and tell me what the current value is and what the range of potential values are. I seriously doubt you can do it.

 

[outhouse]

I think you misunderstand what ID is ID is simply the fact that intelligent beings are able to design things.

Intelligence exists.

who is a intelligent being???

 

[idea]

The list you posted makes a series of unsubstantiated claims. Let's start with the first one. Please tell me what the value of the strong nuclear force constant is and what values it could have otherwise been? If that one proves too difficult for you, then try the gravitational force constant. Heck, take any one of these you like and tell me what the current value is and what the range of potential values are. I seriously doubt you can do it.

you do know how to use wiki right?
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

see: Nuclear force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

see: Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the range of potential values are unconstrained on the lower end (becoming more and more repulsive) on the upper end they are constrained by matter ceasing to exist because it has all turned into energy.

fine tuning is not new... everyone knows about this... this is why people start talking about multiverses etc. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_tuning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
etc. etc.

 

[idea]

who is a intelligent being???

I'm sure you claim to be intelligent

Everyone here is at least intelligent enough to type