Guided evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Primates would have branched off much earlier from our same Lemur ancestors. Plenty of dead ends of kinds that mutated off of lines that continued on.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense as written. Perhaps you might want to brush up on your cladistics a bit. Lemurs, monkeys, humans, we are all primates. There cannot be any "branching off". Primates is a rather large group:

Primate - Wikipedia

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I am familiar with the idea of "guided evolution"

That humans are the product of evolution, but that evolution has been "guided" so that intelligent humans ended up being evolved

The fact of evolution is thus reconciled with the notion that God created humans - that he created us through evolution

Is this something people believe in?

It makes sense to me

It is not something I can personally agree with.

 

[Colt]

I am sorry, but this makes no sense as written. Perhaps you might want to brush up on your cladistics a bit. Lemurs, monkeys, humans, we are all primates. There cannot be any "branching off". Primates is a rather large group:

Primate - Wikipedia

You are correct, my sentence doesn't sound right. This link will show what I was trying to say. Its based on revelation.

https://squarecircles.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Papers61-62_1.pdf

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am familiar with the idea of "guided evolution"

That humans are the product of evolution, but that evolution has been "guided" so that intelligent humans ended up being evolved

The fact of evolution is thus reconciled with the notion that God created humans - that he created us through evolution

Is this something people believe in?

It makes sense to me

Evolution is the result of adaptation in an environment.

It's not guided as if there are upgrades to the next model.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am familiar with the idea of "guided evolution"

That humans are the product of evolution, but that evolution has been "guided" so that intelligent humans ended up being evolved

The fact of evolution is thus reconciled with the notion that God created humans - that he created us through evolution

Is this something people believe in?

It makes sense to me

It is something people believe in, yes. And it doesn't require denial or ignoring the evidence of reality, so that's a good thing. However, it does have to assume things for which there is no evidence. Like god "getting involved" and "manipulating" evolution. How exactly that is supposed to happen, is a mystery.

It does not make sense to me for the simple reason of occam's razor. There is no need at all to imagine "additional entities" to explain the evolution of humans.


Also, I would think that if a god would use evolution as a process to create humans specifically by "stepping in" to "guide" evolution, it wouldn't have taken evolution 4 billion years to produce humans...

So I'ld ask why that person believes such. What did this god then supposedly do to "guide" evolution and how they determined that this god supposedly did those things.

Eventhough I know in advance that they will not have any rational and/or verifiable answers to that question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I used to think so too.

What made you think otherwise?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe in orthogenesis. Which means that things evolve for and towards a purpose. That human-like beings are an archetype or pattern that will emerge(as other archetypes and patterns also emerge). I think human type beings are an early stage of some type of beings that are much more advanced than we are.

Why do you believe such?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are correct, my sentence doesn't sound right. This link will show what I was trying to say. Its based on revelation.

https://squarecircles.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Papers61-62_1.pdf

That does not help either since there appears to be quite a bit wrong with that illustration. Try to find a scientific source.

 

[Colt]

That does not help either since there appears to be quite a bit wrong with that illustration. Try to find a scientific source.

It’s good enough for me. Science will eventually catch up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s good enough for me. Science will eventually catch up.

It is not science that needs to catch up. Your source is simply wrong in some of its claims.

 

[janesix]

Why do you believe such?

Because it appears that way. It explains marsupial equivalents of placental animals. It explains convergence.

 

[osgart]

I am familiar with the idea of "guided evolution"

That humans are the product of evolution, but that evolution has been "guided" so that intelligent humans ended up being evolved

The fact of evolution is thus reconciled with the notion that God created humans - that he created us through evolution

Is this something people believe in?

It makes sense to me

Doesn't evolution negate an ideal creation put forward by a supreme God?

I buy into the idea of an purposeful, and intentional creation. But it is hopelessly inefficient, and takes a very long time to develope.

The creator(s) is/are very crude yet sophisticated in their intelligent evolution, and probably bound by the limits of nature it seems.

What else reasons would there be for a sloppy, inefficient creation from a supreme God?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it appears that way. It explains marsupial equivalents of placental animals. It explains convergence.

How does it explain that better then the traditional view of evolution?

Be specific. What "problem" does it address better then the traditional view and how?
What is it able to explain, exactly, that the mainstream view of evolution can't? And how?

Don't forget the how....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Doesn't evolution negate an ideal creation put forward by a supreme God?

That would depend completely on what is being meant by the word "ideal".

I buy into the idea of an purposeful, and intentional creation. But it is hopelessly inefficient, and takes a very long time to develope.

I disagree. I think the evolutionary process is very efficient.
So efficient, that we as software engineers get paid a LOT of money to build optimization modules based on evolutionary principles to help solve design problems by "evolving" the systems to better fit certain criteria (be it reliability, cost efficiency, technical aspects, etc)

The reason companies are prepared to pay BIG money for such modules, means that such optimization modules are capable of solving problems that can't be solved (or at least not as efficiently) without them.

The creator(s) is/are very crude yet sophisticated in their intelligent evolution, and probably bound by the limits of nature it seems.

Evolution isn't "intelligent".
It's actually a pretty dumb system of trial and error which keeps, and moves forward with, the hits while dismissing the misses.

What else reasons would there be for a sloppy, inefficient creation from a supreme God?

Ow, I dunno... how about, no gods being involved at all and evolution just being an inevitable process that manifests when you have systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition over limited resources in an ever-changing dynamic environment?

 

[osgart]

That would depend completely on what is being meant by the word "ideal".



I disagree. I think the evolutionary process is very efficient.
So efficient, that we as software engineers get paid a LOT of money to build optimization modules based on evolutionary principles to help solve design problems by "evolving" the systems to better fit certain criteria (be it reliability, cost efficiency, technical aspects, etc)

The reason companies are prepared to pay BIG money for such modules, means that such optimization modules are capable of solving problems that can't be solved (or at least not as efficiently) without them.



Evolution isn't "intelligent".
It's actually a pretty dumb system of trial and error which keeps, and moves forward with, the hits while dismissing the misses.



Ow, I dunno... how about, no gods being involved at all and evolution just being an inevitable process that manifests when you have systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition over limited resources in an ever-changing dynamic environment?

In terms of a creator, ideal would mean that we are gloriously made, lacking nothing, and self sufficient without needs. That would also apply to the efficiency of what is made.

I infer that what nature creates is due to the natural processes of creators. Nothing supernatural. I wouldn't call the source of existence God.

I infer that the trial and error of evolution is an adaptable program with on the fly intelligence behind it. No guiding hand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In terms of a creator, ideal would mean that we are gloriously made, lacking nothing, and self sufficient without needs. That would also apply to the efficiency of what is made.

I infer that what nature creates is due to the natural processes of creators. Nothing supernatural. I wouldn't call the source of existence God.

I infer that the trial and error of evolution is an adaptable program with on the fly intelligence behind it. No guiding hand.

The question is why do you think that there is any evidence for such a hand or what possible evidence there is for it? Every single birth results in on the order of 100 mutations. 100 mutations that are tested simultaneously. And with millions of members of even a moderately successful species that is a hundred million experiments per generation. When one gets numbers that high one is no longer dealing with "luck" one is dealing with statistics. And many species fall far short from "lacking nothing" etc.. Your own handwaving refutes your beliefs.

 

[osgart]

The question is why do you think that there is any evidence for such a hand or what possible evidence there is for it? Every single birth results in on the order of 100 mutations. 100 mutations that are tested simultaneously. And with millions of members of even a moderately successful species that is a hundred million experiments per generation. When one gets numbers that high one is no longer dealing with "luck" one is dealing with statistics. And many species fall far short from "lacking nothing" etc.. Your own handwaving refutes your beliefs.

In terms of a God we lack quite a bit. In terms of nature we would be more efficiently made.

It all depends on how you relate the terms efficient, and ideal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In terms of a God we lack quite a bit. In terms of nature we would be more efficiently made.

It all depends on how you relate the terms efficient, and ideal.

In other words what we see is exactly what we would expect if evolution was just the product of natural forces. No God need apply.

 

[osgart]

In other words what we see is exactly what we would expect if evolution was just the product of natural forces. No God need apply.

The term God implies way too much fantastical things.

Everything that happens in nature is due to natural forces yes.

I infer that those natural forces have intelligence built into them.

I'm inclined to think that an underlying reality exists that is beyond human senses of experience because of the intelligences of nature that you attribute to blind processes.

If there are no intelligences in nature I would have no reason to believe in an underlying reality.

Human consciousness is too sophisticated for a blind process. Things work together like a plan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term God implies way too much fantastical things.

Everything that happens in nature is due to natural forces yes.

I infer that those natural forces have intelligence built into them.

I'm inclined to think that an underlying reality exists that is beyond human senses of experience because of the intelligences of nature that you attribute to blind processes.

If there are no intelligences in nature I would have no reason to believe in an underlying reality.

Human consciousness is too sophisticated for a blind process. Things work together like a plan.

Reality exists whether you believe in it or not. You are not making a rational argument.