Guided evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Then we are definatly not "ideal" as we have MANY flaws. Flaws of the type that is expected from a process like evolution. But not from "creation" by an "all powerful omnipotent perfect creator".

Examples of such flaws are:
- a mouth to small to house all teeth (wisdom teeth need to be pulled frequently due to this)
- a spine that isn't that fit for bipedalism, causing lower backpains in about 70% of humans
- all humans are, biologically seeing, born prematurely. women can't carry the "full" term anymore again due to bipedalism, which caused a narrowing of the hips to the point that birth has to happen sooner. This is why human newborns are so fragile and helpless.
- backward eyes (all the wiring is in front of the light sensitive cells and they need to cross the retina, creating a blind spot. the brain needs to spend additional resources / energy to try and "rectify" the image to produce the illusion of the blind spot not existing). Imagine a sony engineer designing a camera like that. He'ld be fired instantly.
- ... many more

We are FAR from "gloriously" or "ideally" made. We are instead merely "just good enough" to reach breeding age and reproduce. And before our technological society and modern medicine, our life expectency was indeed so low that we were usually dead by the time our children were aged 13 to 17 - ready to produce off spring of their own.

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

You don't "infer" that. You "assert" that. And you do it blindly, without a shred of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Argument from awe / incredulity.

aka "my evidence against evolution is that I don't believe it"

 

[osgart]

Argument from awe / incredulity.

aka "my evidence against evolution is that I don't believe it"

Incredulity is certainly your issue with intelligence in nature.

You simply don't want to see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incredulity is certainly your issue with intelligence in nature.

You simply don't want to see it.

No, you have yet to present any evidence. Please post some evidence that goes beyond a misunderstanding of how evolution works in the first place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Incredulity is certainly your issue with intelligence in nature.
You simply don't want to see it.

That doesn't even make any sense.

To recap: when you say "X is to too sophisticated to come about through evolution", what you really mean is "i don't understand how it can come about through evolution therefor it didn't and by extension i'll attribute it to some mysterious intelligence".

That's straight up an argument from awe / incredulity / ignorance.

The only reason you attribute it to some "intelligence", is because you already have an a priori belief in such.
But there is no there there. You are simply asserting it without evidence.

There's overwhelming evidence of evolution and how all species are the product of that process.
There is zero evidence of any "intelligence" whatsoever being involved in it.

 

[night912]

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

Apparently it's not "on the fly" since we haven't adapted to the virus that spread globally.

 

[osgart]

That doesn't even make any sense.

To recap: when you say "X is to too sophisticated to come about through evolution", what you really mean is "i don't understand how it can come about through evolution therefor it didn't and by extension i'll attribute it to some mysterious intelligence".

That's straight up an argument from awe / incredulity / ignorance.

The only reason you attribute it to some "intelligence", is because you already have an a priori belief in such.
But there is no there there. You are simply asserting it without evidence.

There's overwhelming evidence of evolution and how all species are the product of that process.
There is zero evidence of any "intelligence" whatsoever being involved in it.

You are assuming that, mutations, replication, trial and error, novelty, and function have no goal. Nothing more then that. And your 200 peer reviewed papers is nothing but preaching to the choir about naturalism. You simply see it the way you want to.

You start with a naturalistic assumption and confirm your bias by shunning any notion of intelligence.

How do you arrive at such certainty?

Abiogenesis is probably the best place to start with regards to how life came to be. Nothing proven from that field either about it. And they wouldn't consider the idea that life comes from other life only.

None of cellular life just falls together without a goal. Naturalistically you should only have complex senseless junk.

The purpose of a hand is to be a tool. The purpose of an eye is to see. Humans are full of those kinds of purposes. It's a very crude, yet sophisticated intelligence. No God needed.

Your naturalist society claims that none of this is coordinated and orchestrated. Naturalism of the gaps.

You start with the conclusion that only physical processes that are observable can be responsible for life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are assuming that, mutations, replication, trial and error, novelty, and function have no goal. Nothing more then that. And your 200 peer reviewed papers is nothing but preaching to the choir about naturalism. You simply see it the way you want to.

No, there is no such assumption. Please watch yourself. You should never claim "assumption" in regards to scientific beliefs if you cannot support that claim.

What scientists do is to analyze the evidence and see what it leads to. There is no evidence of an intelligence behind mutations so it would actually be an assumption to think that there was an intelligence behind it.

You start with a naturalistic assumption and confirm your bias by shunning any notion of intelligence.

How do you arrive at such certainty?

The only "naturalistic assumption" is that observed events can be explained. And once again no one is "shunning any notion of intelligence". There is no evidence of an intelligence. We need to go over the concept of the burden of proof.

Abiogenesis is probably the best place to start with regards to how life came to be. Nothing proven from that field either about it. And they wouldn't consider the idea that life comes from other life only.

None of cellular life just falls together without a goal. Naturalistically you should only have complex senseless junk.

The purpose of a hand is to be a tool. The purpose of an eye is to see. Humans are full of those kinds of purposes. It's a very crude, yet sophisticated intelligence. No God needed.

Your naturalist society claims that none of this is coordinated and orchestrated. Naturalism of the gaps.

You start with the conclusion that only physical processes that are observable can be responsible for life.

Well that is false. Quite a few steps have been solved. The entire problem has not been solved yet, but to date, there is no evidence of an intelligence and believers in an intelligence cannot find any evidence to support their beliefs.


I would suggest that you learn what evidence is, you clearly do not understand the concept. And "assumption" is another concept that you fail at. Let me give you a start:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

 

[osgart]

No, there is no such assumption. Please watch yourself. You should never claim "assumption" in regards to scientific beliefs if you cannot support that claim.

What scientists do is to analyze the evidence and see what it leads to. There is no evidence of an intelligence behind mutations so it would actually be an assumption to think that there was an intelligence behind it.



The only "naturalistic assumption" is that observed events can be explained. And once again no one is "shunning any notion of intelligence". There is no evidence of an intelligence. We need to go over the concept of the burden of proof.



Well that is false. Quite a few steps have been solved. The entire problem has not been solved yet, but to date, there is no evidence of an intelligence and believers in an intelligence cannot find any evidence to support their beliefs.


I would suggest that you learn what evidence is, you clearly do not understand the concept. And "assumption" is another concept that you fail at. Let me give you a start:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

You are interpreting the empirical evidence philosophically. Evidence doesn't think or speak. Your science is of a physicalist, naturalist conclusion before you even get started. This is a bias.

Intelligence in nature is to me the most likely conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are interpreting the empirical evidence philosophically. Evidence doesn't think or speak. Your science is of a physicalist, naturalist conclusion before you even get started. This is a bias.

Intelligence in nature is to me the most likely conclusion.

Okay, so you do not understand evidence and figures of speech. The evidence currently only supports one side. That is what is meant by the phrase "the evidence says".

If you want to claim that there is something else besides naturalism the burden of proof is still upon you. What evidence do you have for your beliefs? Yes I use naturalistic philosophy when it comes to solving problems about the universe. Do you know why? It is the only problem solving method that has been shown to reliably work.

 

[osgart]

Okay, so you do not understand evidence and figures of speech. The evidence currently only supports one side. That is what is meant by the phrase "the evidence says".

If you want to claim that there is something else besides naturalism the burden of proof is still upon you. What evidence do you have for your beliefs? Yes I use naturalistic philosophy when it comes to solving problems about the universe. Do you know why? It is the only problem solving method that has been shown to reliably work.

The physical world is mostly the only reality that humans can verify, and learn from. So naturalism fits that mold. You can study the extrinsic behaviour of physical phenomenon but you can't understand the intrinsic nature of the physical phenomenon; it's aboutness.
If you were not a being of consciousness and intellect yourself naturalism would never come to know anything about consciousness and intellect. Consciousness and intellect are abstract qualities.

Some properties of existence can easily stand outside the limits of scientific abilities. Science is not the best method for every ultimate question about reality. Science can only be applied to external, observable physical qualities. Naturalism will never able challenge the ideas of intelligence in nature because it never able considers anything beyond observation.

From consciousness and the experience of consciousness every individual can come to know themselves beyond physical definition. All they have to do is test themselves from an abstract spiritual standpoint. I have the freedom to will what I will. I'm not a genetically predetermined being. My consciousness reveals my aboutness or spiritual qualities and characteristics.

Every human being has the innate ability to understand themselves on their own and from a non scientific point of view.

Science has its very powerful place in society no doubt. But there are things to know that fall well beyond the purview of science. Science isn't the method to know everything about humans and animals. There are inner worlds of aboutness that have physical correlations, but are not explained solely on a physical basis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The physical world is mostly the only reality that humans can verify, and learn from. So naturalism fits that mold. You can study the extrinsic behaviour of physical phenomenon but you can't understand the intrinsic nature of the physical phenomenon; it's aboutness.
If you were not a being of consciousness and intellect yourself naturalism would never come to know anything about consciousness and intellect. Consciousness and intellect are abstract qualities.

Some properties of existence can easily stand outside the limits of scientific abilities. Science is not the best method for every ultimate question about reality. Science can only be applied to external, observable physical qualities. Naturalism will never able challenge the ideas of intelligence in nature because it never able considers anything beyond observation.

From consciousness and the experience of consciousness every individual can come to know themselves beyond physical definition. All they have to do is test themselves from an abstract spiritual standpoint. I have the freedom to will what I will. I'm not a genetically predetermined being. My consciousness reveals my aboutness or spiritual qualities and characteristics.

Every human being has the innate ability to understand themselves on their own and from a non scientific point of view.

Science has its very powerful place in society no doubt. But there are things to know that fall well beyond the purview of science. Science isn't the method to know everything about humans and animals. There are inner worlds of aboutness that have physical correlations, but are not explained solely on a physical basis.

It appears that all you have are a series of logical fallacies.

Can you please tell us what is your evidence for intelligence? An inability to understand science is not evidence for one's beliefs. You need some positive support since your negative attacks fail repeatedly.

 

[osgart]

It appears that all you have are a series of logical fallacies.

Can you please tell us what is your evidence for intelligence? An inability to understand science is not evidence for one's beliefs. You need some positive support since your negative attacks fail repeatedly.

I'm not making negative attacks. I posted my files not too long ago. That is all the proof I need to maintain my convictions.

Methodological naturalism works powerfully well in its domain. Not very well outside of that.

I have the right to express my viewpoints. You have yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not making negative attacks. I posted my files not too long ago. That is all the proof I need to maintain my convictions.

Methodological naturalism works powerfully well in its domain. Not very well outside of that.

I have the right to express my viewpoints. You have yours.

What "files"? And I do not think that you understand the concept of "proof". You may have convinced yourself with nonsense. That is the most likely case, people do that all of the time. It is nothing special. There are ways to test your beliefs. I doubt if you want to do that. Most deniers of reality are only looking for excuses to believe and do not want to know.

And you did make negative attacks just against abiogenesis on this page where you demonstrated a lack of understanding about the topic. If you want to claim that there has to be an intelligence you need evidence, not hand waving and strawman arguments.

 

[osgart]

What "files"? And I do not think that you understand the concept of "proof". You may have convinced yourself with nonsense. That is the most likely case, people do that all of the time. It is nothing special. There are ways to test your beliefs. I doubt if you want to do that. Most deniers of reality are only looking for excuses to believe and do not want to know.

And you did make negative attacks just against abiogenesis on this page where you demonstrated a lack of understanding about the topic. If you want to claim that there has to be an intelligence you need evidence, not hand waving and strawman arguments.

What ways to test beliefs do you have then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What ways to test beliefs do you have then?

By applying the scientific method. The first thing required to have evidence is to have a falsifiable hypothesis. Without that all one has is confirmation bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are assuming that, mutations, replication, trial and error, novelty, and function have no goal

No, not an assumption.
Mutations and their effects are statistically consistent with them being random to fitness.

Nothing more then that

Way more then that.

And your 200 peer reviewed papers is nothing but preaching to the choir about naturalism.

It's actually well over 300k papers.
And it's not "preaching". It's analysis of data and reporting results of experiments.

You simply see it the way you want to.

"I" have nothing to do with those papers. I'm not a biology scientist.

You start with a naturalistic assumption and confirm your bias by shunning any notion of intelligence.

No. Science just looks at the data and follows the evidence.
There is no data or evidence whatsoever to suggest any kind of "intent" or "plan" or "intelligence" being involved in evolution and instead, all data is consistent with mutation being random to fitness.

So why would one assume the opposite?

How do you arrive at such certainty?

Overwhelming amounts of (converging) evidence.

Abiogenesis is probably the best place to start with regards to how life came to be.

We are talking about evolution, not about abiogenesis.

Nothing proven from that field either about it.

Well, no, not "nothing". But in any case, it does not matter, since abiogenesis doesn't fall within the scope of evolution. It's not even the same field of study.

And they wouldn't consider the idea that life comes from other life only.

Why would anyone consider that? Life by definition had a beginning. It certainty didn't exist at the start of the universe. So pretty much by definition, life started somewhere, somehow.

Where and how though, has little bearing on evolution - which is a theory that deals with a process that already existing life is subject to.

None of cellular life just falls together without a goal. Naturalistically you should only have complex senseless junk.

These are serious claims that require serious evidence.
Got any?

The purpose of a hand is to be a tool. The purpose of an eye is to see. Humans are full of those kinds of purposes. It's a very crude, yet sophisticated intelligence. No God needed.

Again with the equivocation between "function" and "purpose".

Is it the "purpose" of a sharp rock to be a place where a cat can scratch its own back?

You are engaging in teleological fallacies?

Your naturalist society claims that none of this is coordinated and orchestrated. Naturalism of the gaps.

That makes no sense at all.
There is no data or evidence to support the idea of "planning" or "purpose" or "intent" in evolution, so why assume otherwise?
However there is MANY evidence and data that shows that mutation is statistically consistent with being random to fitness.

So why would we assume anything else?

You start with the conclusion that only physical processes that are observable can be responsible for life.

Nope. We start with the assumption that one should not assume things without evidence.
We only have evidence of physical processes, so there is no basis to assume or conclude anything else.

 

[cladking]

Science has its very powerful place in society no doubt. But there are things to know that fall well beyond the purview of science. Science isn't the method to know everything about humans and animals. There are inner worlds of aboutness that have physical correlations, but are not explained solely on a physical basis.

Your objections mostly fall on deaf ears because people always end up at their assumptions and believers in evolution believe in survival of the fittest and that consciousness is irrelevant to life since they can't even define it. They talk about experiment being the basis of knowledge but have no experiment that shows their premises and assumptions are correct. We are a species that chooses our beliefs and then proves them and sees all of reality in terms of them. Rather than observe what exists we observe what we believe and then name that "reality".

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrass Tyson

If "reality" really were only what experiment shows then we are nearly perfectly ignorant and see only the tiniest sliver of what is real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your objections mostly fall on deaf ears because people always end up at their assumptions and believers in evolution believe in survival of the fittest and that consciousness is irrelevant to life since they can't even define it. They talk about experiment being the basis of knowledge but have no experiment that shows their premises and assumptions are correct. We are a species that chooses our beliefs and then proves them and sees all of reality in terms of them. Rather than observe what exists we observe what we believe and then name that "reality".

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrass Tyson

If "reality" really were only what experiment shows then we are nearly perfectly ignorant and see only the tiniest sliver of what is real.

And once again what "assumptions"?

When you make a claim of assumptions not only must you name them, you must prove them. I am pretty sure that you cannot justify your claim.

 

[cladking]

And once again what "assumptions"?

I've listed the erroneous assumptions more times than I can count but talking about falling on deaf ears!!!!

You assume consciousness and individuals are irrelevant to life and evolution.

You assume that you are intelligent.

You assume that your perception and definitions of space and time are reality.

You assume that the way we think doesn't affect experiment.

You assume that reality is only what appears in experiment.

You assume all of reality has already appeared in one experiment or another.

You assume there was no "Creator" or other means by which reality can organize itself.

You assume math can be used to describe all of reality and that all math reflects some reality. The first corollary being that the fact no identical things exist is irrelevant to a mathematics with a number line and irrational numbers.

You assume chaotic principles are not necessary to describe reality.

You assume only humans are conscious and this can be determined without even a definition for "conscious".

You assume ancient people were highly superstitious but we're all better now (thanks to evolution)(and science}.

You assume that all an expert has to do is interpret data and this will lead him to the truth and then he can lead us to the truth.

You assume that technology proves a total understanding of the underlying principles.

You assume that everyone who's right gets the same answer.

You assume that this same answer must be correct.

You assume your assumptions don't matter so long as you use a scientific perspective.

You assume everything that comes from the past is nonsense because it looks like nonsense, smells like nonsense, and quacks like nonsense.

You assume that Darwin was correct when he said populations of species never drops to low levels.

You assume that if they did drop to low levels it's because most individuals weren't "fit" and then only the fittest reproduced to "save" the species.

You assume that missing links are irrelevant.

You assume that changes shown in the fossil record are all gradual.

You assume you don't need experiment to show any such gradual change.

You assume that life ever did originate on earth.

You assume that our framework of knowledge perfectly fits the reality we see and that the reality we see is universal in space and time.


I could go on like this all day without making a dent in all the premises, definitions, and axioms that underlie modern science and how this metaphysics is invisible to virtually everyone. It's also that you assume that there is no other science than experimental science that blinds you. Your assumption that knowledge lies in books much more than in observation and understanding of existing knowledge and "philosophy" will probably prevent you from understanding this post.