Intelligent Design?

[Skwim]

Quite simply death arbitrates if, and to what degree (how much) a genome gets to move on into the next generation.

Not understanding how this death arbitration works to insure "a genome gets to move on into the next generation."

Natural Selection operates by winnowing out (with death or at least stilted reproduction).

No, natural selection is the process by which traits that enhance survival and reproduction become more common in successive generations of a population. The death of those with less successful traits simply makes room for the more successfully endowed. As I said before, "All organisms die, but even if they didn't, other than the changes wrought by overcrowding the earth and using up vital resources, it wouldn't affect the changes in the emerging gene pool: mutations and adaption would still go on.

​

 

[Sapiens]

Not understanding how this death arbitration works to insure "a genome gets to move on into the next generation."


No, natural selection is the process by which traits that enhance survival and reproduction become more common in successive generations of a population. The death of those with less successful traits simply makes room for the more successfully endowed. As I said before, "All organisms die, but even if they didn't, other than the changes wrought by overcrowding the earth and using up vital resources, it wouldn't affect the changes in the emerging gene pool: mutations and adaption would still go on. Think of it this way.

In Scenario A the progenitor organisms die shortly after giving rise to more evolved organisms.

In Scenario B the progenitor organisms remain alive after giving rise to more evolved organisms.

Now, aside from crowding and resources issues that would likely arise in Scenario B, why would it result in fewer evolutionary events than Scenario A?

​

I am sorry, I was unclear, I was not referring to the death of the organism, but rather the death of the gene, e.g, the gene getting booted out of the pool. I have been rereading Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," an updated edition that had some changes I was interested in so I've been thinking in his terms.

In Dawkins' words, natural selection favors genes that build survival machines (later called vehicles to include both individuals and some "whole classes of organisms"[3][4]), and more flamboyantly, "gigantic lumbering robots".[5] In other words, according to genocentrism, organisms evolve as elaborate contraptions constructed and controlled by genes, and evolution selects among these competing phenotypes or "interactors", not by altering the activity or form of the underlying genes ("replicators"), but simply by proliferating those mutated instructions that engender construction of the most successful survival machines. It is the "death" of the replicator to which I was referring.

 

[Skwim]

I am sorry, I was unclear, I was not referring to the death of the organism, but rather the death of the gene, e.g, the gene getting booted out of the pool.

In Dawkins' words, natural selection favors genes that build survival machines (later called vehicles to include both individuals and some "whole classes of organisms"[3][4]), and more flamboyantly, "gigantic lumbering robots".[5] In other words, according to genocentrism, organisms evolve as elaborate contraptions constructed and controlled by genes, and evolution selects among these competing phenotypes or "interactors", not by altering the activity or form of the underlying genes ("replicators"), but simply by proliferating those mutated instructions that engender construction of the most successful survival machines. It is the "death" of the replicator to which I was referring.

Thanks for clearing this up. I was beginning to wonder. It didn't sound like you at all.

 

[Etritonakin]

That's interesting, but in the final analysis we have death because it creates more robust life than does immortality.

Death makes resources available and prevents overcrowding -reproduction does the fun stuff (some humor intended)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

God would he more complicated - and thus an even less plausible solution than chance. After all how did god come to be?

according to atheists, chance was able to create sentient beings with intelligence, love, a desire to improve and perfect the experience of life, but not God.. apparently that just steps over the line of what can be spontaneously created

 

[Skwim]

according to atheists, chance was able to create sentient beings with intelligence, love, a desire to improve and perfect the experience of life, but not God.. apparently that just steps over the line of what can be spontaneously created

Are you suggesting that atheists believe that chance created sentient beings spontaneously? If not, then why bring spontaneity into the equation?

 

[Sapiens]

according to atheists, chance was able to create sentient beings with intelligence, love, a desire to improve and perfect the experience of life, but not God.. apparently that just steps over the line of what can be spontaneously created

Again, you've got it wrong. Don't know why you can seem to remember.

 

[Bunyip]

according to atheists, chance was able to create sentient beings with intelligence, love, a desire to improve and perfect the experience of life, but not God.. apparently that just steps over the line of what can be spontaneously created

Guy, you have been told so many times that chance is not the atheist position, your deliberate ignorance gets very boring. BIOLOGY is the study of life Guy, not atheism. Amazing that after all these posts you still mix them up.

 

[Bunyip]

Because something is beyond our ability to understand does not make it implausible, IMO. The Bible says of God; "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Psalm 90:2) God has always existed and always will. I find the concept of a first Cause logical and plausible, though I do not fully understand God's everlasting existence. (Psalm 36:9)

The point is that if you honestly believe God needs no cause, then your argument from first cause collapses. Can't have it both ways dude.

 

[rusra02]

The point is that if you honestly believe God needs no cause, then your argument from first cause collapses. Can't have it both ways dude.

God is unique. Speaking of Jehovah, Psalm 40:5 says; "None can compare to you."

 

[Etritonakin]

Just some thoughts and ideas -might see things more clearly later.....

Technically -and by one definition of the word "evolve" -God self-evolves.

An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-etc. being would essentially be the mind of all things and all things would essentially be both its body and environment -even if able to assume the appearance of a specific body within all things and create things which are technically external to himself.

Though God is all-powerful, he imposes limits on his own power in certain situations. For example... God's will can always supersede ours, but by imposing certain limitations on what he will and will not do he is able to create other beings with independent will, creativity, power, etc.

Before someone makes the connection ...it is something of a multiple personality order, if you will (not to be confused with the hilarious urban dictionary definition.... "A condition in which the intelligent individual decides to order his or her mind by creating different personas to better associate with the various Single Personality people in the world.") -which does not diminish or adversely affect his own personality.

He is accountable to himself and is able to say he will do this and he will not do that -he will allow another to do this or that and will not prevent it, etc...

Yet -even though we are creative individuals, we were formed to be his dwelling of sorts -unified in basic perfect character and obedience to universal principles, but individual in personality and creativity.

So -it can be said that by us God is evolving into something different -that we (and all other things, really) are a reconfiguration of himself.

(Relevant verses...

Colossians 1:
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body.....

Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment:....

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another

1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
1Co 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.)

 

[Bunyip]

God is unique. Speaking of Jehovah, Psalm 40:5 says; "None can compare to you."

That's nice. But the point is that the argument from first cause is demolished by claiming an uncaused first cause. It reduces the argument to nonsense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy, you have been told so many times that chance is not the atheist position, your deliberate ignorance gets very boring. BIOLOGY is the study of life Guy, not atheism. Amazing that after all these posts you still mix them up.

I thought it relied on random mutations v any kind of design- random is not chance?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I thought it relied on random mutations v any kind of design- random is not chance?

Random mutations being naturally selected. That is not "by chance". If life arose biologically, it did so as a necessary consequence of chemical and physical laws. That is not "by chance" either.

 

[Bunyip]

I thought it relied on random mutations v any kind of design- random is not chance?

Guy, you have been told that so many times - pretending not to understand such a simple fact is just not working for you any more mate.
That evolution is not random chance is about the first thing kids learn about evolution. Sadly you attack evolution and demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of it at the same time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy, you have been told that so many times - pretending not to understand such a simple fact is just not working for you any more mate.
That evolution is not random chance is about the first thing kids learn about evolution. Sadly you attack evolution and demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of it at the same time.

If you don't believe, that the mutations which introduce improvements in design are random, then we agree.

 

[Bunyip]

If you don't believe, that the mutations which introduce improvements in design are random, then we agree.

The mutations are random, that is roughly 150,000 minor variations in the average human. This is one of the four principle driving forces of evolution. Random mutations acted upon by selection.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The mutations are random, that is roughly 150,000 minor variations in the average human. This is one of the four principle driving forces of evolution. Random mutations acted upon by selection.

Right, so that's how design improvements are introduced in a species, through random chance yes? At least so the theory goes.

 

[Bunyip]

Right, so that's how design improvements are introduced in a species, through random chance yes? At least so the theory goes.

You have a very short memory - i'll repeat one more time. Please read this carefully.

Random mutations ACTED UPON BY SELECTION is one of the four principle driving forces of evolution. I put the bit you ignored in caps, hope that helps.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have a very short memory - i'll repeat one more time. Please read this carefully.

Random mutations ACTED UPON BY SELECTION is one of the four principle driving forces of evolution. I put the bit you ignored in caps, hope that helps.

I'm sure they are, and new designs introduced into automobiles and cell phones are also ACTED UPON BY SELECTION!!! - that goes without saying.

but according to ToE, are you disputing that those changes are posited to be introduced by random mutation?