I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.
Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.
That is all.
Neither are Islam, Daoism, Buddhism, Animism, Ancestor Worship or belief in the Loch Ness Monster, the Easter Bunny, Santa and the Tooth Fairy because when it simply comes down to just belief, you can believe anything.
Could you explain for me what the contradiction is? I don't see it.
I said that what they observed a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success, which is what evolution is.
What you quoted says that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.
I cannot see the contradiction.
Wait...I think I see what you mean now. I was focusing on the wrong part of the sentence, assuming you meant that evolution is ..."a beneficial mutation..." Your meaning was ..."that led to reproductive success."
No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.
Good. I have seen numerous supposedly intelligent ID arguers confuse the two, so it's nice to know you don't.
So why did you?!?
Quote:
That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.
And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment?
Wait...I think I see what you mean now. I was focusing on the wrong part of the sentence, assuming you meant that evolution is ..."a beneficial mutation..." Your meaning was ..."that led to reproductive success."
It's both. The process of natural selection (the vehicle of evolution over time) is that of beneficial mutations that lead to reproductive success. To put it a little more succinctly: A mutation can only be considered beneficial if it leads to reproductive success.
It's both. The process of natural selection (the vehicle of evolution over time) is that of beneficial mutations that lead to reproductive success. To put it a little more succinctly: A mutation can only be considered beneficial if it leads to reproductive success.
I hope that's clearer.
eh....
Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"
Good. I have seen numerous supposedly intelligent ID arguers confuse the two, so it's nice to know you don't.
So why did you?!?
Occam?
Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.
Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.
I think it would be best to leave "Occam's Razor" out of any discussion.
Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"
It depends on what you mean by "best". In the context of that article it looks like they mean that "best outcome" means that they could envision a better one from an outside perspective. (i.e. - The "best outcome" for human evolution would be evolving some wings so we could fly around.)
It's a poor word choice in the article that is confusing.
Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.
Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity
Until it's ruled out that the bacterial constituents of the experiment, a known quantity, and reasonably well-understood concepts of physics and chemistry aren't sufficient to explain the results of the experiment, then explanation via a further mysterious external intelligent force, something unproven and hypothetical, is a needless entity. Occam's Razor doesn't prove that such an entity doesn't exist, but it does strongly indicate that such a conjecture is needless and unhelpful speculation.
Those who wish to cling to their needless entities will often try foist off any sign of less than 100% complete understand of every last detail of a phenomenon as sufficient "need" for their fanciful explanations, but that ends up being like a situation where a store has been robbed, but if no definitive human suspect has been identified and proven to be the culprit, going on to speculate that space aliens or invisible pink yetis were to blame, and calling someone else's strong insistence that a human is by and far the most like suspect a "matter of faith" until such time as a specific human suspect is identified and proven guilty.
I think it would be best to leave "Occam's Razor" out of any discussion.
It's just lazy.
That's a cop out. In order to properly apply Occam's razor you actually need to understand a situation or phenomena and then be able to determine whether a simpler explanation is first valid, and second really any simpler. The concept doesn't mean actual real world items are simpler, but it is indicative of how those real world items came to be.
I guarantee the retina wasn't intelligently designed. It has just about the worst design we could imagine for doing what it does. A whole host of Rube Goldberg-like corrective neural layers and biological fast fourier processing are necessary to overcome that it is for all intents and purposes "inside out". But a simple explanation for why it is the way it is is that early eyes were great as picking up scintillating colors created by interference patterns of visible and UV light. Scintillations were used for finding food and identifying predators. Then an early eye had a deformity where the retina grew folded back on itself and the creature actually learned to use that defective retina. Problem for everything else was that bass-ackwards folded retina was better at actual object resolution when paired with the then developing eye lens that the previous single layer retinas. Even with the receptors pointed the wrong freaking direction and blood vessels all over the front, not behind where they would be out of the way. Over time the entire animal kingdom evolved from that particular eye mutation. Insects and such adapted the scintillation eye away from what it was to what it is now.
Obviously I am simplifying out volumes of information and references, but in a Occam's Razor manner we can simply explain how a mere biological mistake actually provided an advantage and explains whet we really see today. Coming up with a design that does the same thing you would never do what has been done, so you would need all kinds of wild sub-explanations for why something so ass-backwards would be designed the way it was. Or why it should be expected to work. And that explanation would probably still have a hard time explaining why there is still scintillating camouflage in the world or why butterfly scales are EXACTLY the way they are, but if you care to go into eye evolution it all falls into place.
One simple accident that worked, explains a whole host of topics laid down over about 500 million to a billion years. But you would truly need a Rube Goldberg explanation to show any other way we arrived at exactly were that screwed up retina is.
That is Occam's Razor. The exact opposite of lazy.
Making fluffy statement like Occam's Razor is just lazy is a sure sign of willful misunderstanding.
That is Occam's Razor. The exact opposite of lazy.
Making fluffy statement like Occam's Razor is just lazy is a sure sign of willful misunderstanding.
I didn't say it wasn't useful.
In an internet discussion though it tends to get tossed around without much thought. The point is often lost as people start debating Occam instead of the issue at hand. Not everybody can so skillfully and in such great detail weave the two together as you've shown. So it's usually best to leave that out.
Can someone explain to me, a complete idjut, just what the HELL Intelligent Design is?
... [CENTER]
Quote:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".
[/CENTER]
It's kind of like a movie, only it's in realtime, and we're all in it, and there's this Grand Puppeteer of the Universe (or GPU) also known as "It" or "Something", who would normally be known as a "Director" (or "Actuator" if you prefer) if this were in fact a movie, but of course this "Realtor" doesn't exist anywhere but in our imagination, and we call this "place" Imaginationland (but of course many people have spoken to "It" or have claimed to be "It" or have seen "It" or "It" has spoken to them or have gone to great lengths to codify "It" (it is rather odd that "It" exclusively belongs to we the people)), and sure as heck this isn't a movie, if fact, if you didn't know it, you would think that "It" acted in an all too random, arbitrary, and capricious fashion, those of us who have come to our senses call "It" Nature.
Can someone explain to me, a complete idjut, just what the HELL Intelligent Design is?
It is the remarketing of an idea, using the classical advertising name change to hide the fact it is the same old bumpf.
It is just Creationism, dressed up with pseudo scientific expressions and made up research to satisfy those who just want to believe, no matter what, but look less stupid doing so.
Not surprisingly it really only finds support in the USA and pockets of wannabe "Born Agains" around the world.
Amazing how people will fall for things like this and "Clean Coal", the "Fresh" mentholated flavor of filter tip cigarettes and "Lite" salt, junk food etc.
Just goes to show if you tell a fat, repulsive broad that, if she rubs on rare, dew fresh, mongolian yak turds, handpicked by Shaolin monks on the first full moon after an equinox, she'll look like Angelina Jolie, she'll fall for it everytime.
I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.
Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.
That is all.
Further to this thought, I would suggest to Christians who want a cogent argument for how to hold both religion and evolution as compatible to read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller.
Comments
I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.
Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.
That is all.
Neither are Islam, Daoism, Buddhism, Animism, Ancestor Worship or belief in the Loch Ness Monster, the Easter Bunny, Santa and the Tooth Fairy because when it simply comes down to just belief, you can believe anything.
Mankind has proved that many times over.
Could you explain for me what the contradiction is? I don't see it.
I said that what they observed a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success, which is what evolution is.
What you quoted says that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.
I cannot see the contradiction.
Wait...I think I see what you mean now. I was focusing on the wrong part of the sentence, assuming you meant that evolution is ..."a beneficial mutation..." Your meaning was ..."that led to reproductive success."
No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.
Good. I have seen numerous supposedly intelligent ID arguers confuse the two, so it's nice to know you don't.
So why did you?!?
That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.
And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment?
Occam?
Wait...I think I see what you mean now. I was focusing on the wrong part of the sentence, assuming you meant that evolution is ..."a beneficial mutation..." Your meaning was ..."that led to reproductive success."
It's both. The process of natural selection (the vehicle of evolution over time) is that of beneficial mutations that lead to reproductive success. To put it a little more succinctly: A mutation can only be considered beneficial if it leads to reproductive success.
I hope that's clearer.
SDW:
It's both. The process of natural selection (the vehicle of evolution over time) is that of beneficial mutations that lead to reproductive success. To put it a little more succinctly: A mutation can only be considered beneficial if it leads to reproductive success.
I hope that's clearer.
eh....
Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"
Good. I have seen numerous supposedly intelligent ID arguers confuse the two, so it's nice to know you don't.
So why did you?!?
Occam?
Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.
eh....
Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"
Proof of that can be found on these boards on a daily basis.
Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.
I think it would be best to leave "Occam's Razor" out of any discussion.
It's just lazy.
I think it would be best to leave "Occam's Razor" out of any discussion.
It's just lazy.
I didn't bring it up. You quoted a quote. I think that's lazy.
I didn't bring it up. You quoted a quote. I think that's lazy.
I didn't say you did.
Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"
It depends on what you mean by "best". In the context of that article it looks like they mean that "best outcome" means that they could envision a better one from an outside perspective. (i.e. - The "best outcome" for human evolution would be evolving some wings so we could fly around.)
It's a poor word choice in the article that is confusing.
Actually, I don't agree that Occam would apply there. We simply have no way of knowing. The thought that something or someone guided the experiment is not necessarily "complex" and therefore disqualified by Occam's Razor....it's just a question of faith.
Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity
Until it's ruled out that the bacterial constituents of the experiment, a known quantity, and reasonably well-understood concepts of physics and chemistry aren't sufficient to explain the results of the experiment, then explanation via a further mysterious external intelligent force, something unproven and hypothetical, is a needless entity. Occam's Razor doesn't prove that such an entity doesn't exist, but it does strongly indicate that such a conjecture is needless and unhelpful speculation.
Those who wish to cling to their needless entities will often try foist off any sign of less than 100% complete understand of every last detail of a phenomenon as sufficient "need" for their fanciful explanations, but that ends up being like a situation where a store has been robbed, but if no definitive human suspect has been identified and proven to be the culprit, going on to speculate that space aliens or invisible pink yetis were to blame, and calling someone else's strong insistence that a human is by and far the most like suspect a "matter of faith" until such time as a specific human suspect is identified and proven guilty.
I think it would be best to leave "Occam's Razor" out of any discussion.
It's just lazy.
That's a cop out. In order to properly apply Occam's razor you actually need to understand a situation or phenomena and then be able to determine whether a simpler explanation is first valid, and second really any simpler. The concept doesn't mean actual real world items are simpler, but it is indicative of how those real world items came to be.
I guarantee the retina wasn't intelligently designed. It has just about the worst design we could imagine for doing what it does. A whole host of Rube Goldberg-like corrective neural layers and biological fast fourier processing are necessary to overcome that it is for all intents and purposes "inside out". But a simple explanation for why it is the way it is is that early eyes were great as picking up scintillating colors created by interference patterns of visible and UV light. Scintillations were used for finding food and identifying predators. Then an early eye had a deformity where the retina grew folded back on itself and the creature actually learned to use that defective retina. Problem for everything else was that bass-ackwards folded retina was better at actual object resolution when paired with the then developing eye lens that the previous single layer retinas. Even with the receptors pointed the wrong freaking direction and blood vessels all over the front, not behind where they would be out of the way. Over time the entire animal kingdom evolved from that particular eye mutation. Insects and such adapted the scintillation eye away from what it was to what it is now.
Obviously I am simplifying out volumes of information and references, but in a Occam's Razor manner we can simply explain how a mere biological mistake actually provided an advantage and explains whet we really see today. Coming up with a design that does the same thing you would never do what has been done, so you would need all kinds of wild sub-explanations for why something so ass-backwards would be designed the way it was. Or why it should be expected to work. And that explanation would probably still have a hard time explaining why there is still scintillating camouflage in the world or why butterfly scales are EXACTLY the way they are, but if you care to go into eye evolution it all falls into place.
One simple accident that worked, explains a whole host of topics laid down over about 500 million to a billion years. But you would truly need a Rube Goldberg explanation to show any other way we arrived at exactly were that screwed up retina is.
That is Occam's Razor. The exact opposite of lazy.
Making fluffy statement like Occam's Razor is just lazy is a sure sign of willful misunderstanding.
That is Occam's Razor. The exact opposite of lazy.
Making fluffy statement like Occam's Razor is just lazy is a sure sign of willful misunderstanding.
I didn't say it wasn't useful.
In an internet discussion though it tends to get tossed around without much thought. The point is often lost as people start debating Occam instead of the issue at hand. Not everybody can so skillfully and in such great detail weave the two together as you've shown. So it's usually best to leave that out.
Can someone explain to me, a complete idjut, just what the HELL Intelligent Design is?
... [CENTER]
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".
[/CENTER]
It's kind of like a movie, only it's in realtime, and we're all in it, and there's this Grand Puppeteer of the Universe (or GPU) also known as "It" or "Something", who would normally be known as a "Director" (or "Actuator" if you prefer) if this were in fact a movie, but of course this "Realtor" doesn't exist anywhere but in our imagination, and we call this "place" Imaginationland (but of course many people have spoken to "It" or have claimed to be "It" or have seen "It" or "It" has spoken to them or have gone to great lengths to codify "It" (it is rather odd that "It" exclusively belongs to we the people)), and sure as heck this isn't a movie, if fact, if you didn't know it, you would think that "It" acted in an all too random, arbitrary, and capricious fashion, those of us who have come to our senses call "It" Nature.
[CENTER]
It[/CENTER]
Can someone explain to me, a complete idjut, just what the HELL Intelligent Design is?
It is the remarketing of an idea, using the classical advertising name change to hide the fact it is the same old bumpf.
It is just Creationism, dressed up with pseudo scientific expressions and made up research to satisfy those who just want to believe, no matter what, but look less stupid doing so.
Not surprisingly it really only finds support in the USA and pockets of wannabe "Born Agains" around the world.
Amazing how people will fall for things like this and "Clean Coal", the "Fresh" mentholated flavor of filter tip cigarettes and "Lite" salt, junk food etc.
Just goes to show if you tell a fat, repulsive broad that, if she rubs on rare, dew fresh, mongolian yak turds, handpicked by Shaolin monks on the first full moon after an equinox, she'll look like Angelina Jolie, she'll fall for it everytime.
As long as you charge her enough.
I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.
Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.
That is all.
Further to this thought, I would suggest to Christians who want a cogent argument for how to hold both religion and evolution as compatible to read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller.
Then how can it be said that "evolution does not always lead to the best outcome?"
It's the difference between "best" and "better."
If you need to get to higher ground, then walk up-hill. Doing so will make you "better" but it's probably not the "best" solution.