Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

[Encephalon]

I should also add that my particular beliefs about spirit at this time are mostly irrelevant. I fully acknowledge that they are probably mostly wrong, limited, etc. But that is not the point. The point is that if you have any belief, or better, genuine realization that human beings are more than just bodies, that there is some part of a human that survives death, etc. than I would expect that you would take issue with the idea that life developed through purely physical processes.

 

And if indeed you have genuine realization of this (many here claim to), then it most certainly is not just an emotional comfort mechanism.

 

You're telling me that if a human being somehow finds corroborative evidence of life beyond death that that would eclipse that person's emotional need for believing so.

I am not happy with the way the 21st century has started out, but that doesn't mean I have any desire to live in the 13th century either.

 

I am captivated by Taoism because of what Taoist internal alchemy practice portends for the evolution of human consciousness, WITHOUT the emotionally comforting appeals to the supernatural. Furthermore, Taoism, in addition to Buddhism, offers the most promising bridge between science and spirituality, without impugning either. I seek the comraderie of likeminded souls in TTB.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Blasto

[Creation]

Blasto,

 

Dialoguing with you is becoming increasingly unpleasant for me. You construe something I said very sincerely as patronizing, proceed to patronize the shit out of me in return, and manage to not really understand what I am saying and make assumptions about me that are not true.

 

Would you please honestly answer me, do you actually want to have a discussion with me or are you just posting your reactions to what I say because it is there?

 

If the former, I write you a reply, if the latter, I think I'll pass.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Creation

[Encephalon]

Blasto,

 

Dialoguing with you is becoming increasingly unpleasant for me. You construe something I said very sincerely as patronizing, proceed to patronize the shit out of me in return, and manage to not really understand what I am saying and make assumptions about me that are not true.

 

Would you please honestly answer me, do you actually want to have a discussion with me or are you just posting your reactions to what I say because it is there?

 

If the former, I write you a reply, if the latter, I think I'll pass.

 

I too feel that you are patronizing me. If that was not your intention then I apologize and chock it up to the hazards of imprecise reading and writing, which are particular hazards in online forums.

 

I'm assuming you're referring to your introductory sentence - "I essentially knew how you would respond to my post, and actually my intention in posting it was to be completely honest about my own thought process, perhaps even to set a precedent for others to do the same." Do you not see how how someone could misconstrue what you mean, especially the first part of the first sentence? What point are you trying to make by telling me you already know how I'm going to respond? What function would that point even serve? To let me that you've got some keen power of insight into my thinking?

 

I'm more than willing to continue discussion. I've given my reasons for studying Taoism and how I perceive its value. I have little faith in metaphysics, and at 50 years of age I find it extremely boring and of absolutely no value in this day and age. What extraordinary powers we can acquire by a commitment to internal alchemy is a worthy subject, however, and it seems to be one that most of us can agree on.

Cheers!

 

After a more careful reading of your question -

"Do you actually want to have a discussion with me or are you just posting your reactions to what I say because it is there?" -

I have to say in all honesty that your phrasing is mystifying to me. Have I actually sought you out specifically in order to have a discussion with you? No, I guess I haven't, but then, I don't approach online discussion in this manner at all, with anyone. As I understand it, this whole thread has very little to do with evolution and everything to do with ancient arguments, dressed up in modern language, about the existence or nonexistence of a divine being and how spirituality answers either scenario.

 

This is an ongoing discussion open to anyone. I can't imagine a forum even functioning as intended if we were suddenly expected to clarify our reasons for responding. There are a few mud stirrers on the internet who seek people out to harass for mean-spirited reasons but my level of integrity is a tad higher than that. I am responding to your points foremost, not you personally, and I would point out that you first chose to deconstruct my arguments several posts earlier with some pretty hefty indictments of my academic experience, but it's part of the process and I'm okay with it. I hope that answers the question.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Blasto

[Immortal4life]

This thread started out being not about evolution, but one specific aspect of it, endosymbiosis. As the thread grew, other subjects began being intorduced, and now it has ended up being sort of a science vs. spirituality debate. That's all fine with me, but some people are jumping the gun here and getting ahead of themselves.

[Marblehead]

This thread started out being not about evolution, but one specific aspect of it, endosymbiosis. As the thread grew, other subjects began being intorduced, and now it has ended up being sort of a science vs. spirituality debate. That's all fine with me, but some people are jumping the gun here and getting ahead of themselves.

 

Well, just remember, it was you who led it that way. What the article in the opening post referred to was not a major component of evolution. You started talking about religion in your second post.

 

To include something stating that Darwin was wrong as a generalized statement was very misleading and the generalization was itself wrong. Equipment to make the discovery mentioned in the article was not even in existence during Darwin's lifetime. He made no statement concerning what was in the article. How could he have been wrong about something he did not even say.

 

No, I believe it was your intention for the thread to talk about Creationism and Intelligent Design.

 

But you got called out by the first response to your opening post.

 

You were already talking religion when I made my first post.

 

It is sad that there are so many people who want to prove Darwin and evolution wrong. It is as if they question their own beliefs and they don't want their followers to start thinking and questioning all the dogma.

 

Sure, we can have a discussion that includes evolution and religion. But such a discussion needs be conducted with an open mind. I understand that religions exist. I wouldn't have any problem with any religion if they kept their business within the realm of spirituality. But no, they want to control what is taught in the classroom, they want to control what the governments of the world do, they want laws passed that force their religion on the people.

 

And then they take little boys into the back rooms and sexually abuse them. Where is the morality in that? Does doing that to little boys help them get to heaven? And the leaders ignored it as long as they could.

 

At least I have heard nothing about Darwin being a sexual pervert.

 

No, I think you wanted to push your ideas of Creationism and Intelligent Design - "your" Christian beliefs.

 

There are many religious people here. The majority being Buddhist I would think.

 

Sure, we can talk about Christianity. I am having a nice discussion with Conway. But please do not try to force false information on me or anyone else on this board. And I would say this to anyone, I am not singling you out in saying this as I have responded to a few here who have tried this.

 

Let's keep this board open and free for all concepts and beliefs. And especially, let's respect the beliefs of others.

 

Sure, there are problems on this planet. Sure, it would be nice if everyone could get along. But no, I don't believe that everyone needs to believe in the very same religion and I don't think it is proper to try to negate one of the great thinkers of the past in order to make your religion look a little bit better. If it can't stand on its own then there is something wrong with it.

 

And so, the last count of the African Violet included 864 different species, all evolved from one single species of the plant. Isn't evolution and mutation great?!?!?

[aridus]

Look for wrong, you find it.

[Marblehead]

Look for wrong, you find it.

 

Ain't no doubt about it. It can be found all over the planet. (Of course, those all will be nothing more or less than value judgements based on one's own perspective.)

[torus693]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by torus693

[Mandrake]

Using the principle of occam's razor I can remove that "divine creator" out of the equation entirely, and all these things you mention will happen anyway -"The major external events in life such as diseases, marriage, family etc" will happen anyway.

 

Why not also add a hat to the creator; it is equally necessary for the rain, my brewing a cup of tea, the cycle of the seasons etc. than the creator itself.

 

Oh, add a ribbon to the hat as well; without it the universe can't function.

 

 

Mandrake

 

[uote name=Gauss' date='31 March 2011 - 04:03 AM' timestamp='1301573025' post='252243]

 

The divine creator may let you loose in this dimension and see what you want to do, whether you will do good things or bad things, whether you want to cultivate or not. The major external events in life such as diseases, marriage, family etc will be preplanned anyway.

 

Just my two cents, no truth offered whatsoever.

[Mandrake]

Excellent. From my own past, I can say this is spot on. Perhaps I will expound on my own thoughts on this.

 

Mandrake

 

Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution.

 

Perhaps belief in intelligent design is brought on by fear of death?

 

For all the conservatives here, paragraph 3 of the introduction is just for you.

 

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017349

[Marblehead]

I'm reading the posts. Nothing more to add at the moment.

[joeblast]

However, there is one aspect of Neo-Darwinism that I do have a hang-up about. In fact, what seems to be the whole point about Neo-Darwinism versus all the other evolutionary theories that exist: random mutation and natural selection are a sufficient causal mechanism for evolution. Which is to say that ultimately, the development of life on this planet was random collisions of atoms, with no need for any non-physical mechanism. I think this might come from the false dichotomy that exists in the Western mind that it is either the Judeo-Christan way the materialist/atheist way. But the consequence is that it considerations of consciousness/spirit are kicked out the door, nevermind anyone's religious beliefs about such. I cannot believe that conscious/spirit did not have a major role in the development of life on this planet. After all, the whole point about life on this planet is spirits getting to incarnate in bodies! This is fully compatible with evolution in general, but not with the Neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations and natural selection were the sole causal agent in driving said evolution. That leaves no room for spirit, except as an emergent property of matter.

I'll posit this whole thing with quantum mechanical underpinnings. The experiment is altered by the observer. Events happen as a summation of probabilities - there is no possible way for things to be "absolutely predetermined."

 

Qi and consciousness, both quantum mechanical phenomena.

[Encephalon]

I'll posit this whole thing with quantum mechanical underpinnings. The experiment is altered by the observer. Events happen as a summation of probabilities - there is no possible way for things to be "absolutely predetermined."

 

Qi and consciousness, both quantum mechanical phenomena.

 

JoeBlast and I agree on something? OMG! Prepare yourselves for a major rebalancing of planetary energy! Can you feel it, that ripple in the Force?

 

But, just so you know, JoeB, the whole point about life on this planet is spirits getting to incarnate in the bodies of liberal democrats! "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? Most people don't know that was based on a true story. The big labor unions are trying to keep this under wraps. Ask Vortex if you don't believe me; he's been following the coverup.

[三江源]

I'll posit this whole thing with quantum mechanical underpinnings. The experiment is altered by the observer. Events happen as a summation of probabilities - there is no possible way for things to be "absolutely predetermined."

 

Qi and consciousness, both quantum mechanical phenomena.

 

Interesting, anything 'pre' brings us back to time.. predetermined, precognition... Joe, you've been reading some from the 'dynamics of time and space 'series, havent you? I dont know if you have done any of the excercises re. loosening our usual mode re. perception of time. What we think of as 'pre' could equally well be 'post', as our sense of 'time' is so extremely frog-in-a-well.

[Marblehead]

I'll posit this whole thing with quantum mechanical underpinnings. The experiment is altered by the observer. Events happen as a summation of probabilities - there is no possible way for things to be "absolutely predetermined."

 

Qi and consciousness, both quantum mechanical phenomena.

 

Well, I'm going to join in too.

 

Very interesting comment. I need think on this a bit.

[joeblast]

Interesting, anything 'pre' brings us back to time.. predetermined, precognition... Joe, you've been reading some from the 'dynamics of time and space 'series, havent you? I dont know if you have done any of the excercises re. loosening our usual mode re. perception of time. What we think of as 'pre' could equally well be 'post', as our sense of 'time' is so extremely frog-in-a-well.

A very good point - I wasnt necessarily meaning 'pre' to mean 'before' in the traditional chronological sense of the word - more of a 'determined independently of time' I suppose (its why I included 'absolutely' in there ) - whether its pre or post it will still have a distribution of probabilities that add to the 'decision' of the event in question

 

 

 

shiii, planetary energy? I guess that's not galactic tides I'm feeling then?

[Creation]

I too feel that you are patronizing me. ...

Hi Blasto.

 

I felt like I should give this thread a break so I could resume the discussion with a fresh perspective. What I really want to do now that it comes down to it is to tie off some loose ends.

 

I see how you thought I was patronizing you. How I should have phrased that particular sentence is "I had an expectation of what you would take issue with in my post and how, and that expectation was mostly confirmed." If you still find that patronizing, sorry . It is the truth... And by satori I meant any experience where you have a major insight about yourself, particularly your thought process. I guess if you didn't know that's what I mean you might think I was patronizing you.

 

Anyway, by "do you want to have this discussion with me" I meant "Are you getting anything out of this discussion that would motivate you to continue?" You know how it goes, people can keep arguing with each other without really getting anything out of it, they just feel some obligation to keep answering the other person. Much of this thread has that feel to it. It seems like such a waste. Now, I felt like I was getting plenty out of the dialogue, but I thought if you weren't then maybe it was time to call it quits.

 

I took offense that you trivialized my point about being honest about my own thought process, which to me is the essence of what I think of as healthy thinking (I have decided to use this term in contradistinction to your "critical thinking"), but I have not elaborated on those ideas, so it was probably just more misunderstanding.

 

I also took offense that you assumed I had some kind of fear of a naturalistic universe, which seemed to me to be your projection of your old self on to me. I have stood on the cusp of naturalism and contemplated the vastness of the human body and its complexity, and how maybe all my thoughts and emotions are really a dance of atoms, and been exhilarated at the prospect of figuring it all out, rather than afraid or repulsed. But even if mind and body are all reducible to chemicals interacting, don't all the worlds mystic traditions teach that there is something beyond mind and body, though they argue about what exactly it is or isn't? So I never really crossed over. But it's not like I'm refusing to believe it or anything like that, and note that I have not said anything about a supreme being. Honestly, the state of no-belief or no-preference is the place I am heading toward, but if I get there I still won't believe naturalism.

 

and I would point out that you first chose to deconstruct my arguments several posts earlier with some pretty hefty indictments of my academic experience

I have never intended to indict your academic experience in any way. If you are referring to my criticism of the education system, I didn't mean to imply that someone can't have a wonderful, thought-refining, mind-expanding experience at a university, or indeed to imply anything about you at all. I did disapprove of what seemed to me to be an undeserved glorification of modern education, but I had misunderstood your views. Note to self: don't take the things Blasto says when he insults people to be an accurate reflection of his views. It was an honest mistake

 

That just about covers the loose ends of the conversation from my perspective. My best to you and your family.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Creation

[Marblehead]

Well, I hope you two find a way to at least agree to disagree if that is what is needed.

 

The opening post used faulty logic and this is what started the entire religion vs science arguement.

 

Just because new knowledge is found does not automatically prove that all prior knowledge is null and void.

 

Again, Darwin was correct in what he defined as processes that he observed. All new knowledge found after his discoveries only add to his understanding - they do not prove he was wrong.

 

Whether animals evolved from plants or plants evolved from animals really doesn't make all that much difference. What make a difference is whether or not we are going to accept the facts as they are currently understood or are we going to continue to hold to our unsupportable myths and superstitions. We each have our own choices to make. But just because one person believes one way doesn't necessarily make that person correct nor does it make another person's understandings incorrect.

 

I accept evolution as a fact. I watched a program about the animals of New Zealand last night and there still is arguement concerning how the animals got there. One of the big questions was why did many of the birds of New Zealand become flightless? And if they were always flightless how did they get there in the first place?

[Encephalon]

[三江源]

A very good point - I wasnt necessarily meaning 'pre' to mean 'before' in the traditional chronological sense of the word - more of a 'determined independently of time' I suppose (its why I included 'absolutely' in there ) - whether its pre or post it will still have a distribution of probabilities that add to the 'decision' of the event in question

 

 

 

shiii, planetary energy? I guess that's not galactic tides I'm feeling then? :lol:

 

Yes, as is in the quantum field where something can exist simultaneously at x as well as y. Greg Braden's Fractal Time is interesting about how quantum calculations of multiple simultanities fit with ancient wisdoms about time as a wave formation /wave formations.

 

He has a tool on his site which is interesting to play with.

 

Time code calculator

[Marblehead]

Yes, as is in the quantum field where something can exist simultaneously at x as well as y. Greg Braden's Fractal Time is interesting about how quantum calculations of multiple simultanities fit with ancient wisdoms about time as a wave formation /wave formations.

 

He has a tool on his site which is interesting to play with.

 

Time code calculator

 

May I suggest that 'X' can be observed from two different perspectives thereby causing it to appear as 'X' under one set of observations and to appear as 'Y' under another set of observations?

 

Therefore I am suggesting that 'X' is always and only 'X' and only 'appears' to be 'Y'.

 

A radio wave is most-times observed as a wave, but, if the amount of time allowed for the observation to the smallest possible increment is made a particle can be observed.

 

If what is viewed is considered both a particle and a wave it is only because time has not been considered and we all know (Hehehe. Assumption.) that time and space must be considered inclusively of each.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Marblehead

[三江源]

May I suggest that 'X' can be observed from two different perspectives thereby causing it to appear as 'X' under one set of observations and to appear as 'Y' under another set of observations?

 

Therefore I am suggesting that 'X' is always and only 'X' and only 'appears' to be 'Y'.

 

A radio wave is most-times observed as a wave, but, if the amount of time allowed for the observation to the smallest possible increment is made a particle can be observed.

 

If what is viewed is considered both a particle and a wave it is only because time has not been considered and we all know (Hehehe. Assumption.) that time and space must be considered inclusively of each.

 

You can suggest it, of course you can, and you can enjoy suggesting things and all that, but still, the fact is that I wasnt referring to particle/wave, I was referring to ..... well...what I actually said.

[Marblehead]

I was referring to ..... well...what I actually said.

 

Hehehe. Me too. We are just speaking from different perspectives.

[三江源]

Hehehe. Me too. We are just speaking from different perspectives.

 

I am thinking you are speaking of particle /wave theory and I am speaking of quantum theory which reaches a stage in which usual laws no longer apply in which x is visible simultaneously, from one perspective, in the same moment, as the same x , stationed at both y and z.

 

I dont think I can find the data to show this, I know about it not because I am a physics brain like joeblast, only because I find quantum physics fascinating and so it seems does most of the UK as we have professors on TV a lot telling of their latest theories and research. We are blessed to have the BBC. And fun that physics departmental research has now become a kind of TV soap opera, which I'm sure helps their funding.

[Marblehead]

I am thinking you are speaking of particle /wave theory and I am speaking of quantum theory which reaches a stage in which usual laws no longer apply in which x is visible simultaneously, from one perspective, in the same moment, as the same x , stationed at both y and z.

 

I dont think I can find the data to show this, I know about it not because I am a physics brain like joeblast, only because I find quantum physics fascinating and so it seems does most of the UK as we have professors on TV a lot telling of their latest theories and research. We are blessed to have the BBC. And fun that physics departmental research has now become a kind of TV soap opera, which I'm sure helps their funding.

 

Oh, I knew from where you were speaking. Hehehe. I'm trying my best to mess with you.

 

Quantum physics, I think, has gone too deeply into investigating what matter is and they have gotten themselves confused. I am not very knowledgeable in these matters (had only one General Science course in college) but I like to talk about the concepts and show my ignorance.

 

Actually, the entire fiels of quantum mechanics defies the laws of physics of the observable universe. (I think that is a fair statement.) In my opinion, when we carve up a pig into one hundred and seventeen pieces we no longer have a pig. When we carve up the universe into trillions of pieces we no longer have a universe.

 

Oh well. Some people just gotta' know all the answers even if the question was not worth asking.